ANC win 5 Sie a : =e WORLD as fey bled ly the tlestesnlanta a (‘2k apa 60> > Shewing ti Countries pofsefred by Shem Ham, & Japhet, & their Posterity. \ at A! ? ur (tlt hy Wg S ifn ( M a > Te a gti tt Nl fh ag analtanith ) ip arca Wary HSU yj Bri +E tt “may lll ZR A fa AMIN 2 o 4 ‘ i \\ ‘4d 7 pang ua = in Co Aiwa Hquator Leange Congo am fique MD Moa 60_ 5 ‘ oor On Steel Kaus Ti Alasen & G Lane, 200 Alulberrv Street. A gus * > BIBLICAL AND THEOLOGICAL DICTION AR ¥: EXPLANATORY OF THE HISTORY, MANNERS, AND CUSTOMS OF THE JEWS, AND NEIGHBOURING NATIONS. WITH AN ACCOUNT OF THE MOST REMARKABLE PLACES AND PERSONS MENTIONED IN SACRED SCRIPTURE; AN EXPOSITION OF THE PRINCIPAL DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY: AND NOTICES OF JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN SECTS AND HERESIES. . By RICHARD WATSON. Se a (REVIBED BY THE AMERICAN EDITORS.) | AIMHN orev dedpavroc, xai teixor degaytc, Kai wigyog doetctoc, Kal défa avagalgetoc, xai & maa dtewra, kat evOvuia dudeavToc, Kai 700vn Sinvenne, Kai mévtTa ooa dv Lirrot tic Kad, Tow Geiwy ypadev 7 ovvecia.—CHRYSOSTOM. {An intimate acquaintance with the Holy Scriptures is a secure haven, and an impregnable bulwark, and an immovable tower, and imperishable glory, and impenetrable armour, and unfading joy, and perpotual delight, and whatever other excellence can be uttered.) . New-Dork : PUBLISHED BY CARLTON & PHILLIPS, 200 MULBERRY-STRERT. ‘ 1856. ENTERED, According to Act of Congress, in the year 1832, by B. WAUGH AND T. MASON, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Southern District of New Yors. ADVERTISEMENT TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. No other improvements have been attempted in this edition of Mr. Watson's Biblical and Theological Dictionary, than adding a few notes in relation to some matters existing in this country, which had escaped the attention of the author, and rendering those passages and phrases into English which had been left untranslated. Such translations are included in brackets. It may be proper to remark, that only that part of the work from the eight hundred and forty second page has been printed under the superintendence of the present editor; the former part having passed through the press previous to the last general conference. It is not necessary to say any thing in commendation of this work. Whatever merit, however, may be attached to others ofa similar character which have preced- ed it, we think it will be conceded by all, that Mr. Watson, by furnishing this Dic- tionary, has supplied a desideratum, in the department of Biblical and Theological literature, which had long been felt, and for doing which the religious community will not be backward in acknowledging its obligations. N. Banas New York, Sept. 25, 1832. PREFACE BY THE AUTHOR. In the following Dictionary, compiled from the best sources ancient and modern, with the addition of many original articles, the selections have been made with reference to what was thought most useful; and thus many things of minor importance, usually found in similar works, have been excluded. Every article too, taken from preceding Dictionaries, has been carefully weighed, and in a great number of instances modified, corrected, or enlarged; and numerous other writings ‘ variously illustrative of the Holy Scriptures have been made to contribute a portion of their information under different heads. This general acknowledgment renders a particular reference to the works made use of unnecessary. The fact is, that many of the most valuable of them are compilations from preceding compilations, and so have no title to be referred to as original authorities; while in other in- stances the articles in this Dictionary have been collected from several sources, and so altered, or combined with original corrections or enlargements, that it would be difficult to assign each portion to its proper original. Where, however, any ‘particulars of fact or history required confirmation, the authority has been given. It will be observed that all the places and persons mentioned in the Bible have not been noticed, for this would only have made the same unprofitable display of proper names which is seen in several other Dictionaries; but those have been selected on which any thing important for the right understanding of the Scriptures seemed, more or less, to depend. The same rule has been observed as to the natural history of the Bible, on which department great light has been thrown by Dr. Harris, whose learned work has been rather freely used. The leading sects and heresies, ancient and modern, have also been introduced; but with no design to embody a complete account of religious opinions: those only, therefore, have been inserted with which it is most necessary that the theological student should have a general acquaintance. All that is important in those useful modern works which have been published upon the manners and customs of the east will be found embodied under different heads so far as it tends to elucidate the sacred volume; and many interesting extracts are given from the most intelligent of our modern travellers in Palestine, and neighbouring countries, pointing out the present condition of places celebrated in sacred geography, and especially when the account illustrates and renders. remarkable the fulfilment of prophecy. At the close of the whole, a complete alphabetical list of proper names occurrmg in the Bible, with their significations and right pronunciation, is appended. Loxpon, August 20, 1831. a A BIBLICAL AAR AARON, the son of Amram and Jochebed, of the tribe of Levi. Aaron was three years older than his brother Moses; and when God appeared in the burning bush, Moses having excused himself from the undertaking commit- ted to him, by urging that he was slow of speech, Aaron, who was an eloquent man, was made his interpreter and spokesman; and in effecting the deliverance of the Hebrews we therefore find them constantly associated. During the march of the children of Israel through the wilderness, Aaron and his sons were appointed by God to exercise for ever the office of priests in the tabernacle. Moses having ascended the mountain to re- ceive the law from God, Aaron, his sons, and seventy elders, followed him, Exod. xxiv, 1, 2, 9-11; not indeed to the summit, but “‘ afar off,” “and they saw the God of Israel,” that is, the glory in which he appeared, “as it were the paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven for clearness ;”—a clear and dazzling azure, a pure, unmingled splendour like that of the heavens. ‘‘ And upon the nobles of Israel,” Aaron, his sons, and the seventy elders, “he laid not his hand,”—they were not destroyed by a sight which must have over- whelmed the weakness of mortal men had they not been strengthened to bear it; “and they did eat and drink,”—they joyfully and devoutly feasted before the Lord, as a religious act, upon the sacrifices they offered. After this they de- parted, and Moses remained with God on the ey summit of the mount forty days. uring this period, the people, grown impa- tient at the long absence of Moses, addressed themselves to Aaron in a tumultuous manner, saying, ‘Make us gods which shall go before us: for, as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.” Aaron sinfully yielded to the importunities of the people; and having ordered them to bring the pendants and the ear- rings of their wives and children, he melted them down, and then made a golden calf, pro- bably in imitation of the ae Apis, an ox or calf dedicated to Osiris. In this instance the image was dedicated to Jehovah the true God; but the guilt consisted in an attempt to establish image worship, which, when even ultimately referring to God, he has forbidden. Neither are images to be worshipped, nor the true God by images ;—this is the standing unrepealea law of Heaven. The calf was called a golden calf, as being highly ornamented with gold. Having finished the idol, the people placed it on a pedes- 2 AND THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY. AAR tal, and danced around it, saying, “‘ These be thy gods, O Israel;” or, as it is expressed in Nehe- miah, ‘“ This is thy God,” the image or symbol of thy God, “ which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.” Moses, having hastened from the mount by the command of God, testified to the people, by breaking the tables o7 the law in their presence, that the covenant between God and them was now rendered of none effect through their offence. He also indignantly re- proved Aaron, whose sin indeed had kindled against him the anger of the Lord, so that he would “have destroyed him but that Moses prayed for him.” After the tabernacle was built, Moses conse- crated Aaron to the high priesthood with the holy oil, and invested him with his priestly robes,—his garments “of glory and beauty ;” but Aaron’s weakness was again manifested in concurring with Miriam, his sister, to censure and oppose Moses, through envy. Aaron, as being the elder brother, could not perhaps brook his superiority. What the motive of Miriam might be does not appear; but she being struck with leprosy, this punishment, as being imme- diately from God, opened Aaron’s eyes; he ac- knowledged his fault, and asked forgiveness of Moses both for himself and his sister. Aaron himself became also the object of jeal- ousy; but two miraculous interpositions con- firmed him in his office of high priest, as of Divine appointment. The first was the destruc- tion of Korah, who sought that office for him- self, and of the two hundred and fifty Levites who supported his pretensions, Num. xvi. The second was the blossoming of Aaron’s rod, which was designed “‘to cause the murmurings of the Israelites against him to cease,” by show- ing that he was chosen of God. Moses having, at the command of God, taken twelve rods of an almond tree from the princes of the twelve tribes, and Aaron’s separately, he placed them in the tabernacle before the sanctuary, after having written upon each the name of the tribe which it represented, and upon the rod of Aaron the name of Aaron. - The day following, when the rods were taken out, that of Aaron “was budded, and brought forth buds, and bloomed blossoms, and yielded almonds.” This rod therefore was laid up by the ark, to perpetuate the remembrance of the miracle, and to be a token of Aaron’s right to his office. Aaron married itehets, the daughter of Amminadab, of the tribe of Judah, by whom he had four sons, Nadab and Abihu, Hleazar and Ithamar, Exodus vi, 23. The two first were AAR 2 killed by fire from heaven, as a punishment for presuming to offer incense with strange fire in their censers, Lev. x, 1,2. From the two others the succession of high priests was continued in Israel. The account of the death of Aaron is pecu- liarly solemn and affecting. As he and Moses, in striking the rock at Meribah, Num. xvi, had not honoured God by a perfect obedience and faith, he in his wrath declared unto them that they should not enter into the promised land. Soon after, the Lord commanded Moses, “ Take Aaron, and Eleazar, his son, and bring them up to mount Hor; and strip Aaron of his garments,” —his splendid pontifical vestinents,—‘ and put them upon Eleazar, his son; and Aaron shall be gathered unto his people, and shall die there.” This command was carried into effect in the presence of all Israel, who were encamped at the foot of the mountain; and his son being invested with the father’s priestly dress, Aaron died, and all the people mourned for him thirty days. His sepulchre was left unmarked and unknown, perhaps to prevent the superstitious reverence of future ages. In Deuteronomy it is said that Aaron died at Mosera; because that was the name of the district in which mount Hor was situated. 2. The priestHoop being established in Aaron and his family, the nature of this office among the Israelites, and the distinction between the high priest and the other priests, require here to be pointed out. Before the promulgation of the law by Moses, the fathers of every family, and the princes of every tribe, were priests. This was the case both before and after the flood; for Cain and Abel, Noah, Abraham, Job, Abimelech, Laban, Isaac, and Jacob, themselves offered their own sacri- fices. But after the Lord had chosen the family of Aaron, and annexed the priesthood to that line, then the right of sacrificing to God was reserved to that family only. The high priest- hood was confined to the first-born in succes- sion; and the rest of his posterity were priests simply so called, or priests of the second order. Both in the high priest and the second or in- ferior priests, two things deserve notice,—their consecration and their office. In some things they differed, and in others agreed. In their consecration they differed thus: the high priest had the chrism, or sacred ointment, poured upon his head, so as to run down to his beard, and the skirts of his garment, Exod. xxx, 23; Lev. vii, 12; Psa. exxxili, 2. But the second priests were only sprinkled with this oil, mixed with the blood of the sacrifice, Lev. viii, 30. They differed also in their robes, which were a neces- sary adjunct to consecration. The high priest wore at the ordinary times of his ministration in the temple, eight garments ;—linen drawers ~—a coat of fine linen close to his skin—an em- broidered girdle of fine linen, blue and scarlet, to surround the coat—a robe all of blue with seventy-two bells, and as many embroidered pomegranates upon the skirts of it; this was put over the coat and girdle—an ephod of gold, and of blue, purple, scarlet, and fine linen, curiously wrought, on the shoulders of which AAR were two stones engraved with the names of the twelve tribes; this was put over the robe, and girt with a curious girdle of the same—a breastplate, about a span square, wrought with gold, blue, purple, scarlet, and fine linen, and fastened upon the ephod by golden chains and rings; in this breastplate were placed the urim and thummim, also twelve several stones, con- taining the names of the twelve tribes—a mitre of fine linen, sixteen cubits long, to wrap round his head—and lastly, a plate of gold, or holy crown, two fingers load whereon was engrav- ed, “ Holiness to the Lord;” this was tied with blue lace upon the front of the mitre. Beside these garments, which he wore in his ordinary ministration, there were four others, which he wore only upon extraordinary occasions, viz. on the day of expiation, when he went into the holy of holies, eich was oncea year. ‘These were: linen drawers—a linen coat—a linen irdle—a linen mitre, all white, Exod. xxviii; ev. xvi, 4. But the inferior priests had only four garments: linen drawers—a linen coat— a linen girdle—a linen bonnet. The priest and high priest differed also in their marriage re- strictions ; for the high priest might not marry a widow, nor a divorced woman, nor a harlot, but a virgin only; whereas the other priests might lawfully marry a widow, Lev. xxi, 7. In the following particulars the high priest and inferior priests agreed in their consecra- tion ; both were to be void of bodily blemish-- both were to be presented to the Lord at the door of the tabernacle—both were to be washed with water—both were to be consecrated by offering up certain sacrifices—both were to have the blood of a ram put upon the tip of the right ear, the thumb of the right hand, and the great toe of the right foot, Exod. xxix, 20. In the time of consecration, certain pieces of the sacrifice were pet into the priest’s hand, which was called “filling his hand;” hence the He- brew phrase, “to fill the hand,” signifies con- secration. . In the discharge of their offices, the high priest differed from the other. priests in these particulars: the high priest only, and that but once a year, might enter into the holy of holies —the high priest might not mourn for his near- est relations by uncovering his head, or tearing any part of his garments, except the skirt; whereas the priest was allowed to mourn for these six,—father, mother, son, daughter, bro- ther, and sister if she had no husband, Lev. xxi, 2, 10, 11; but they agreed in these respects ; they both burnt incense and offered sacrifices— they both sounded the trumpet, either as an alarm in war, or to assemble the people and their rulers—they both slew the sacrifices— both instructed the people—and both judged of leprosy. For the more orderly performance of these offices, the high priest had his sagan, who, in case of the high priest’s pollution, performed his duty. The high priest and his sagan re- sembled our bishop and his suffragan. 3. Aaron was a TYPE of Christ, not personally, but as the high priest of the Jewish chants All the priests, as offering gifts and sacrifices, ABA 3 were in their office types of Christ ; but Aaron expecially, 1, As the high priest. 2. In entering into the holy place on the great day of atone- ment, and reconciling the people to God; in making intercession for them, and pronouncing upon them the blessing of Jehovah, at the ter- mination of solemn services. 3. In being anoint- ed with the holy eil by effusion, which was pre- figurative of the Holy Spirit with which our Lord was endowed. 4. In bearing the names of ail the tribes of Israel upon his breast and upon }.is shoulders, thus presenting them always be- fore God, and representing them to him. 5. In being the medium of their inquiring of God by urim and thummim; and of the communication of his will to them. But though the offices of Aaron were typical, the priesthood of Christ is of a different and higher orper than his, name- ly, that of Meucnizepeck. See Caur, Priest, Pee, Ernop, BreastrLaTe, Urim. AB, in the Hebrew chronology, the eleventh month of the civil year, and the fifth of the ecclesiastical year, which began with Nisan. This month answered to the moon of July, comprehending part of July and August, and contained thirty days. The first day of this month is observed as a fast by the Jews, in memory of Aaron’s death; and the ninth, in commemoration of the de- struction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar, in the year before Christ 587. Josephus observes, that the burning of the temple by Nebuchad- nezzar happened on the same day of the year on which it was afterward burned by Titus. The same day was remarkable for Adrian’s edict, which prohibited the Jews to continue in Judea, or to look toward Jerusalem and lament its desolation. The eighteenth day is also kept as a fast, because the sacred lamp was extin- ished on that night, in the reign of Ahaz. n the twenty-first, or, according to Scaliger, the twenty-second day, was a feast called Xylo- phoria, from their laying up the necessary wood im the temple: and on the twenty-fourth, a feast in commemoration of the abolishing of a law by the Asmoneans, or Maccabees, which had been introduced by the Sadducees, and which enact- ed, that both sons and daughters should alike inherit the estate of their parents. ABADDON, Heb. corresponding to Apollyon, Gr. that is, Destroyer, is represented, Rev. ix, 11, as king of the locusts, and the angel of the bottomless pit. Le Clerc and Dr. Hammond understand ‘by the locusts in this passage, the zealots and robbers who infested and desolated Judea before Jerusalem was taken by the Ro- mans; and by Abaddon, John of Gischala, who having treacherously left that town before it was surrendered to Titus, came to Jerusalem and headed those of the zealots who acknow- ‘edged him as their king, and involved the Jews in many grievous calamities. The learned Grotius concurs in opinion, that the locusts are designed to represent the sect of the zealots, who appeared among the Jews during the siege, and at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. But Mr. Mede remarks, that the title Abaddon alludes to Obodas, the common name of the ancient mo’ archs of that part of Arabia from ABE which Mohammed came; and considers the esa as descriptive of the inundation of the aracens. Mr. Lowman adopts and confirms this interpretation. He shows that the rise and progress of the Mohammedan religion and em- pire exhibit a signal accomplishment of this prophecy. All the circumstances here recited correspond to the character of the Arabians, and the history of the period that extended from A. D. 568 to A. D. 675. In conformity to this opinion, Abaddon may be understood to denote either Mohammed, who issued from the abyss, or the cave of Hera, to propagate his pretended revelations, or, more generally, the Saracen eae Mr. Bryant supposes Abaddon to have een the name of the Ophite deity, the worship of whom prevailed very anciently and very generally. ABANA. Naaman, the leper, on being di- rected to wash in the river Jordan, says, 2 Kings v, 12, “ Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel ?” Probably the Abana is a branch of the Barrady, or Chrysorrhoas, which derives its source from the foot of Mount Libanus, eastward; runs round and through Damascus, and continues its course till lost in the wilderness, four or five leagues south of the city. Benjamin of Tudela will have that part of Barrady which runs through Damas- cus to be the Abana, and the streams which water the gardens without the city, to be Phar- par; but perhaps the Pharpar is the same with Orontes, the most noted river of Syria, which taking its rise a little to the north or north-east of Damascus, glides through a delightful plain, till, after passing Antioch, and running about two hundred miles to the north-west, it loses itself in the Mediterranean sea, 2 Kings v, 12. ABBA, aSyriac word, which signifies father. The learned Mr. Selden, from the Babylonian Gemara, has proved that slaves were not allowed to use the title abba in addressing the master of the family to which they belonged. This may serve to illustrate Rom. viii, 1b, and Gal. iv, 6, as it shows that through faith in Christ all true Christians pass into the relation of sons; are permitted to address God with filial con- fidence in prayer; and to regard themselves as heirs of the heavenly inheritance. This adop- tion into the family of God, inseparably follows our justification ; and the power to call God our Father, in this special and appropriative sense, results from the inward testimony given to our forgiveness by the Holy Spirit. St. Paul and St. Mark use the Syriac word abba, aterm which was understood in the synagogues and primitive assemblies of Christians; but added to it when writing to foreigners the explanation, father. Figuratively, abba means also a superior, in respect of age, dignity, or affection. It is more articularly used in the Syriac, Coptic, and Ethiopie churches as a title given to their bishops. The bishops themselves bestow the title abba more eminently upon the bishop of Alexandria, which occasioned the people to give him the title of baba, or papa, that 1s, grandfather; a title which he bore before the bishop of Rome. 3 ABEDNEGO, the Chaldee name given by ABE the king of Babylon’s officer to Azariah, one of Daniel’s companions, Dan.i,7. This name imports the servant of Nago, or Nego, whict is supposed to signify the sun, or morning star, so called from its brightness. Abednego was thrown into a fiery furnace, at Babylon, with his two companions Shadrach and Meshach, for refusing to adore the statue erected by the command of Nebuchadnezzar. God_ suffered them not to be injured by the flames; but made the whole to redound to his own glory, and the shame of the idols of Babylon. One like unto the Son of God, or a Divine person, probably the Angel of the Divine presence himself, ap- peared in the midst of them; and they came out of the furnace, which had been heated seven times hotter than usual, so completely preserved from the power of the flames, that not even “the smell of fire had passed upon them.” This was an illustrious instance of the courageous and hallowed spirit of martyrdom ; and the interposition was no doubt designed to encourage the Jews while in captivity, livin among idolaters, to hold fast their religion. fi is an instance also of those gracious visitations to the old Heathen world, by which it was loudly called from its idolatries, and aroused to the acknowledgment of the true and only Jehovah, who, in various ways, “ left not him- self without witness” among them. A great temporary effect was produced by this and other miracles related in the book of Daniel; but the eople relapsed again into idolatry, and justly Pesuehe upon themselves all those wasting judgments which in succession swept over the mightiest and most ancient states. ABEL. He was the second son of Adam and Eve, and born probably in the second or third year of the world; though some will have it that he and Cain were twins. His name signifies vapour, vanity, and might be given either because our first parents now began so to feel the emptiness and vanity of all earthly things, that the birth of another son reminded them painfully of it, although in itself a matter of joy; or it was imposed under prophetic im- pulse, and obscurely referred to his premature death. His employment was that of a shepherd ; Cain followed the occupation of his father, and was a tiller of the ground. Whether they re- Mained in their father’s family at the time when they brought their offerings to the Lord, or had establishments separate from that of Adam, does not clearly appear. Abel was probably unmarried, or had no children; but Cain’s wife is mentioned. “At the end of the days,”— which is a more literal rendering than “in process of time,” as in our translation, that is, on the Sabbath,—both brothers brought an offer- ing to the Lord. Cain “brought of the fruit of the ground ;” Abel “ the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof.” ‘“ And the Lord had respect to Abel and to his offering; but unto Cain and his offering he had not respect.” As Cain afterward complains that “he should be hid from the face or presence of the Lord,” it is probable that the worship of the first family was performed before some visible manifestation of the glory of God, which thus consecrated a par- ABE ticular place for their services. Some have thought that this was at the east gate of Eden, where “ Cherubim and a flaming sword were placed ;” but this was a vengeful manifestation, and could only have inspired a dread of God inconsistent with the confidence and hope with which men through the promise of redemption were now encouraged to draw nigh to him. The respect which God was pleased to show to Abel’s offering, appears from the account to. have been sensibly declared; for Cain must have known by some token that the sacrifice of Abel was accepted, the absence of which sign, as to his own offering, showed that it was rejected. Whether this was by fire going forth, from “the presence of the Lord,” to consume the sacrifice, as in later instances recorded in the Old Testament, or in some other way, it is in vain to inquire ;—that the token of accept- ance was a sensible one is however an almost certain inference. The effect of this upon Cain was not to humble him before God, but to ex- cite anger against his brother; and, being in the field with him, or, as the old versions have it, having said to him, ‘“ Let us go out into the field,” “he rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him;” and for that crime, by which the first blood of man was shed by man upon the earth—a murder aggravated by the rela. tionship and the “righteous” character of the sufferer, and having in it also the nature of re- ligious persecution,—he was pronounced by the Lord “cursed from the earth.” 2. As the sacrifice of Abel is the first on re- cord, and has given rise to some controversy, it demands particular attention. It was offered, says St. Paul, “in faith,” and it was “a more excellent sacrifice” than that of Cain. Both these expressiors intimate that it was EXPIATORY and PREFIGURATIVE. As to the matter of the sacrifice, it was an ani- mal offering. “Cain brought of the fruit of the ground; and Abel also brought of the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof;” or, more literally, “the fat of them,” that is, according to the Hebrew idiom, the fattest or best of his flock; and in this circumstance consisted its specific character as an act of faith. This is sup- ported by the import of the phrase, G)etova veiav used by the Apostle in the Epistle to the He. brews, when speaking of the sacrifice of Abel. Our translators have rendered it, “a more ex- cellent sacrifice.” Wickliffe translates it, as Archbishop Magee observes, uncouthly, but in the full sense of the original, “a much more sacrifice ;” and the controversy which has arisen on this point is, whether this epithet of “much more,” or “ fuller,” refers to quantity or quality ; whether it is to be understood in the sense of a more abundant, or of a better, a more excellent sacrifice. Dr. Kennicott takes it in the sense of measure and quantity, as well as quality ; and supposes that Abel brought a double offering of the firstlings of his flock, and of the fruit of the ground also. His criticism has been very satis- factorily refuted by Archbishop Magee. The sacrifice of Abel was that of animal victims, and it was indicative not of gratitude but of “ faith:” a quality not to be made manifest by the quan- ABE 2 fety of an offering, for the one has no relation to the other. 3. This will more fully appear if we consider the import of the words of the Apostle,— By raitH Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained wir- ness that he was ricHreous, God testifying of his gifts; and by it, he, being dead, yet speaketh.” Now what is the meaning of the Apostle, when he says that it was witnessed or testified to Abel that he was righteous? His doctrine is, that men are sinners; that all, consequently, need pardon; and to be declared, witnessed, and ac- counted righteous, are, according to his style of writing, the same as “ to be justified, pardoned, and dealt with as righteous.” Thus he argues that Abraham believed God, ‘and it was ac- counted to him for righteousness,”—“ that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness,”— “that he received the sign of circumcision, a seal,” a visible confirmatory, declaratory, and witnessing mark “of the righteousness which he had by faith.” In these cases we have a similarity so striking, that they can scarcely fail to explain each other. In both, sinful men are placed in the condition of righteous men; the Instrument in both cases, is fazth ; and the trans- action is, in both cases also, publicly and sensi- bly witnessed,—as to Abraham, by the sign of circumcision; as to Abel, by a visible accept- ance of his sacrifice, and the rejection of that of Cain. : Abel had faith, and he expressed that faith by the kind of sacrifice he offered. It was in this way that his faith ‘‘ pleased God;” it pleased him as a principle, and by the act to which it led, which act was the offering ofa sacrifice to God different from that of Cain. Cain had not this faith, whatever might be its object; and Cain, accordingly, did not bring an offering to which God had “respect.” That which vitiated the offering of Cain was the want of this faith; for his offering was not significant of faith: that which “pleased God,” in the case of Abel, was his faith; and he had “respect” to his offering, because it was the expression of that faith; and upon his faith so expressing itself, God wit- nessed to him “that he was righteous.” So forcibly do the words of St. Paul, when com- menting upon this transaction, show, that Abel’s sacrifice was accepted, because of its immediate connection with his faith, for by faith he is said to have offered it; and whatever it might be, which made Abel’s offering differ from that of Cain, whether abundance, or kind, or both, this was the result of his faith. So evident also is it from the Apostle, that Abel was witnessed to be ‘‘righteous,” not with reference to any pre- vious “habit of a religious life,” as some say, but with reference to his faitA ; and to this faith as expressing itself by his offering “a more ex- cellent sacrifice.” 4. If, then, the faith of Abel had an immedi- ate connection with his sacrifice, and both with his being accepted as “ righteous,”—that is, jus- tified, in St. Paul’s use of the term,—to what had his faith respect? The particular object of the faith of the elders, celebrated in Hebrews xi, is to be deduced from the circumstances mention- ABE ed by St. Paul as illustrative of the existence and operation of this great principle, and by which it manifested itself in them. Let us explain this, and then ascertain the object of Abel’s faith also from the manner of its manifestation,—from the acts in which it embodied and rendered itself conspicuous. Faith, in this chapter, is taken in the sense of affiance in God, and, as such, it can only be exercised toward God, as to all its particular acts, in those respects in which we have some warrantto confidein him. This supposes revela- tion, and, in particular, promises or declarations on his part, as the ground of every act of affiance. When, therefore, it is said that “ by faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death,” it must be supposed that he had some promise or intimation to this effect, on which, improbable as the event was, he nobly relied; and in the result God honoured his faith in the sight of all men. The faith of Noah had immediate respect to the threatened flood, and to the promise of God to preserve him in the ark which he was commanded to prepare. The chapter is filled with other instances, expressed or implied; and from the whole, as well as from the nature of things, it will appear, that when the Apostle speaks of the faith of the elders in its particular acts, he represents it as having respect to some promise, declaration, or revelation of God. This revelation was necessarily antecedent to the faith; but it is also to be observed, that the acts by which the faith was represented, whenever it was represented by particular acts, and when the case admitted it, had a natural and striking conformity and_ correspondence te the previous revelation. So Noah built the ark, which indicated that he had heard the threat of the world’s destruction by water, and had re- ceived the promise of his own preservation, and that of his family, as well as that of a part of the beasts of the earth. When Abraham went into Canaan at the command of God, and upon the promise that that country should become the in- heritance of his descendants, he showed his faith by taking possession of it for them in anticipa- tion, and his residence there indicated the kind of promise which he had received. Thus these instances show, that when the faith which the Apostle commends exhibited itself in some par- ticular act, that act had a correspondency to the previous promise or revelation which was the cround of faith. We must therefore interpret the acts of Abel’s faith so as to make them also correspond with an antecedent revelation. His faith had respect to some previous revelation, and the nature of the revelation is to be collect- ed from the significant manner in which he de- clared his faith in it. Now that which Abel did “by faith,” was, generally, to perform an act of solemn worship, in the confidence that it would be acceptable to God. This supposes a revelation, immediate or by tradition, that such acts of worship were acceptable to God, or his faith could have had no warrant, and would not have been faith, but fancy. But the case must be considered more particularly. His faith led him to offer “a more excellent sacrifice” than that of Cain; but this ABE as necessarily implies, that there was some an- tecedent revelation to which his faith, as thus expressed, had respect, and on which that pecu- liarity of his offering, which distinguished it Trom the offering of Gan. was founded; a re- velation which indicated that the way in which God would be approached acceptably, in solemn worship, was by animal sacrifices. Without this, the faith to which his offering, which was an offering of the firstlings of his flock, had a special fitness and adaptation, could have had no warrant in Divine authority. But this reve- lation must have included, in order to its being the ground of faith, as “the substance of things hoped for,” a promise of a benefit to be confer- red, in which promise Abel might confide. But if so, then this promise must have been connect- ed, not with the worship of God in general, or performed in any way whatever indifferently, but with his worship by animal oblations; for it was in this way that the faith of Abel specially and distinctively indicated itself. The antece- dent revelation was, therefore, a promise of a benefit to be conferred, by means of animal sa- erifice; and we are taught what this benefit was, by that which was actually received by the offerer—‘ He obtained witness that he was righteous ;” which must be interpreted in the sense of a declaration of his personal justifica- tion, and acceptance as righteous, by the for- giveness of his sins. The reason of Abel’s acceptance and of Cain’s rejection is hereby made manifest; the one, in seeking the Divine favour, conformed to his established and ap- pointed method of being approached by guilty men, and the other not only neglected this, but profanely and presumptuously substituted his own inventions. 5. It is impossible, then, to allow the sacrifice of Abel, in this instance, to have been an act of FaITH, without supposing that it had respect to a previous revelation, which agreed with all the parts of that sacrificial action by which he expresscd his faith in it. Had Abel’s sacrifice been eucharistic merely, it would have express- ed gratitude, but not faith; or if faith in the general sense of confidence in God that he would receive an act of grateful worship, and reward the worshippers, it did not more express faith than the offering of Cain, who surely believed these two points, or he would not have brought an offering of any kind. The offering of Abel expressed a faith which Cain had not; and the doctrinal principles which Abel’s faith respect- ed were such as his sacrifice visibly embodied. If it was not an eucharistic sacrifice, it was an expiatory one; and, in fact, it is only in a sacri- fice of this kind, that it is possible to see that faith exhibited which Abel had, and Cain had not. If then we refer to the subsequent sacri- fices of expiation appointed ey pe authority, and their explanation in the New Testament, it will be obvious to what doctrines and principles of an antecedent revelation the faith of Abel had respect, and which his sacrifice, the exhi- bition of his faith, proclaimed: confession of the fact of being a sinner,—acknowledgment that the demerit and penalty of sin is death,— submission to an appointed mode of expiation, — 6 ABI animal sacrifice offered vicariously, but in itself a mere type of a better sacrifice, “the Seed of the woman,” appointed to be offered at some future period,—and the efficacy of this appoint- ed method of expiation to obtain forgiveness, and to admit the guilty into the Divine favour. “ Abel,” Dr. Magee justly says, “in firm reli- ance on the promise of God, and in obedience to his command, offered that sacrifice which had been enjoined as the religious expression of his faith; whilst Cain, disregarding the gra- cious assurances that had been vouchsafed, or at least disdaining to adopt the prescribed mode of manifesting his belief, possibly as not ap- pearing to his reason to possess any efficacy or natural fitness, thought he had sufficiently ax quitted himself of his duty in acknowledging the general superintendence of God, and ex- pressing his gratitude to the Supreme Benefac- tor, by presenting some of those good things which he thereby confessed to have been de- rived from his bounty. In short, Cain, the first- born of the fall, exhibits the first fruits of his parents’ disobedience, in the arrogance and self-sufficiency of reason rejecting the aids of revelation, because they fell not within its ap- prehension of right. He takes the first place in the annals of Deism, and displays, in his proud rejection of the ordinance of sacrifice, the same spirit which, in later days, has actu- ated his enlightened followers, in rejecting the sacrifice of Christ.” Abel was killed about the year of the world, 130. ABEL-MISRAIM, the floor of Atad, beyond the river Jordan, where Joseph, his brethren, and the Egyptians mourned for the death of Jacob, Gen.1,11. On this occasion the funeral procession was, at the command of Joseph, at- tended by “‘all the elders of Egypt, and all the servants of Pharaoh, and all his house, and the house of his brethren, chariots and horsemen, a very great company ;” an affecting proof, as it has been remarked, of Joseph’s simplicity and singleness of heart, which allowed him to give to the great men of Egypt, over whom he bore absolute rule, an opportunity of observing his own comparatively humble origin, by leading them in attendance upon his father’s corpse to the valleys of Canaan, the modest cradle of his race, and to their simple burial places. ABEL-SHIT TIM, a city situate in the plains of Moab, beyond Jordan, opposite to Jericho, Num. xxv, 1, &.; xxiii, 49; Joshua xi, 1. Eu- sebius says it stood in the neighbourhood of mount Peor. Moses encamped at Abel-Shittim some time before the Hebrew army passed the Jordan. Here the Israelites fell into idolatry, and worshipped Baal-peor, for which God pun- ished them by the destruction of twenty-four thousand Le in one day. ABIAH, the second son of the prophet Sa- muel, and brother of Joel. Samuel having en- trusted to his sons the administration of public justice, and admitted them to a share in the gO- vernment, they behaved so ill, that the people demanded a king, 1 Sam. viii, 2. A. M. 2905, ABIATHAR, the son of Ahimelech, and the tenth high priest among the Jews, and rourth ABI 7 in descent from Eli, 2 Sam. viii, 17; 1 Chron. xviii, 16. When Saul sent to Nob to murder all the priests, Abiathar escaped the massacre, and fled to David in the wilderness. There he continued in the quality of high priest; but Saul, out of aversion to Ahimelech, whom he imagined to have betrayed his interests, trans- ferred the dignity of the high priesthood from Ithamar’s family into that of Eleazar, by con- ferring this office upon Zadok. Thus there were, at the sare time, two high priests in Is- rael, Abiathar with Davil, and Zadok with Saul. In this state things continued, until the reign of Solomon, when Abiathar, being at- tached to the party of Adonijah, was, by Solo- mon, divested of his priesthood, A. M. 2989; and the race of Zadok alone performed the functions of that office during the reign of So- lomon, to the exclusion of the family of Itha- mar, according to the word of the Lord to Eli, 1 Sam. ii, 30, &c. ABIB, the name of the first Hebrew sacred month, Exod. xiii, 4. This month was after- ward called Nisan; it contained thirty days, and answered to part of our March and April. Abib signifies green ears of corn, or fresh fruits, according to Jerom’s translation, Exod. xiii, 4, and to the LXX. It was so named because corn, particularly barley, was in ear at that time. It was an early custom to give names to months, from the appearances of nature; and the custom is still in force among many nations. The year among the Jews com- menced in September, and consequently their jubilees and other civil matters were regulated inthis way, Lev. xxv, 8-10; but their sacred year began in Abib. This change took place at the redemption of Israel from Egypt, Exod. xii, 2, “‘ This shall be to you the beginning of months.” Ravanelli observes, that as this de- liverance from Egypt was a figure of the re- demption of the church of Jesus Christ, who died and rose again in this month, it was made the “beginning of months,” to lead the church to expect the acceptable year of the Lord. On the tenth day of this month the paschal lamb was taken; and on the fourteenth they ate the passover. On the seven succeeding days they celebrated the feast of unleawened bread, on the last of which days they held a solemn convo- cation, Exod. xii, xiii. On the fifteenth they gathered the sheaf of the barley first fruits, and ou the following day presented an offering of it to the Lord, which having done they might begin their harvest, Lev. xxiii, ABIHU, the son of Aaron, the high priest, was consumed, together with his brother Na- dab, by fire sent from God, because he had offered incense with strange fire, instead of taking it from the altar, Lev. x, 1,2. This ca- lamity happened A. M. 2514; within eight days after the consecration of Aaron and his sons. Some commentators believe that this fire pro- ceeded from the altar of burnt-offerings ; others, that it came from the altar of incense. Several interpreters, as the Rabbins, Lyra, Cajetan, and others, are of opinion, that Nadab and Abihu were overtaken with wine, and so forgot to take the sacred fire in their censers. This conjec- ABI ture is founded on the command of God deliver- ed immediately afterward to the priests, for- bidding them the use of wine during the time they should be employed in the service of the temple. Another class allege, that there wag nothing so heinous in their transgression, but it was awfully punished, to teach ministers fidelity and exactness in discharging their of- fice. It had a vastly more important mean- ing,—this instance of vengeance is a standing example of that divine wrath which shall con- sume all who pretend to serve God, except with incense kindled from the one altar and offer- ing by which he for ever perfects them that are sanctified. ABIJAH, the son of Jeroboam, the first king of the ten tribes, who died very young, 1 Kings xiv, 1, &c. A. M. 3046.—2. The son of Reho- boam, king of Judah, and of Maachah, the daughter of Uriel, who succeeded his father, A. M. 3046, 2 Chron. xi, 20; xiii, 2, &e. The Rabbins reproach this monarch with neglecting to destroy the profane altar which Jeroboam had erected at Bethel; and with not suppress- ing the worship of the.golden calves there after his victory over that prince. ABILENE, a small province in Celo Syria, between Lebanon and Antilibanus. Of" this place Lysanias was governor in the fifteenth year of ‘Tiberius, Luke iii, 1. Abela, or Abila, the capital, was north of Damascus, and south of Heliopolis. ABIMELECH. This seems to have beer the title of the kings of Philistia, as Cesar was of the Roman emperors, and Pharaoh of the sovereigns of Egypt. It was the name also of one of the sons of Gideon, who became a judge of Israel, Judges ix; and of the Jewish high- priest, who gave Goliah’s sword, which had been deposited in the tabernacle, and part of the shew bread to David, at the time this prince was flying from Saul, 1 Sam. xxi, 1. ABIRAM, the eldest son of Hiel, the Beth- elite. Joshua having destroyed the city of Jeri- cho, pronounced this curse: “ Cursed be the man, before the Lord, that riseth wp and build- eth this city, Jericho: he shall lay the founda- tion thereof in his first-born, and in his young- est son shall he set up the gates of it,” Joshua vi, 26. Hiel of Bethel, about five hundred and thirty-seven years after this imprecation, hav- ing undertaken to rebuild Jericho, whilst he was laying the foundation of it, lost his eldest son, Abiram, 1 Kings xvi, 34; and Segub, the youngest, when they set up the gates of it; a remarkable instance of a prophetic denunciation fulfilled, perhaps on a person who would not credit the tradition, or the truth of the prediction. So true is the word of the Lord; so minutely are the most distant contingencies foreseen by him; and so exact is the accomplishment ot Divine prophecy ! ‘ 2. AprraM, the son of Eliab, of the tribe of Reuben, was one of those who conspired with Korah and Dathan against Moses in the wil- derness, and was swallowed up alive, with his companions, by the earth, which opened to re- ceive them, Num. xvi. ABISHAG, a young woman, a native of ABN 8 Shunam, in the tribe of Issachar. David, at the age of seventy, finding no warmth in his bed, was advised by his physicians to procure some young person, who might communicate the heat required. To this end Abishag was presented to him, who was one of the most beautiful wo- men in Israel, 1 Kings i,3; and the king made her his wife. After his death, Adonijah re- quested her in marriage, for which he lost his life; Solomon perceiving in this a design upon the crown also. Adonijah was his elder brother, an intriguing man, and had aspired to be king before the death of David, and had had his life spared ore the condition of his peaceable conduct. By this request he convinced Solo- mon, that he was still actuated by political views, and this brought upon him the punish- ment of treason. ABISHAI, the son of Zeruiah, David’s sis- ter, who was one of the most valiant men of his time, and one of the principal generals in Da- vid’s armies. ABLUTION, purification by washing the body, either in whole or part. Ablutions ap- pear to be almost as ancient as external wor- ship itself. Moses enjoined them; the Hea- thens adopted them; and Mohammed and his followers have continued them : thus they have been introduced among most nations, and make a considerable part of all superstitious re- ligions. The Egyptian priests had their diur- nal and nocturnal ablutions ; the Grecians, their sprinklings; the Romans, their lustrations and lavations; the Jews, their washings of hands and feet, beside their baptisms; the ancient Christians used ablution before communion, which the Romish church still retains before the mass, sometimes after; the Syrians, Copts, &c., have their solemn washings on Good Fri- day; the Turks their greater and less ablu- tions, &e. Lustration, among the Romans, was a solemn ceremony by which they purified their cities, fields, armies, or people, after any crime or im- purity. Lustrations might be performed by fire, by sulphur, by water, and by air; the last was applied by ventilation, or fanning the thing to be purified. All sorts of people, slaves ex- cepted, might perform some kind of lustration. hen a person died the house was to be swept in a particular manner; new married persons were sprinkled by the priest with water. Peo- ple sometimes, by way of purification, ran sev- eral times naked through the streets. There was scarcely any action performed, at the be- ginning and end of which some ceremony was not required to purify themselves and appease the gods. ABNER was the uncle of king Saul, and the general of his army. After Saul’s death, he made Ishbosheth king; and for seven years supported the family of Saul, in opposition to David; but in most of his skirmishes came off with loss. While Ishbosheth’s and David’s troops lay near each other, hard by Gibeon, Abner challenged Joab to select twelve of Da- vid’s warriors to fight with an equal number of his. Joab consented: the twenty-four’ enga- ged; and fell together on the spot. Ai fierce ABO battle ensued, in which Abner and his troops were routed. Abner himself was hotly pursued by Asahel, whom he killed by a back stroke of his spear. Still he was followed by Joab and Abishai, till he, who in the morning sported with murder, was obliged at even to entreat that Joab would stay his troops from the effusion of blood, 2 Sam. i. es : Not long after, Abner, taking it highly amiss for Ishbosheth to charge him with lewd beha- viour toward Rizpah, East's concubine, vowed that he would quickly transfer the whole king- dom into the hands of David. He therefore commenced a correspondence with David, and had an interview with him at Hebron. Abner had just left the feast at which David had enter- tained him, when Joab, informed of the matter, warmly remonstrated, asserting, that Abner had come as a spy. On his own authority he sent a messenger to invite him back, to have some farther communication with the king; and when Abner was come into Joah’s pres- ence, the latter, partly from jealousy lest Abner might become his superior, and partly to re- venge his brother Asahel’s death, mortally stab- bed him in the act of salutation. David, to show how heartily he detested the act, honoured Ab- ner with a splendid funeral, and composed an elegy on his death, 2 Sam. ili. BOMINATION. This term was used with regard to the Hebrews, who, being shep- herds, are said to have been an abomination to the Egyptians; because they sacrificed the ani- mals held sacred by that people, as oxen, goats, sheep, &c., which the Egyptians esteemed un- lawful. This word is also applied in the sacred writings to idolatry and idols, not only because the worship of idols is in itself an abominable thing, but likewise because the ceremonies of idolaters were almost always of an infamous and licentious nature. For this reason, Chry- sostom affirms, that every idol, and every image of a man, was called an abomination among the Jews. The “ abomination of desolation” fore- told by the Prophet Daniel, x, 27, xi, 31, is sup- posed by some interpreters to denote the statue of Jupiter Olympius, which Antiochus Epi- phanes caused tobe erected in the temple of Jeru- salem. The second of the passages above cited may probably refer to this circumstance, as the statue of Jupiter did, in fact, “make desolate,” by banishing the true worship of God, and those who performed it, from the temple. But the for- mer passage, considered in its whole connexion, bears more immediate reference to that which the evangelists have denominated the ‘“ abomi- nation of desolation,” Matt. xxiv, 15,16; Mark xiii, 14. This, without doubt, signifies the en- signs of the Roman armies under the command of Titus, during the last siege of Jerusalem. The images of their gods and emperors were delineated on these ensigns; and the ensigns themselves, especially the eagles, which were carried at the heads of the legions, were objects of worship ; and, according to the usual style of Scripture, they were therefore an abomination. Those ensigns were placed upon the ruins of the temple after it was taken and demolished; and, as Josephus informs us, the Romans sacri- ABR 9 ficed to them there. The horror with which the Jews regarded them, sufficiently appears from the account which Josephus gives of Pi- late’s introducing them into the city, when he sent his army from Czsarea into winter quar- ters at Jerusalem, and of Vitellius’s proposing to march through Judea, after he had received orders from Tiberius to attack Aretas, king of Petra. The people supplicated and remonstrat- ed, and induced Pilate to remove the army, and ‘Vitellius to march his troops another way. ‘The Jews applied the above passage of Daniel to the Romans, as we are informed by Jerome. The learned Mr. Mede concurs in the same opinion. Sir Isaac Newton, Obs. on Daniel xi, xii, ob- serves, that in the sixteenth year of the empe- ror Adrian, B. C. 132, the Romans accomplish- ed the prediction of Daniel by building a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus, where the temple of God in Jerusalem had stood. Upon this occasion the Jews, under the conduct of Barchochab, rose up in arms against the Romans, and in the war had fifty cities demolished, nine hundred and eighty- five of their best towns destroyed, and five hundred and eighty thousand men slain by the sword; and in the end of the war, B. C. 136, they were banished from Judea upon pain of death; and thenceforth the land remained de- solate of its old inhabitants. Others again have applied the prediction of Daniel to the invasion and desolation of Christendom by the Moham- medans, and to their conversion of the churches into mosques. From this interpretation they infer, that the religion of Mohammed will pre- vail in the east one thousand two hundred and sixty years, and be succeeded by the restoration of the Jews, the destruction of Antichrist, the full conversion of the Gentiles to the church of Christ, and the commencement of the millen- nium. In general, whatever is morally or ceremo- nially impure, or leads to sin, is designated an abomination to God. Thus lying lips are said to be an abomination to the Lord. Every thing in doctrine or practice which tended to corrupt the simplicity of the Gospel is also in Scripture called abominable; hence Babylon is represent- ed, Rev. xvii, 4, as holding in her hand a cup ‘full of abominations.” In this view, to “ work abomination,” is to introduce idolatry, or any other great corruption, into the church and worship of God, 1 Kings xi, 7. ABRAM, onan, a high father ; and ABRA- HAM, omar, father oF. a great multitude, the son of Terah, born at Ur, a city of Chaldea, A. M. 2008. The account of this eminent pa- triarch occupies so large a part of the book of Genesis, and stands so intimately connected with both the Jewish and Christian dispensa- tions,—with the one by a political and religious, and with the other by a mystical, relation,—that his history demands particular notice. Our ac- count may be divided into his personal history, and his typical, and mystic character. I. Abraham’s personat history. 1. Chaldea, the native country of Abraham, was inhabited by a pastoral people, who were almost irresistibly invited to the study of the motions of the heavenly bodies, by the peculiar ABR serenity of the heavens in that climate, and their habit of spending their nights in the open air in tending their flocks. The first rudiments of as- tronomy, as a science, is traced to this region; and here, too, one of the earliest forms of idola- try, the worship of the host of heaven, usually called Tsabaism, first began to prevail. During the three hundred and fifty years which elaps- ed between the deluge and the birth of Abra- ham, this and other idolatrous superstitions had greatly corrupted the human race, perverted the simple forms of the patriarchal religion, and beclouded the import of its typical rites. The family of Abraham was idolatrous, for his “ fa- thers served other gods beyond the flood,” that is, the great river Euphrates; but whether he himself was in the early period of his life an idolater, we are not informed by Moses. The Arabian and Jewish legends speak of his early idolatry, his conversion from it, and of his zeal in breaking the images in his father’s house ; but these are Tittle to be depended upon. Before his call he was certainly a worshipper of the true God; and that not in form only, but “in spirit and in truth.” Whilst Abraham was still sojourning in Ur, “the God of glory” appeared to him, and said unto him, “ Get thee out of thy country and from thy kindred, and go into the land which I shall show thee ;” and so firm was his faith in the providence and care of God, that although the place of his future abode was not indicated, nor any information given of the na- ture of the country, or the character of its in- habitants, he nevertheless promptly obeyed, and “went out, not knowing whither he went.” Terah his father, Nahor his brother, and Lot his nephew, the son of Haran his deceased brother, accompanied him; a circumstance which indi- cates that if the family had formerly been idola- trous it had now received the faith of Abraham, They first migrated to Haran, or Charran, in Mesopotamia, a flat, barren region westward of Ur; and after a residence there of a few years, during which Terah had died, Abraham left Haran to go into Palestine, taking with him Sarah his wife, who had no child, and Lot, with his paternal property. Nahor appears to have been left in Haran. To this second migration he was incited also by a Divine command, ac- companied by the promises of a numerous issue, that his seed should become a great nation, and, above all, that “‘in him all the families of the earth should be blessed ;” in other words, that the Messiah, known among the patriarchs as the promised ‘“ seed of the woman,” should be born in his line. Palestine was then inhabited by the Canaanites, from whom it was called Ca- naan. Abraham, leading his tribe, first settled at Sechem, a valley between the mountains Ebal and Gerizim, where God appeared to him and promised to give him the land of Canaan, and where, as in other places in which he remained any time, he built an altar to the Lord. He then removed to a hilly region on the north of Jericho; and as the pastures were exhausted, migrated southward, till a famine drove him into Egypt, probably the earliest, certainly the most productive, corn country of the ancient world. ABR 2. Here it may be observed, that the migra- tions of Abraham and his sons show the manner in which the earth was gradually covered with poe In those ages some cities had been uilt, and the country to some extent about them cultivated ; but wide spaces of unoccupied land lay between them. A part of society following therefore the pastoral life, led forth their flocks, and, in large family tribes, of which the parent was the head, uniting both the sovereign power and the priesthood in himself, and with a train of servants attached to the tribe by he- reditary ties, pitched their camps wherever a fertile and unappropriated district offered them pasture. A few of these nomadic tribes appear to have made the circuit of the same region, seldom going far from their native seats ; which would probably have been the case with Abra- ham, had he not received the call of God to de- part to adistant country. Others, more bold, followed the track of rivers, and the sweep of fertile valleys, and at length some built cities and formed settlements in those distant regions ; whilst others, either from attachment to their former mode of life, or from necessity, continu- ed in their pastoral occupations, and followed the supplies afforded for their flocks by the still expanding regions of the fertile earth, “Wars and violences, droughts, famines, and the con- stant increase of population, continued to im- pel these innumerable, but at first, small streams of men into parts still more remote. Those who settled on the sea coast began to use that element, both for supplying themselve with a new species of food, and as a medium of com- munication by vessels with other countries for the interchange of such commodities as their own lands afforded with those offered by mari- time states, more or less distant. Thus were laid the foundations of commerce, and thus the mari- time cities were gradually rendered opulent and powerful. Colonies were in time transported from them by means of their ships, and settled on the coasts of still more distant and fertile countries. Thus the migrations of the three primitive families proceeded from the central regions of Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Assyria ; and in succession they established numerous communities,—the Phenicians, Arabians, Egyp- tians, Ethiopians, and Lybians southward ;— the Persians, Indians, and Chinese eastward ;— the Scythians, Celts, and Tartars northward ;— and the Goths, Greeks, and Latins westward, even as far as the Peruvians and Mexicans of South America, and the Indians of North Ame- rica. 3. Abraham, knowing the dissolute charac- ter of the Egyptians, directed Sarah to call herself his sister, which she was, although by another mother; fearing that if they knew her to be his wife, they would: not only seize her, but kill him. This circumstance indicates the vicious state of morals and government in Egypt at this early period. In this affair Abra- ham has been blamed for want of faith in God; put it was perhaps no more than an act of com- mon prudence, as the Seraglio of the Egyp- tian monarch was supplied by any means, how- ever violent and lawless. Sarah, upon the 10 ABR report of her beauty, was seized and taken into his harem; and God sent great plagues upon his house, which, from their extraordinary character, he concluded to be divine judgments. This led to inquiry, and on discovering that he was detaining another man’s wife by violence, he sent her back, and dismissed Abraham laden with presents. 4. After the famine Abraham returned to Canaan, and pitched his tents between Bethel and Hai, where he had previously raised an altar. Here, as his flocks and herds, and those of Lot, had greatly increased, and strifes had arisen between their herdsmen as to pasturage and water, they peaceably separated. Lot re- turning to the plain of the Jordan, which before the destruction of Sodom was as “the garden of God,” and Abraham to Mamre, near Hebron, after receiving a renewal of the promise, that God would give him the whole land for a_pos- session. The separation of Abraham and Lot still farther secured the unmingled descent of the Abrahamitic family. The territories of the kings of the cities of the plain were a few years | afterward invaded by a confederacy of the petty kings of the Euphrates and the neighbouring countries, and Lot and his family were taken prisoners. This intelligence being brought to Abraham, he collected the men of his tribe, three hundred and eighteen, and falling upon the kings by night, near the fountains of Jeri- cho, he defeated them, retook the spoil, and recovered Lot. On his return, passing near Salem, supposed to be the city afterward called Jerusalem, he was blessed by its king Mel- chizedec, who was priest of the most high God; so that the knowledge and worship of Jehovah had not quite departed at that time from the Canaanitish nations. To him Abraham gave a tithe of the spoil. The rest he generously restored to the king of Sodom, refusing, ina noble spirit of independence, to retain so much as a ‘shoe lachet,” except the portion which, by usage of war, fell to the young native sheiks, Aner, Eschal, and Mamre, who had joined him in the expedition. 5. After this he had another encouraging vision of God, Gen. xv, 1; and to his complaint that he was still childless, and that his name and property would descend to the stranger Eliezer, who held the next rank in his tribe, the promise was given, that he himself should have a son, and that his seed should be count- less as the stars of heaven. And it is emphati- cally added, “‘ He believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness.” He was then fully assured, that he stood before God, a pardoned and accepted man, “ whose iniquities were forgiven,” and to whom “the Lord did not impute sin.” Still the fulfilment of the promise of a son was delayed ; and Sarah, per- haps despairing that it would be accomplished in her person, and the revelation which had been made mercly stating that his son should be the fruit of Abraham’s body, without any reference to her, she gave to him, according to the custom of those tames, one of her hand- maids, an Egyptian, to be his secondary wife, who brought forth Ishmael. Children born in Se eee eg ee eS a a ee Ee ces ania ABR ll ABR this manner haa the privileges of legitimacy ; but fourteen years afterward, when Abraham was a hundred years old, and Sarah ninety, the Lord appeared to him again, established his covenant with him and with his seed, changed his name to Abraham, “the father of many nations,” promised that Sarah herself should bring forth the son to whom the preceding prom- ises had referred ; instituted circumcision as the sign of the covenant ; and changed the name of his wife from Sarai, my princess, to Sarah, the princess, that is, of many people to descend from her. 6. At this time Abraham occupied his former encampment near Hebron. Here, as he sat in the door of his tent, three mysterious strangers appeared. Abraham, with true Arabian hospi- tality, received and entertained them. The chief of the three renewed the promise of a son to be born from Sarah, a promise which she received with a laugh of incredulity, for which she was mildly reproved. As Abraham accompanied them toward the valley of the Jordan, the same divine person, for so he manifestly appears, announced the dreadful ruin impending over the licentious cities among which Lot had taken up his abode. No passage, even in the sacred writings, exhibits a more exalted view of the divine condescension than that in which Abra- ham is seen expostulating on the apparent in- justice of involving the innocent in the ruin of the guilty: “ Shall the city perish, if fifty, if forty-five, if forty, if thirty, if twenty, if ten righteous men be found within its walls ?”’ “Ten righteous men shall avert its doom.” Such was the promise of the celestial visitant ; but the guilt was universal, the ruin inevitable ; and the violation of the sacred laws of hospi- tality and nature, which Lot in his horror attempted to avert by the most revolting ex- pedient, confirmed the justice of the divine sentence. 7. Sarah having conceived, according to the divine promise, Abraham left the plain of Mamre, and went south to Gerar, where Abi- melech reigned; and again fearing lest Sarah should be forced from him, ard himself be put to death, her beauty having been, it would ap- pear, preternaturally continued, notwithstand- ing her age, he here called her, as he had done in Egypt, his sister. Abimelech took her to his house, designing to marry her; but God having, in a dream, informed him that she was Abraham’s wife, he returned her to him with great presents. This year Sarah was delivered of Isaac; and Abraham circumcised him, ac- cording to the covenant stipulation; and when he was weaned, made a great entertainment. Sarah, having observed Ishmael, son of Hagar, mocking her son Isaac, said to Abraham, “Cast out this bondwoman and her son, for Ishmael shall not be heir with Isaac.” After great reluctance, Abraham complied ; God hav- mg informed him that this was according to the appointments of his providence, with re- spect to future ages. About the same time, bimelech came with Phicol, his general, to conclude an alliance with Abraham, who made that prince a present of seven ewe lambs out of his flock, in confirmation that a well he had opened should be his own property; and they called the place Beer-sheba, or.“ the well of swearing,” because of the covenant there rati: fied with oaths. Here Abraham planted a rove, built an altar, and for some time resided en. XX, Xxi. 8. More than twenty years after this, (A.M 2133,) God, for the final trial and illustratior of Abraham’s faith, directed him to offer up his son Isaac. Abraham took his son, and two servants, and went toward Mount Moriah. When within sight of the mountain, Abraham left his servants, and ascended it with his son only; and there having bound him, he pre- pared for the affecting sacrifice; but when he was about to give the blow, an angel from hea- ven cried out to him, “ Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing to him. Now I know that thou fearest God, since thou hast not withheld thine only son from me.” Abra- ham, turning, saw a ram entangled in the bush by his horns; and he offered this animal as a burnt-offering, instead of his son Isaac. This memorable place he called by the prophetic name, Jehovah-jireh, or the Lord will see—or provide, Gen. xxii, 1-14, having respect, no doubt, to the true sacrifice, which, in the fulness of time, was to be offered for the whole world upon the same mountain. 9. Twelve years afterward, Sarah, wife of Abraham, died in Hebron. Abraham came to mourn and to perform the funeral offices for her. He addressed the people at the city gate, entreating them to allow him to bury his wife among them; for, being a stranger, and having no land of his own, he could claim no right of interment in any sepulchre of that country. He, therefore, bought of Ephron, one of the inhabitants, the field of Machpelah, with the cave and sepulchre in it, at the price of four hundred shekels of silver, about forty-five pounds sterling. And here Abraham buried Sarah, with due solemnities, according to the custom of the country, Gen. xxiii. This whole transaction impressively illustrates the dignity, courtesy, and honour of these ancient chiefs; and wholly disproves the notion that theirs was a rude and unpolished age. 10. Abraham, having grown old, sent Eliezer, his steward, into Mesopotamia, with directions to obtain a young woman of his own family, as a wife for his son Isaac. Eliezer executed his commission with fidelity, and brought back Re- becea, daughter of Bethuel, grand-daughter of Nahor, and, consequently, Abraham’s niece, whom Isaac married. Abraham afterward mar- ried Keturah; by whom he had six sons, Zim- ran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah; who became heads of Be which dwelt in Arabia, and around it. e died, aged a hundred and seventy-five years, and was buried, with Sarah his wife, in the cave of Machpelah, which he had purchased of Ephron, Gen. xxiv, xxv, A. M. 2183, before Christ, 1821. II. From the personal history of Abraham we may now proceed to the consideration of the rypicat circumstances which were connect- ed with it, ABR J. Abraham himself with his family may be regarded as a type of the church of God in fu- ture ages. They indeed constituted God’s an- cient church. Not that many scattered patriar- chal and family»churches did not remain: such was that of Melchizedec; and such probably was that of Nahor, whom Abraham left behind in Mesopotamia. But a visible church relation was established between Abraham’s family and the Most High, signified by the visible and distinguishing sacrament of circumcision, and followed by new and enlarged revelations of truth. T'wo purposes were to be answered by this,—the preservation of the true doctrine of salvation in the world, which is the great and solemn duty of every branch of the church of God,—and the manifestation of that truth to others. Both were done by Abraham. Wherever he sojourned he built his altars to the true God, and publicly celebrated his wor- ship; and, as we learn from St. Paul, he lived in tents in preference to settling in the land of Canaan, though it had been given to him for a possession, in order that he might thus pro- claim his faith in the eternal inheritance of which Canaan was a type; and in bearing this testimony, his example was followed by Teens and Jacob, the “heirs with him of the same promise,” who also thus “confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims,” and that “ they looked” for a continuing and eternal city in heaven. So also now is the same doctrine of immortality committed to the church of Christ; and by deadness to the world ought its mem- bers to declare the reality of their own faith in it, 2. The numerous natural posterity promised to Abraham was also a type of the spiritual seed, the true members of the church of Christ, springing from the Messiah, of whom Isaac was the symbol. Thus St. Paul expressly dis- tinguishes between the fleshly and the spiritual seed of Abraham; to the latter of which, in their ultimate and highest sense, the promises of increase as the stars of heaven, and the sands of the sea shore, are to be referred, as also the promise of the heavenly Canaan. 3. The intentional offering up Isaac, with its result, was probably that transaction in which Abraham, more clearly than in any other, ‘saw the day of Christ, and was glad.” He received Isaac from the dead, says St. Paul, “in a figure.” This could be a figure of nothing but the resurrection of our Lord; and, if so, Isaac’s being laid upon the altar was a figure of his sacrificial death, scenically and most impressively represented to Abraham. The place, the same ridge of hills on which our Lord was crucified; the person, an only son, to die for no offence of his own; the sacrz- ficer, a father; the receiving back, as it were, from death to life; the name impressed upon the place, importing, “the Lord will provide,” in allusion to Abraham’s own words to Isaac, “the Lord will provide a lamb for a burnt-offer- ing;” all indicate a mystery which lay deep be- neath this transaction, and which Abraham, as the reward of his obedience, was permitted to behold. “The day” of Christ’s humiliation 12 ABR and exaltation was thus opened to him; and served to keep the great truth in mind, that the true burnt-offering and sacrifice for sin was to be something higher than the immolation of lambs, and bulls, and goats,—nay, something more than what was merely human. 4, The transaction of the expulsion of Hagar was also atype. It was an allegory in action, by which St. Paul teaches us to understand that the son of the bondwoman represented those who are under the law; and the child of the freewoman those who by faith in Christ are su- pernaturally begotten into the family of God. The bondwoman and her son being cast out, represented also the expulsion of the unbeliev- ing Jews from the church of God, which was to be composed of true believers of all nations, all of whom, whether Jews or Gentiles, were to become “ fellow heirs.” III. But Abraham appears before us invested with a mysvic character, which it is of great importance rightly to understand. I. He is to be regarded as standing in a federal or covenant relation, not only to his natural seed, but specially and eminently to all believers. ‘‘ The Gospel,” we are told by St. Paul, ‘“was preached to Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.” “‘ Abraham believed in God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness ;” in other words, he was jus- tified. A covenant of gratuitous justification through faith was made with him and his be- lieving descendants; and the rite of circum- cision, which was not confined to his posterit by Sarah, but appointed in every, branch of his family, was the sign or sacrament of this cove- nant of grace, and so remained till it was dis- laced by the sacraments appointed by Christ. herever that sign was it declared the doc- trine, and offered the grace, of this covenant— free justification by faith, and its glorious re- sults—to all the tribes that proceeded from Abraham. This same grace is offered to us by the Gospel, who become “ Abraham’s seed,” his spiritual children with whom the covenant is established, through the same faith, and are thus made “the heirs with him of the same promise.” 2. Abraham is also exhibited to us as the representative of true believers; and in this especially, that the true nature of faith was exhibited in him. This great principle was marked in Abraham with the following charac- ters:—An entire unhesitating belief in the word of God ;—an unfaltering trust in all his promises ;—a steady regard to his almighty power, leading him to overlook all apparent difficulties and impossibilities in every case where God had explicitly promised ;—and ha- bitual and cheerful and entire obedience. The Apostle has described faith in Heb. xi, 1; and that faith is seen living and acting in all its energy in Abraham. A few miscellaneous remarks are suggested by some of the circumstances of Abraham’s history :— 1. The ancient method of ratifying a cove- nant by sacrifice is illustrated in the account given in Gen. xv, 9,10. The beasts were slain eee ee en er ae e eae ABR 18 ABS asd divided in the midst, and the persons co- venanting passed between the parts. Hence, after Abraham had performed this part of the ceremony, the symbol of the Almighty’s pre- sence, ‘‘a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp, passed between the pieces,” verse 18, and so both parties ratified the covenant. 2. As the beauty of Sarah, which she re- tained so long as quite to conceal her real age from observers, attracted so much notice as to lead to her forcible seizure, once by Pharaoh in Egypt, and again by Abimelech in Palestine, it may appear strange, that, as in the east women are generally kept in seclusion, and seldom ap- pear without veils, she exposed herself to ob- servation. But to this day the Arab women do not wear veils at home in their tents; and Sa- rah’s countenance might have been seen in the tent by some of the officers of Pharaoh and Abimelech, who reported her beauty to their masters. 3. The intentional offering up of Isaac is not to be supposed as viewed by Abraham as an act sanctioned by the Pagan practice of human sacrifice. The immolation of human victims, particularly of that which was most precious, the favourite, the first-born child, appears to have been a common usage among many early nations, more especially the tribes by which Abraham was surrounded. It was the distin- uishing rite among the worshippers of Mo- och; at a later period of the Jewish history, it was practised by a king of Moab; and it was undoubtedly derived by the Carthaginians from their Phenician ancestors on the shores of Sy- ria. Where it was an ordinary usage, as in the worship of Moloch, it was in unison with the character of the religion, and of its deity. It was the last act of a dark and sanguinary su- perstition, which rose by regular gradation to this complete triumph over human nature. The god, who was propitiated by these offerings, had been satiated with more cheap and vulgar victims; he had been glutted to the full with human suffering and with human blood. In general it was the final mark of the subjuga- tion of the national mind to an inhuman and domineering priesthood. But the Mosaic reli- gion held human sacrifices in abhorrence; and the God of the Abrahamitic family, uniformly beneficent, had imposed no duties which en- tailed human suffering, had demanded no offer- ings which were repugnant to the better feel- ings of our nature. The command to offer Isaac as a “burnt offering,” was for these rea- sons a trial the more severe to Abraham’s faith. Be must therefore have been fully assured of the divine command; and he left the mystery to be explained by God himself. His was a simple act of unhesitating obedience to the command of God; the last proof of perfect re- liance on the certain accomplishment of the divine promises. Isaac, so miraculously be- stowed, could be es miraculously restored; Abraham, such is the comment of the Christian Apostle, “believed that God could even raise him up from the dead.” 4. The wide and deep impression made by the character of Abraham upon the ancient world is proved by the reverence which people of almost all nations and countries have paid to him, and the manner in which the events of his life have been interwoven in their mytho- logy, and their religious traditions. Jews, agians, Sabians, Indians, and Mohammedans have claimed him as the great patriarch and founder of their several sects; and his history has been embellished with a variety of fictions. One of the most pleasing of these is the follow- ing, but it proceeds upon the supposition that he was educated in idolatry: “As Abraham was walking by night from the grotto where he was born, to the city of Babylon, he gazed on the stars of heaven, and among them on the beautiful planet Venus. ‘ Behold,’ said he, with- in himself, ‘the God and Lord of the universe!’ but the star set and disappeared, and Abraham felt that the Lord of the universe could not thus be liable to change. Shortly after, he be- held the moon at the full: ‘ Lo,’ he cried, ‘the Divine Creator, the manifest Deity!’ but the moon sank below the horizon, and Abraham made the same reflection as at the setting of the evening star. All the rest of the night he passed in profound rumination; at sunrise he stood before the gates of Babylon, and saw the whole people prostrate in adoration. ‘ Won- drous orb,’ he exclaimed, ‘thou surely art the Creator and Ruler of all nature! but thou, too, hastest like the rest to thy setting !—neither then art thou my Creator, my Lord, or my God!” ABRAHAMITES, reported heretical sects of the eighth and ninth centuries, charged with the Paulician errors, and some of them with idolatry. For these charges we have, however, only the word of their persecutors. Also the name of a sect in Bohemia, as late as 1782, who professed the religion of Abraham before his circumcision, and admitted no scriptures but the decalogue and the Lord’s prayer. As these were persecuted, they too were probably misrepresented, and especially as their con- duct is allowed to have been good, even by their enemies. ABSALOM, the son of David by Maachah, daughter of the king of Geshur; distinguished for his fine person, his vices, and his unnatural rebellion. Of his open revolt, his conduct in Jerusalem, his pursuit of the king his father, his defeat and death, see 2 Sam. xvi-xvili, at large. ‘ABSOLUTION, in the church of Rome, is a sacrament, in which the priests assume the ower of forgiving sins. The rite of absolution in the church of England is acknowledged to be declarative only—‘ Almighty God hath given power and commandment to his minis- ters to declare and pronounce to his people, be- ing penitent, the absolution and remission of their sins: He pardoneth,” &c. In this view it is innocent; and although any private Chris- tian has a right to delare and pronounce the same doctrine to his neighbour, the official pub- lication of the grace of the Gospel is the public duty of its ministers in the congregation, since they are Christ’s “ Ambassadors.” ‘ABSTINENCE, forbearance of any thing ABY itis generally used with reference to forbear- ance from food under a religious motive. The Jewish law ordained that the priests should ab- stain from the use of wine during the whole time of their being employed in the service of the temple, Lev. x, 9. ‘The same abstinence was enjoined upon the Nazarites, during the time of their Nazariteship, or separation, Num. vi, 3. The Jews were commanded to abstain from several sorts of animals. See AniMAL. The fat of all sorts of animals that were sacrificed was forbidden to be eaten, Lev. iii, 17; vii, 23; and the blood of every animal, in general, was prohibited under pain of death. Indeed *blood was forbidden by the Creator, from the time of the grant of the flesh of beasts to man for food; this prohibition was continued under the Jewish economy, and transmitted to the Christian church by Apostolic authority, Acts xv, 28,29. (See Blood.) The Jews also abstained from the sinew which is upon the hollow of the thigh, Gen. xxxii, 25; because of the shrinking of the sinew of Jacob’s thigh when touched by the angel, as though by that the part had been made sacred. Among the primitive Christians, some denied themselves the use of such meats as were pro- hibited by the law; others treated this absti- nence with contempt. St. Paul has given his decision on these questions in his epistles, 1 Cor. viii, 7-10; Rom. xiv, 1-3. The council of Jerusalem, which was held by the Apostles, enjoined the Christian converts to abstain from meats strangled, from blood, from fornication, and from idolatry, Acts xv, 20. The spiritual monarchy of the western world introduced another sort of abstinence. which may be termed ritual, and which consists in abstaining from particular meats at certain times and seasons, the rules of which are called rogations. The ancient Lent was observed only a few days before Easter. In the course of the third century, it extended at Rome to three weeks; and before the middle of the suc- ceeding age, it was prolonged to six weeks, and began to be called quadragesima, or the forty days’ fast. YSS, or DEEP, Gvocos, without bottom. The chaos; the deepest parts of the sea; and inthe New Testament, the place of the dead, Rom. x, 7; a deep place of punishment. The devils besought Jesus that he would not send them into the abyss, a pine they evidently dreaded, Luke viii, 31; where it seems to mean that part of Hades in which wicked spirits are in torment. See Henn. In the opinion of the ancient Hebrews, and of the generality of eastern people at this day, the abyss, the sea, or waters, encompassed the whole earth. This was supposed to float upon the abyss, of which it covered a small part. According to the same notion, the earth was founded on the waters, or at least its founda- tions were on the abyss beneath, Psalm xxiv, 23; cxxxvi, 6. Under these waters, and at the bottom of this abyss, they represented the wicked as groaning, and suffering the punish- ment of their sin. The Rephaim were confined there, those old giants, who, whilst living, 14 ABY caused surrounding nations to tremble, Prov: ix, 18; xxi, 16, &c. Lastly, in these dark dun- geons the kings of Tyre, Babylon, and Egypt are described by the Prophets as suffering the punishment of their pride and cruelty, Isaiah xxvi, 14; Ezek. xxviii, 10, &c. These depths are figuratively represented as the abodes of evil spirits, and powers opposed tc God: “I saw,” says St. John, “a star fall from heaven unto the earth, and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit. And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of it, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit. And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth. And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit,” Rev. ix, 1, 2, 11. In another place the beast is represented as ascending out of the bottomless pit, and waging war against the two witnesses of God, Rev. xi, 7. Lastly, St. John says, “I saw an angel come down trom heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit, and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, and cast him inte the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the na- tions no more till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season,” Rev. xx, 1-3. ABYSSINIAN CHURCH, a branch of the Coptic church, in upper Ethiopia. The Abys- sinians, by the most authentic accounts, were converted to the Christian faith about the year 330; when Frumentius, being providentially raised to a high office, under the patronage of the queen of Ethiopia, and ordained bishop of that country by Athanasius, patriarch of Alex- andria, established Christianity, built churches, and ordained a regular clergy to officiate in them. The Abyssinian Christians themselves, indeed, claim a much higher antiquity, having a tradition, that the doctrine of Christ was first introduced among them by Queen Candace, Acts viii, 27; or even preached there by the Apostles Matthew and Bartholomew; but the former is supported by no collateral evidence, and the latter 1s in opposition to high authority. Some of them claim relation to the Israelites, through the queen of Sheba, so far back as the reign of Solomon. ‘The Abyssinian Christians have always re- ceived their abuna, or patriarch, from Alexan- dria, whence they sprang, and consequently their creed is Monophysite, or Eutychian; maintaining one nature only in the person of Christ, namely, the divine, in which they con- sidered all the properties of the humanity to be absorbed; in opposition to the Nestorians. On the power of the Saracens prevailing in the east, all communication being nearly cut off between the eastern and western churches, the Abyssinian church remained unknown ir Europe till nearly the close of the fifteenth century, when John II, of Portugal, acciden- tally hearing of the existence of such a church, sent to make inquiry. This led to a corres ACA pondence between the Abyssinians and the church of Rome; and Bermudes, a Portuguese, was consecrated by the pope patriarch of Ethio- pia, and the Abyssinians were required to re- ceive the Roman Catholic faith, in return for some military assistance afforded to the empe- ror. Instead of this, however, the emperor sent for a new patriarch from Alexandria, im- poe Bermudes, and declared the pope a eretic. About the middle of the sixteenth century, the Jesuits attempted a mission to Abyssinia, in the hope of reducing it to the pope’s au- thority; but without success. In 1588 a second mission was attempted, and so far succeeded as to introduce a system of persecution, which cost many lives, and caused many troubles to the empire. In the following century, how- ever, the Jesuits were all expelled, Abyssinia returned to its ancient faith, and nothing more was heard of the church of Abyssinia, till the latter part of the last century. After the expulsion of the Jesuits, all Euro- peans were interdicted; nor does it appear that any one dared to attempt an entrance until the celebrated Mr. Bruce, by the report of his medical skill, contrived to introduce himself to the court, where he even obtained military pro- motion; and was in such repute, that it was with great difficulty he obtained leave to return to England. Encouraged, perhaps, by this circumstance, the Moravian brethren attempted a mission to this country, but invain. They were compelled to retreat to Grand Cairo, from whence, by leave of the patriarch, they visited the Copts, at Behrusser, and formed a small society; but in 1783, they were driven thence, and compelled to return to Hurope. More recently, however, the late king of Abyssinia (Itsa Takley Gorges) addressed a letter to Mr. Salt, the British consul in Egypt, and requested copies of some parts of both the Old and New Testaments. Copies of the Psalms, in Ethiopic, as printed by the British and Foreign Bible Society, were also sent to him. ACADEMICS, a name given to such phi- losophers as adopted the doctrines of Plato. They were so called from the Academia, a grove near Athens, where they frequently in- dulged their contemplations. Academia is said to derive its name from one Academus, a god or hero so called. Thus Horace,— Atque inter sylvas Academi quarere verum. {And in the groves of Academus to search for truth.] The academics are divided into those of the first academy, who taught the doctrines of Plato in their original purity; those of the sec- ond or middle academy, who differed materi- ally from the first, and inclined to skepticism ; and those of the new academy. The middle school laid it down as a principle, that neither our senses, nor our reason, are to be trusted; but that in common affairs we are to conform to received opinions. The new academy main- tained that we have no means of distinguishing truth, and that the most evident appearances may lead us into error; they granted the wise man opinion, but denied him certainty. They 15 ACC held, however, that it was best to follow the greatest probability, which was sufficient for all the useful purposes of life, and laid down rules for the attainment of felicity. The dif- ference betwixt the middle academy and the new seems to have been this, that though they agreed in the imbecility of human nature, yet the first denied that probabilities were of any use in the pursuit of happiness; and the latter held them to be of service in such a design: the former recommended a conformity with re- ceived opinions, and the latter allowed men an opinion of their own. In the first academy, peusippus filled the chair; in the second, Ar- cesilaus; and in the new or third academy, Carneades. ACCAD, one of the four cities built by Nim- rod, the founder of the Assyrian empire. (See Nimrod.) “ Andthe beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar,” Gen. x,10. Thus it ap- ears that Accad was contemporary with Baby- on, and was one of the first four great cities of the world. It would scarcely be expected that any thing should now remain to guide us in our search for this ancient city, seeing that Babylon itself, with which it was coeval, is reduced to heaps; and that it is not mentioned under its ancient name by any profane author. But the discove- ries of modern travellers may be brought to aid us in our inquiry. At the distance of about six miles from the modern town of Bagdad, is found a mound, surmounted by a tower-shaped ruin, called by the Arabs Tell Nimrood, and by the Turks Nemrood Tepasse; both terms im- plying the Hillof Nimrod. This gigantic mass rises in an irregularly pyramidal or turreted shape, according to the view in which it is taken, one hundred and twenty-five, or one hundred and thirty feet above the gently inclined elevation on which it stands. Its circumference, at the bot- tom, is three hundred feet. The mound which constitutes its foundation is composed of a col- lection of rubbish, formed from the decay of the superstructure; and consists of sandy earth, fragments of burnt brick, pottery, and hard clay, partially vitrified. In the remains of the tower, the different layers of sun-dried brick, of which it is composed, may be traced with great precision. These bricks, cemented to- ether by slime, and divided into courses vary- ing from twelve to twenty feet in height, are separated from one another by a stratum of reeds, similar to those now growing in the marshy parts of the plain, and in a wonderful state of preservation. The resemblance of this mode of building to that in some of the struc- tures at Babylon, cannot escape observation ; and we may reasonably conclude it to be the workmanship of the same architects. The so- lidity and the loftiness of this pile, unfashioned to any other purpose, bespeak it to be one of those enormous pyramidal towers which were consecrated to the Sabian worship; which, as essential to their religious rites, were probably erected in all the early cities of the Cuthites; and, like their prototype at Babylon, answered the double purpose of altars and observatories. ACC Here then was the site of one of these early cities. It was not Babylon; it was not Erech; it was not Calneh. It might be too much to say that therefore it must be Accad; but the in- ference is at least warrantable; which is farther strengthened by the name of the place, Akar- kouff; which bears a greater affinity to that of Accad than many others which are forced into the support of geographical speculations, espe- cially when it is recollected that the Syrian name of the city was Achav. ACCESS, free admission, open entrance. Our access to God is by Jesus Christ, the way, the truth, and the life, Rom. v, 2; Eph. ii, 18. Under the law, the high priest alone had access into the holiest of all; but when the veil of the temple was rent in twain, at the death of Christ, it was declared that a new and living way of access was laid open through the veil, that is to say, his flesh. By his death, also, the middle wall of partition was broken down, and Jew and Gentile had both free access to God; where- as, before, the Gentiles had no nearer access in the temple worship than to the gate of the court of Israel. Thus the saving grace and lofty privileges of the Gospel are equally bestowed upon true believers of all nations. ACCHO, afterward called Ptolemais, and now Akka by the Arabs, and Acre by the Turks. It was given to the tribe of Asher, Judges i, 31. Christianity was planted here at an early period, and here St. Paul visited the saints in his way to Jerusalem, Acts xxi, 7. It is a seaport of Palestine, thirty miles south of Tyre, and, in the first partition of the holy land, belonged to the tribe of Asher; but this was one of the places out of which the Israelites could not drive the primitive inhabitants. In succeeding times it was enlarged by the first Ptolemy, to whose lot it fell, and who named it after him- self, Ptolemais. This city, now called Acre, which, from the convenience of its port, is one of the most con- siderable on the Syrian coast, was, during al- most two centuries, the principal theatre of the holy wars, and the frequent scene of the perfi- dies and treacheries of the crusaders. Among its antiquities, Dr. E. D. Clarke de- scribes the remains of a very considerable edi- fice, exhibiting a conspicuous appearance among the buildings on the north side of the city. ‘In this structure the style of the architecture is of the kind we call Gothic. Perhaps it has on that account borne among our countrymen the appellation of ‘King Richard’s Palace,’ al- though, in the period to which the tradition refers, the English were hardly capable of erecting palaces, or any other buildings of equal magnificence. T'wo lofty arches, and part of the cornice, are all that now remain to attest the former greatness of the superstructure. The cornice, ornamented with enormous stone busts, exhibiting a series of hideous distorted coun- tenances, whose features are in no instances alike, may either have served as allusions to the decapitation of St. John, or were intended for a representation of the heads of Saracens suspended as trophies upon the walls.” Maun- drell and Pococke consider this building to have 16 ACC been the church of St. Andrew; but Dr. E, D. Clarke thinks it was that of St. John, erected by the Knights of Jerusalem, whence the city changed its name of Ptolemais for that of St. John d’Acre. He also considers the style of architecture to be in some degree the original of our ornamented Gothic, before its transla- tion from the holy land to Italy, France, and England. ; , Mr. Buckingham, who visited Acre in 1816, says, “ Of the Canaanitish Accho it would be thought idle perhaps to seek for remains; yet some presented themselves to my observation so peculiar in form and materials, and of such high antiquity, as to leave no doubt in my own mind of their being the fragments of buildings constructed in the earliest ages. “Of the splendour of Ptolemais, no perfect monument remains; but throughout the town are seen shafts of red and grey granite, and marble pillars. The Saracenic remains are only to be partially traced in the inner walls of the town; which have themselves been so broken down and repaired, as to leave little vis- ible of the original work; and all the mosques, fountains, bazaars, and other public buildings, are in a style rather Turkish than Arabic, ex- cepting only an old, but regular and well-built khan or caravanserai, which might perhaps be attributed to the Saracen age. The Christian ruins are altogether gone, scarcely leaving a trace of the spot on which they stood.” Acre has been rendered famous in our own times by the successful resistance made by ow countryman Sir Sydney Smith, aided by the celebrated Djezzar Pasha, to the progress of the French under Buonaparte. Since this period, the fortifications have been considerably in- creased; and although to the eye of an engi- neer they may still be very defective, Acre may be considered as the strongest place in Palestine. Mr. Conner says, on the authority of the English consul, that there are about ten thou- sand inhabitants in Acre, of whom three thou- sand are Turks, and the remainder Christians, chiefly Catholics. ACCUBATION, the posture used at table by the ancients. The old Romans sat at meat as we do, till the Grecian luxury and softness had corrupted them. The same custom, of lying upon couches at their entertainments, prevailed among the Jews also in our Saviour’s time; for having been lately conquered by Pompey, they conformed in this, and in many other respects, to the example of their masters. The manner of lying at meat among the Ro- mans, Greeks, and more modern Jews, was the same in all respects. The table was placed in the middle of the room, around which stood three couches covered with cloth or tapestry, according to the quality of the master of the house; upon these they lay, inclining the su- perior part of their bodies upon their left arms, the lower part being stretched out at full length, or a little bent. Their heads were supported and raised with pillows. The first man ley at the head of the couch; the next man lay with his head toward the feet of the other, from ACC which he was defended by the bolster that supported his own back, commonly reaching over to the middle of the first man; and the rest after the same manner. The most honour- able place was the middle couch—and the mid- dle of that. Favourites commonly lay in the bosom of their friends ; that is, they were placed next below them: see John xiii, 23, where St. John is said to have lain in our Saviour’s bo- som. The ancient Greeks sat at the table; for Homer observes that when Ulysses arrived at the palace of Alcinous, the king dispatched his son Laodamas to seat Ulysses in a magnificent chair. The Egyptians sat at table anciently, as well as the Romans, till toward the end of the Punic war, when they began to recline at table. ACCURSED, in the Scriptures, signifies that which is separated or devoted. With re- gard to persons, it denotes the cutting off or separating any one from the communion of the church, the number of the living, or the privileges of society; and also the devoting an animal, city, or other thing to destruction. Anathema was a species of excommunication among the Jews, and was often practised after they had lost the power of life and death, against those persons who, according to the Mosaic law, ought to have been executed. A criminal, af- ter the sentence of excommunication was pro- nounced, became anathema: and they had a full persuasion that the sentence would not be in vain; but that God would interfere to punish the offender in a manner similar to the penalty of the law of Moses: a man, for instance, whom the law condemned to be stoned, would, they believed, be killed by the falling of a stone upon him; a man to be hanged, would be choked; and one whom the law sentenced to the flames, would be burnt in his house, &c. Maranatha, a Syriac word, signifying the Lord cometh, was added to the sentence, to express their persuasion that the Lord God would come to take vengeance upon that guilt which they, circumstanced as they were, had not the power to punish, 1 Cor. xvi, 22. ccording to the idiom of the Hebrew lan- guage, accursed and crucified were synonymous terms. By the Jews every one who died upon a tree was reckoned accursed, Deut. xxi, 23. Excommunication is a kind of anathema also among some Christians; and by it the offender is deprived, not only of communicat- ing in prayers and other holy offices, but of admittance to the church, and of conversation with the faithful. The spirit of Judaism, rather than that of the Gospel, has in this been imi- tated ; for among the Hebrews, they who were excommunicated could not perform any public duty of their employments; could be neither judges nor witnesses; neither be present at funerals, nor circumcise their own sons, nor sit down in the company of other men, nearer than within the distance of four cubits. If they died under excommunication, they were denied the rites of burial; and a large stone was left on their graves, or a heap of stones was thrown over them, as over Achan, Joshua vii, 26. The Apostolical excommunication was simply to deny to the offender, ane admonition, the right 17 ACR of partaking of the Lord’s Supper, which was excision from the church of Chet, ACELDAMA, a piece of ground without the south wall of Jerusalem, on the other side of the brook Siloam. It was called the Potter's Field, because an earth or clay was dug in it, of which pottery was made. ‘It was likewise called the Fuller’s Field, because cloth was dried in it. But it having been afterward bought with the money by which the high priest and rulers of the Jews purchased the blood of Jesus, it was called Aceldama, or the Field of Blood. ACHAIA. ‘This name is used to denote the whole of Greece, as it existed as a Roman pro- vince; or Achaia Proper, a district in the northern part of the Peloponnesus, on the bay of Corinth, and in which the city of that name stood. It appears to have been used in the former sense in 2 Cor. xi, 10; and in the latter, in ‘Acts xix, 21. ACHAN, the son of Carmi, of the tribe of Judah, who having taken a part of the spoils of Jericho, against the injunction of God, who had accursed or devoted the whole city, was, upon being taken by lot, doomed to be stoned to death. The whole history is recorded, Joshua vii. It would appear that Achan’s family were also stoned ; for they were led out with him, and all his property, “‘ And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones.” Some of the critics have made efforts to confine the stoning to Achan, and the burning to his goods ; but not without violence to the text. It is pro- bable, therefore, that his family were privy to the theft, seeing he hid the ‘accursed things which he had stolen in the earth, in his tent. By concealment they therefore became partak- ers of his crime, and so the sentence was justified. ACHMETHA. See Ecparana. ACHOR, Valley of, between Jericho and Ai. So called from the trouble brought upon the Israelites by the sin of Achan; Achor in the Hebrew denoting trouble. ACHZIB, a city on the coast of the Mediter- ranean, in the tribe of Asher, and one of the cities out of which that tribe did not expel the inhabitants, Judges i, 31. It was called Ecdippa by the Greeks, and is at present termed Zib. It is situated about ten miles north of Accho, or Ptolemais. Mr. Buckingham, who passed by this place, says that it is small, and situated on a hill near the sca; having a few palm trees rearing themselves above its dwellings. CRA,”Axoa. This Greek word signifies, in general, a citadel. The Syrians and Chaldeans use Nrpn, in the same sense. King Antiochus gave orders for building a citadel at Jerusalem, north of the temple, on an eminence; which commanded the holy place; and for that reason was called Acra. Josephus says, that this emi- nencé was semicircular, and that Simon Mac- cabeus, having expelled the Syrians, who had seized Acra, demolished it, and spent three years in levelling the mountain on which it stood; that no situation in future should com- mand the temple. On mount Acra were after- ward built, the palace of Helena; Agrippa’s pa- lace, the place where the public records were ACT ‘odged; and that where the magistrates of Je- rusalem assembled. ACRABATENE, a district of Judea, extend- ing between Shechem (now Napolose) and Jeri- cho, inclining east. It was about twelve miles in length. The Acrabatene had its name from a place called Akrabbim, about nine miles from Shechem, eastward. This was also the name of another district of Judea on the frontier of Idumea, toward the northern extremity of the Dead Sea. . ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. This book, in the very beginning, professes itself to be a continuation of the Gospel of St. Luke ; and its style bespeaks it to be written by the same per- son. The external evidence is also very satis- factory ; for besides allusions in earlier authors, and particularly in Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr, the Acts of the Apostles are not only quoted by Ireneus, as written by Luke the evangelist, but there are few things recorded in this book which are not mentioned by that ancient father. This strong testimony in favour of the genuineness of the Acts of the Apostles is supported by Clement of Alexan- dria, Tertullian, Jerome, Eusebius, Theodoret, and most of the later fathers. It may be added, that the name of St. Luke is prefixed to this book in several ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, and also in the old Syriac version. 2. This isthe only inspired work which gives us any historical account of the progress of Christianity after our Saviour’s ascension. It comprehends a period of about thirty years, but it by no means contains a general history of the church during that time. The ca facts recorded in it are, the choice of Matthias to be an Apostle in the room of the traitor Ju- das ; the descent of the Holy Ghost on the day of pentecost ; the preaching, miracles, and suf ferings of the Apostles at Jerusalem; the death of Stephen, the first martyr; the persecution and dispersion of the Christians ; the preaching ofthe Gospel in different parts of Palestine, espe- cially in Samaria; the conversion of St. Paul; the call of Cornelius, the first Gentile convert ; the persecution of the Christians by Herod Agrippa; the preaching of Paul and Barnabas to the Gentiles, by the express command of the Holy Ghost ; the decree made at Jerusalem, de- claring that circumcision, and a conformity to other Jewish rites and ceremonies, were not necessary in Gentile converts; and the latter pe of the book is confined to the history of St. aul, of whom St. Luke was the constant com- panion for several years. 3. As this account of St. Paul is not continu- ed beyond his two years’ imprisonment at Rome, it is probable that this book was written soon after his release, which happened in the year 63; we may therefore consider the Acts of the Apostles as written about the year 64, 4. The place of its publication is more doubt- ful. The probability appears to be in favour of Greece, though some contend for Alexandria in Egypt. This latter opinion rests upon the subscriptions at the end of some Greek manu- scripts, and of the copies of the Syriac version; 18 ADA but the best critics think, that these subscrip- tions, which are also affixed to other books of the New Testament, deserve but little weight ; and in this case they are not supported by any ancient authority. 2 5. It must have been of the utmost import- ance in the early times of the Gospel, and cer- tainly not of less importance to every subse- quent age, to have an authentic account of the promised descent of the Holy Ghost, and of the success which attended the first preachers of the Gospel both among the Jews and Gen- tiles. These great events completed the evi- dence of the divine mission of Christ, establish- ed the truth of the religion which he taught, and pointed out in the clearest manner the compre- hensive nature of the redemption which he pur- chased by his death. Ccumenius calls the Acts, the “Gospel of the Holy Ghost ;” and St. Chrysostom, the “Gos- pel of our Saviour’s resurrection,” or the Gospel of Jesus Christ risen from the dead. Here, in the lives and preaching of the Apostles, we have the most miraculous instances of the power of the Holy Ghost; and in the account of those who were the first believers, we have re- ceived the most excellent pattern of the true Christian life. ADAM, the name given to man in general, both male and female, in the Hebrew Scrip- tures, Gen. i, 26, 27; v, 1,2; xi,5; Josh. xiv, 15; 2 Sam. vii, 19; Eccl. iii, 21; Jer. xxxii, 20; Hosea vi, 7; Zech. xiii, 7: in all which places mankind is understood; but particularly it is the name of the first man and father of the human race, created by God himself out of the dust of the earth. Josephus thinks that he was called Adam by reason of the reddish colour of the earth out of which he was formed, for Adam in Hebrew signifies red. God having made man out of the dust of the earth, breathed into him the breath of life, and gave him dominion over all the creatures of this world, Gen. i, 26, 27; 11,7. He created him after his own image and resemblance; and having blessed him, he placed him in a delicious garden, in Eden, that he might cultivate it, and feed upon its fruits, Gen: 11, 8; but under the following injunction : “ Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely dic.” The first thing that Adam did after his introduction into paradise, was to give names to all the beasts and birds which presented themselves before him, Gen. ii, 19, 20. But man was without a fellow creature of his own species; wherefore God said, “It is not good for man to be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.” And the Lord caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and while he slept, he took one of his ribs, “and closed up the flesh instead thereof;” and of that substance which he took from man made he a woman, whom he presented to him. Then said Adam, “This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man,” Gen. ii, 21, &c. The woman was seduced by the tempter; ADA and she seduced her husband to eat of the for- bidden fruit. When called to judgment for this transgression before God, Adam attempted to cast the blame upon his wife, and the woman upon the serpent tempter. But God declared them all guilty, and punished the serpent by degradation ; the woman by painful childbear- ing and subjection; and the man by agricul- tural labour and toil; of which punishments every day witnesses the fulfilment. As their natural passions now became irreeula, and their exposure to accidents was great, God made a covering of skins for Adam and for his wife; and expelled them from the garden, to the country without ; placing at the east of the gar- den cherubims and a flaming sword, which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. Itis not known how long Adam and his wife continued in paradise: some say, many oe others, not many days; others, not man ours. Adam called his wife’s name Eve, whic signifies “the mother of all living.” Shortl after, Eve brought forth Cain, Gen. iv, 1,2. ft is believed that she had a girl at the time, and that, generally, she had twins. The Scriptures notice only three sons of Adam: Cain, Abel, and Seth; and omits daughters; except that Moses tells us, ‘ Adam begat sons and daugh- ters;” no doubt many. He died, aged nine hundred and thirty, B.C. 3074. Upon this history, so interesting to all Adam’s descendants, some remarks may be offered. 1. It is disputed whether the name Adam is derived from red earth. Sir W. Jones thinks it may be from Adim, which in Sanscrit signi- fies, the first. The Persians, however, denomi- nate him Adamah, which signifies, according to Sale, red earth. The term for woman is Aisha, the feminine of Aish, man, and signifies, therefore, maness, or female man. 2. The manner in which the creation of Adam is narrated indicates something peculiar and eminent in the being to be formed. Among the heavenly bodies the earth, and above all the various productions of its surface, vegetable and animal, however perfect in their Kinds, and beautiful and excellent in their respective natures, not one being was found to whom the rest could minister instruction; inspire with moral delight; or lead up to the Creator him- self, There was, properly speaking, no intel- lectual being; none to whom the whole frame and furniture of material nature could minister knowledge; no one who could employ upon them the generalizing faculty, and make them the basis of inductive knowledge. If, then, it was not wholly for himself that the world was created by God; and if angels were not so im- mediately connected with this system, as to lead us to suppose that it was made for them; a rational inhabitant was obviously still want- ing to complete the work, and to constitute a perfect whole. The formation of such a being was marked, therefore, by a manner of proceed- ing which serves to impress us with a sense of the greatness of the work. Not that it could be a matter of more difficulty to Omnipotence to create man than any thing beside; but prin- cipally, it is probable, because he was to be the 19 ADA lord of the whole and therefore himself account- able to the original proprietor; and was to be the subject of another species of government, a moral administration; and to be constituted an image of the intellectual and moral perfections, and of the immortality of the common Maker, Every thing therefore, as to man’s creation, is given in a solemn and deliberative form, and con- tains also an intimation of a Trinity of Persons in the Godhead, all equally possessed of creative power, and therefore Divine, to each of whom man was to stand in relations the most sacred and intimate:— And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion,” &c. 3. It may be next inquired in what that image of God in which man was made consists. It is manifest from the history of Moses, that human nature has two essential constituent parts, the Bopy formed out of preéxisting mat- ter, the earth; and a LrviNG souL, breathed into the body by an inspiration from God. “ And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils (or Jace) the breath of life, (Zives,) and man became a living soul.” Whatever was thus imparted to the body of man, already “formed,” and per- fectly finished in all its parts, was the only cause of life; and the whole tenor of Scripture shows that this was the rational spirit itself, which, by a law of its Creator, was incapable of death, even after the body had fallen under that penalty. The “image” or likeness of God in which man was made has, by some, been assigned to the body; by others to the soul. It has, also, been placed in the circumstance of his having “dominion” over the other creatures. As to the body, it is not necessary to prove that in no sense can it bear the image of God; that is, be “dike” God. An upright form has no more likeness to God than a prone or reptile one; God is incorporeal, and cannot be the antitype of any thing material. Equally unfounded is the notion that the image of God in man consisted in the “ domi- nion” which was granted to him over this lower world. Limited dominion may, it is true, be an image of large and absolute dominion; but man is not said to have been made in the image of God’s dominion, which is an accident merely, for, before creatures existed, God himself could have no dominion; he was made in the image and likeness of God himself. Still farther, it is evident that man, according to the history, was made in the image of God in order to his having dominion, as the Hebrew particle im- ports; and, therefore, his dominion was conse- quent upon his formation in the “image” and “likeness” of God, and could not be that image itself. The notion that the original resemblance of man to God must be placed in some one essen- tial quality, is not consistent with holy writ, from which alone we can derive our information on this subject. We shall, it is true, find that the Bible partly places it in what is essential to human nature; but that it should comprehend nothing else, or consist in one quality only, has + ADA no proof or reason; and we are, in fact, taught that it comprises also what is so far from being essential that it may be both lost and regained. When God is called “the Father of Spirits,” a likeness is suggested between man and God in the spiritualily of their nature. This is also implied in the striking argument of St. Piul with the Athenians: “ Forasmuch, then, as we are the orrsprine of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device ;”— plainly referring to the idolatrous statues by which God was represented among Heathens. If likeness to God in man consisted in bodily shape, this would not have been an argument against human representations of the Deity; but it imports, as Howe well expresses it, that “-we are to understand that our resemblance to him, as we are his offspring, lies in some higher, more noble, and more excellent thing, of which there can be no figure; as who can tell how to give the figure or image of a thought, or of the mind or thihking power?” In spiritualety, and, consequently, immateriality, this image of God in man, then, in the first instance, consists. Nor is it any valid objection to say, that “im- materiality 1s not peculiar to the soul of man; for we have reason to believe that the inferior animals are actuated by an immaterial princi- ple.” This is as certain as analogy can make it: but though we allow a spiritual principle to animals, its kind is obviously inferior; for that spirit which is incapable of induction and moral knowledge, must be of an inferior order to the spirit which possesses these capabilities; and this is the kind of spirit which is peculiar to man. The sentiment expressed in Wisdom ii, 23, is an evidence that, in the opinion of the an- cient Jews, the image of God in man comprised immortality also. ‘‘ For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity :” and though other creatures were made capable of immortality, and at least the material human frame, whatever we may think of the case of animals, would have es- caped death, had not sin entered the world; yet, without admitting the absurdity of the “natural immortality” of the human soul, that essence must have been constituted immortal ina high and peculiar sense which has ever retained its prerogative of continued duration amidst the universal death not only of animals, but of the bodies of all human beings. There appears also a manifest allusion to man’s im- mortality, as being included in the image of God, in the reason which is given in Genesis for the law which inflicts death on murderers: ““Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” The essence of the crime of homicide is not confined here to the putting to death the mere animal part of man; and it must, therefore, lie in the peculiar value of life to an immortal being, accountable in another state for the actions done in this, and whose life ought to be specially guarded for this very rea- son, that death introduces him into changeless and eternal relations, which were not to be left to the mercy of human passions, 20 ADA To these we are to add the intellectual pow- ers, and we have what divines, in perfect ac- cordance with the Scriptures, have called, ‘‘ the NATURAL image of God in his creatures,” which is essential and ineffaceable. Man was made capable of knowledge, and he was endowed with liberty of will. This natural image of God was the founda- tion of that MoraL image by which also man was distinguished. Unless he had been a spi- ritual, knowing, and willing being, he would have been wholly incapable of moral qualities. That he had such qualities eminently, and that in them consisted the image of God, as well as in the natural attributes just stated, we have also the express testimony of Scripture: “Le this only have I found, that God made man UPRIGHT; but they have sought out many in- ventions.” There is also an express allusion to the moral image of God, in which man was at first created, in Colossians iii, 10: “ And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge, after the image of Him that cre- ated him ;” and in Ephesians iv, 24: “ Put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.” In these passages the Apostle represents the change produced in true Christians by the Gospel, as a “renewal of the image of God in man; as a new or second creation in that image;” and he explicitly declares, that that image consists in “knowledge,” in “righteousness,” and in “true holiness.” This also may be finally argued from the satisfaction with which the historian of the creation represents the Creator as viewing the works of his hands as ‘“‘ very good,” which was pronounced with reference to each of them individually, as well as to the whole: “ And God saw every thing that he had made, and behold it was very good.” But, as to man, this goodness must necessarily imply moral as well as physical qualities. Without them he would have been imperfect as man; and had they, in their first exercises, been perverted and sinful, he must have been an exception, and could not have been pronounced “ very good.” The goodness of man, as a rational being, must lie in devotedness and consecration to God; consequently, man was at first holy. A rational creature, as such, is capable of knowing, loving, serving, and living in com- munion with the Most Holy One. Adam, at first, did or did not exert this capacity; if he did not, he was not very good,—not good at all. 4. On the intellectual and moral endow- ments of the progenitor of the human race, oats views appear to have been taken on both sides. In knowledge, some have thought him little inferior to the angels; others, as furnished with but the simple elements of science and of language. The truth seems to be that, as to capacity, his intellect must have been vigorous beyond that of any of his fallen descendants ; which itself gives us: very high views of the strength of his understanding, although we should allow him to have been created “lower than the angels.” As to his actual knowledge, 2 ADA that would depend upon the time and opportu- nity he had for observing the nature and laws of the objects around him; and the degree in which he was favoured with revelations from God on moral and religious subjects. On the degree of moral excellence also in the first man, much license has been given to a warm imagination, and to rhetorical embel- lishment; and Adam’s perfection has sometimes been fixed at an elevation which renders it ex- ceedingly difficult to conceive how he could fall into sin at all. On the other hand, those who either deny or hold very slightly the doc- trine of our hereditary depravity, delight to represent Adam as little superior in moral per- fection and capability to his descendants. But, if we attend to the passages of holy writ above quoted, we shall be able, on this subject, to as- certain, if not the exact degree of his moral endowments, yet that there is a certain stand- ard below which they cannot be placed.— Generally, he was made in the image of God, which, we have already proved, is to be under- stood morally as well as naturally. Now, however the image of any thing may be limited in extent, it must still be an accurate repre- sentation as far as it goes. Every thing good in the creation must always be a miniature representation of the excellence of the Creator ; but, in this case, the “goodness,” that is, the perfection, of every creature, according to the part it was designed to act in the general as- semblage of beings collected into our system, wholly forbids us to suppose that the image of God’s moral perfections in man was a blurred and dim representation. To whatever eatent it went, it necessarily excluded all that from man which did not resemble God; it was a likeness to God in “righteousness and true holiness,” whatever the degree of each might be, and excluded all admixture of unrighteous- ness and unholiness. Man, therefore, in his original state, was sinless, both in act and in principle. Hence it is said that “God made man upricHt.” That this signifies moral recti- tude cannot be doubted; but the import of the word is very extensive. It expresses, by an - easy figure, the evaciness of truth, justice, and obedience; and it comprehends the state and habit both of the heart and the life. Such, then, was the condition of primitive man; there was no obliquity in his moral principles, his mind, or affections; none in his conduct. He was perfectly sincere and exactly just, ren- dering from the heart all that was due to God and to the creature. Tried by the exactest plummet, he was upright ; by the most perfect rule, he was straight. The “ knowledge” in which the Apostle Paul, in the passage quoted above from Colossians iii, 10, places ‘the image of God” after which man was created, does not merely imply the faculty of understanding, which is a part of the natural image of God; but that which might be lost, because it is that in which we may be “renewed.” It is, therefore, to be understood of the faculty of knowledge in right exercise; and of that willing reception, and firm retain- 1 ADA which knowledge, when spoken of morally, 1s always understood in the Scriptures. We may not be disposed to allow, with some, that Adam understood the deep philosophy of nature, and could comprehend and explain the sublime mysteries of religion. The circumstance of his giving names to the animals, is certainly no sufficient proof of his having attained toa philosophical acquaintance with their qualities and distinguishing habits, although we should allow their names to be still retained in the Hebrew, and to be as expressive of their pecu- liarities as some expositors have stated. Suffi- cient time appears not to have been afforded him for the study of the properties of animals, as this event took place previous to the forma- tion of Eve; and as for the notion of his acquir- ing knowledge by intuition, this is contradicted by the revealed fact that angels themselves ac- quire their knowledge by observation and study, though no doubt, with great rapidity and cer- tainty. The whole of this transaction was super- natural; the beasts were “brought” to Adam, and it is probable that he named them under a Divine suggestion. He has been also supposed to be the inventor of language, but his history shows that he was never without speech. From the first he was able to converse with God; and we may, therefore, infer that language was in him a supernatural and miraculous endowment. That his understanding was, as to its capacity, deep and large beyond any of his posterity, must follow from the perfection in which he was created ; and his acquisitions of knowledge would, therefore, be rapid and easy. It was, however, in moral and religious truth, as being of the first concern to him, that we are to sup- pose the excellency of his knowledge to have consisted. ‘His reason would be clear, his judgment uncorrupted, and his conscience up- right and sensible.” The best knowledge would, in him, be placed first, and that of every other kind be made subservient to it, according to its relation to that. The Apostle adds to know- ledge, “righteousness and true holiness ;” terms which express, not merely freedom from sin, but positive and active virtue. Sober as these views of man’s primitive state are, it is not, perhaps, possible for us fully to conceive of so exalted a condition as even this. Below this standard it could not fall; and that it implied a glory, and dignity, and moral great- ness of a very exalted kind, is made sufficiently apparent from the degree of guilt charged upon Adam when he fell: for the aggravating cir- cumstances of his offence may well be deduced from the tremendous consequences which fol- lowed. 5. The salvation of Adam has been disputed ; for what reason does not’ appear, except that the silence of Scripture, as to his after life, has given bold men occasion to obtrude their specu- lations upon a subject which called for no such expression of opinion. As nothing to the con- trary appears, the charitable inference is, that as he was the first to receive the promise of re- demption, so he was the first to prove its virtue. It is another presumption, that as Adam and ing, and hearty approval, of religious truth, in Eve were clothed with skins of beasts, which ADA could not have been slain for food, these were the skins of their sacrifices; and as the offering of animal sacrifice was an expression of faith in the appointed propitiation, to that refuge we may conclude they resorted, and through its merits were accepted. ss 6. The Rabbinical and Mohammedan tradi- tions and fables respecting the first man are as absurd as they are numerous. Some of them indeed are monstrous, unless we suppose them to be allegories in the exaggerated style of the orientals. Some say that he was nine hundred cubits high; whilst others, not satisfied with this, affirm that his head touched the heavens. The Jews think that he wrote the ninety-first Psalm, invented the Hebrew letters, and com- posed several treatises; the Arabians, that he preserved twenty books which fell from heaven ; and the Musselmen, that he himself wrote ten volumes. 7. That Adam was a type of Christ, is plainly affirmed by St. Paul, who calls him “the figure of im who was to come.” Hence our Lord is sometimes called, not inaptly, the Second Adam. This typical relation stands sometimes in SIMILITUDE, sometimes in contrast. Adam was formed immediately by God, as was the humanity of Christ. In each the nature was spotless, and richly endowed with knowledge and true holiness. Both are seen invested with dominion over the earth and all its creatures; and this may explain the eighth Psalm, where David seems to make the sovereignty of the first man over the whole earth in its pristine glory, the prophetic symbol of the dominion of Christ over the world restored. Beyond these particulars fancy must not carry us; and the typical contrast must also be limited to that which is stated in Scripture, or supported by its allusions. Adam and Christ were each a pub- lic person, a federal head to the whole race of mankind; but the one was the fountain of sin and death, the other of righteousness and life. By Adam’s transgression “ many were made sin- ners,” Rom. v, 14-19. Through him, “death passed upon all men, because all have sinned” in him. But he thus prefigured that one man, by whose righteousness the ‘“ free gift comes upon all men to justification of life.” The first man communicated a living soul to all his pos- terity ; the other is a quickening Spirit, to re- store them to newness of life now, and to raise them up at the last day. By the imputation of the first Adam’s sin, and the communication of his fallen, depraved nature, death reigned over those who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression ; and through the right- eousness of the Second Adam, and the com- munication of a divine nature by the Holy Spi- rit, favour and grace shall much more abound in Christ’s true followers unio eternal life. See REDEMPTION. ADAMA, one of the five cities which were destroyed by fire from heaven, and buried un- der the waters of the Dead Sea, Gen. xiv, 2; Deut. xxix, 23. It was the most easterly of all those which were swallowed up; and there {s some probability that it was not entirely sunk under the waters ; or that the inhabitants of the 22 ADD country built a new city of the same name upon the eastern shore of the Dead Sea; for Isaiah, according to the Septuagint, says, ‘God will destroy the Moabites, the city of Ar, and the remnant of Adama.” : ADAMANT, vov, ’Adéyas, Ecclus. xvi, 16. A stone of impenetrable hardness. Sometimes this name is given to the diamond ; and so it is rendered, Jer. xvii, 1. But the Hebrew word rather means a very hard kind of stone, proha- bly the smiris, which was also used for cutting, engraving, and polishing other hard stones and crystals. The word occurs also in Ezek. iii, 9, and Zech. vii, 12. In the former place the Lord says to the Prophet, “I have made thy forehead as an adamant, firmer than a rock ;” that is, endued thee with undaunted courage. In the latter, the hearts of wicked men are de- clared to be as adamant; neither broken by the threatenings and judgments of God, nor pene- trated by his promises, invitations, and mercies. See Diamonp. ADAMITES, sects reputed to have profess- ed the attainment of a perfect innocence, so that they wore no clothes in their assemblies. But Lardner doubts their existence in ancient, and Beausobre in modern, times. ADAR, the twelfth month of the ecclesiasti- cal, and the sixth of the civil, year among the Hebrews. It contains but twenty-nine days, and answers to our February, and sonietimes enters into March, according to the course ot the moon, by which they regulated their seasons. ADARCONIM, ox»2s, a sort of money, mentioned 1 Chron. xxix, 7, and Ezra viii, 27. TheVulgatetranslates it, golden pence,the LX X, preces of gold. ‘They were darics, a gold coin, which some value at twenty drachms of silver. ADER. Jerom observes, that the place where the angels declared the birth of Jesus Christ to the shepherds, was called by this name, Luke ii, 8, 9. ‘The empress Helena built a church on this spot, the remains of which are still visible, ADDER, a venomous serpent, more usually called the viper. In our translation of the Bible we find the word adder five times; but without sufficient authority from the original. ppv, in Gen. xlix, 17, is probably the ceras-. tes; a serpent of the viper kind, of a light brown colour, which lurks in the sand and the tracks of wheels in the road, and unexpectedly bites not only the unwary traveller, but the legs ot horses and other beasts. By comparing the Danites to this artful reptile, the patriarch in- timated that by stratagem, more than by open bravery, they should avenge themselves of thein enemies and extend their conquests.—jn5, in Psalm lviiii, 4; xci, 13, signifies an asp. We may perhaps trace to this the Python of the Greeks, and its derivatives. (See Asp.)-—mway, found only in Psalm exl, 3, is derived from a verb which signifies to bend back on itself. The Chaldee Paraphrasts render it wazy, which we translate elsewhere, spider: they may therefore have understood it to have been the tarantula. It is rendered asp by the Septuagint and Vul- gate, and is so taken, Rom. ili, 13. The name is from the Arabic achasa. But there are seve- ral serpents which coil themselves previouslv ADD to darting on their enemy; if this be a charac- ter of the asp, it is not peculiar to that reptile yas, or yes, Prov. xxiii, 32; Isaiah x1, 8; xiv, 29; lix, 5; and Jer. viii, 17, is that deadly serpent called the basilisk, said to kili with its very breath. See Cockarrice. In Psalm lviii, 5, reference is made to the effect of musical sounds upon serpents. That they might be rendered tame and harmless by certain charms, or soft and sweet sounds, and trained to delight in music, was an opinion which prevailed very early and universally. Many ancient authors mention this effect ; Virgil speaks of it particularly, Zn. vii, v, 750. Quin et Marrubia venit de gente sacerdos, Frond: super guleum et felici comptus oliva, Archippi regis missu fortissimus Umbro ; Vipereo genert, et gravuer spirantibus hydris Spargere qui somnos cantuque manuque solebat, ‘ulcebatque tras, et morsus arte levabat. “Umbro, the brave Marrubian priest, was there, Sent by the Marsian monurch to the war. The smiling olive with ler verdant boughs Shades his bright helmet and adorns his brows ; His charms in peace the furious serpent keep ; And lull the envenom’d vipers race to sleep: His healing hand allay’d the raging pain, And at his touch the poisons fled again.” —_ Pitt. Mr. Boyle quotes the following passage from Sir H. Blunt’s Voyage into the Levant :— “ Many rarities of living creatures I saw in Grand Cairo; but the most ingenious was a nest of serpents, of two feet long, black and ugly, kept by a Frenchman, who, when he came to handle them, would not endure him, but ran and hid in their hole. Then he would take his cittern and play upon it. They, hearing his music, came all crawling to his feet, and began to climb up him, till he gave over playing, then away they ran.” The wonderful effect which music produces on the serpent tribes, is confirmed by the testi- mony of several respectable moderns. Adders swell at the sound of a flute, raising themselves up on the one half of their body, turning them- selves round, beating proper time, and follow- ing the instrument. Their head, naturally round and long like an eel, becomes broad and flat like a fan. The tame serpents, many of which the orientals keep in their houses, are known to leave their holes in hot weather, at the sound of a musical instrument, and run upon the performer. Dr. Shaw had an oppor- tunity of seeing a number of serpents keep exact time with the Dervishes in their circula- tory dances, running over their heads and arms, turning when they turned, and stopping when they stopped. The rattlesnake acknow- lelges the power of music as much as any of his family ; of which the following instance is a decisive proof: When Chateaubriand was in Canada, a snake of that species entered their encampment; a young Canadian, one of the party, who could play on the flute, to divert his associates, advanced against the serpent with his new species of weapon: on the approach of his enemy, the haughty reptile curled him- self into a spiral line, flattened his head, in- flated his cheeks, contracted his lips, displayed 23 ADD his envenomed fangs, and his bloody throat ; his double tongue glowed like two flames of fire; his eyes were burning coals; his body, swollen with rage, rose and fell like the bel- lows of a forge; his dilated skin assumed a dull and scaly appearance; and his tail, which sounded the denunciation of death, vibrated with so great rapidity as to resemble a light vapour. The Canadian now began to play upon his flute, the serpent started with surprise, and drew back his head. In proportion as he was struck with the magic effect, his eyes lost their fierceness, the oscillations of his tail be- came slower, and the sound which it emitted became weaker, and gradually died away. Less perpendicular upon their spiral line, the rings of the fascinated serpent were by degrees ex- panded, and sunk one after another upon the ground, in concentric circles. The shades of azure, green, white, and gold, recovered their brilliancy on his quivering skin, and slightly turning his head, he remained motionless, in the attitude of attention and pleasure. At this moment, the Canadian advanced a few steps, producing with his flute sweet and simple notes. he reptile, inclining his variegated neck, opened a passage with his head through the high grass, and began to creep after the musician, stopping when he stopped, and be- ginning to follow him again, as soon as he moved forward. In this manner he was led out of their camp, attended by a great number of spectators, both savages and Europeans, who could ‘scarcely believe their eyes, when they beheld this wonderful effect of harmony. The assembly unanimously decreed, that the serpent which had so highly entertained them, should be permitted to escape. Many of them are carried in baskets through Hindostan, and procure a maintenance for a set of people who play a few simple notes on the flute, with which the snakes seem much delighted, and keep time by a graceful motion of the head, erecting about half their length from the ground, and following the music with gentle curves, like the undulating lines of a swan’s neck. But on some serpents, these charms seem to have no power; and it appears from Scripture, that the adder sometimes takes precautions to prevent the fascination which he sees preparing for him: “ for the deaf adder shutteth her ear, and will not hear the voice of the most skilful charmer.” The threatening of the Prophet Jeremiah proceeds upon the same fact: “TI will send serpents” (cockatriceg) “among you, which will not be charmed, and they shall bite you.” In all these quotations, the sacred wri- ters, while they take it for granted that many serpents are disarmed by charming, plainly ad- mit that the powers of the charmer are in vain exerted upon others. . It is the opinion of some interpreters, that the word $nw, which in some parts of Scripture denotes a lion, in others means an adder, or some other kind of serpent. Thus, in the ninety-first Psalm, they render it the basilisk: “Thou shalt tread upon the adder and the basilisk, the young lion and the dragon thou ADO shalt trample under foot.” Indeed, all the an- cient expositors agree, that some species of ser- pent is meant, although they cannot determine what particular serpent the sacred writer had in view. The learned Bochart thinks it ex- tremely probable that the holy Psalmist in this verse treats of serpents only; and, by conse- quence, that both the terms brw and 22 mean _some kind of snakes, as well as jn and }9n; because the coherence of the verse is by this view better preserved, than by mingling lions and serpents together, as our translators and other interpreters have commonly done; nor is it easy to imagine what can be meant by tread- ing upon the lion, and trampling the young lion under foot; for it is not possible in walk- ing to tread upon the lion, as upon the adder, the basilisk, and other serpents. To ADJURE, to bind by oath, as under the penalty of a fearful curse, Joshua vi, 26; Mark v,7. 2. Tocharge solemnly, as by the author- ity, and under pain, of the displeasure of God, Matt. xxvi, 63; Acts xix, 13. ADONAI, one of the names of God. This word in the plural number signifies my Lords. The Jews, who either out of respect or super- stition, do not pronounce the name of Jehovah, read Adonai in the room of it, as often as they meet with Jehovah in the Hebrew text. But the ancient Jews were not so scrupulous. Neither is there any law which forbids them to pronounce any name of God. ADONIS. The text of the Vulgate in Ezek. viii, 14, says, that the Prophet saw women sit- ting in the temple, and weeping for Adonis; but according to the reading of the Hebrew text, they are said to weep for Thamuz, or Tammuz, the hidden one. Among the Egyp- tians Adonis was adored under the name of Osiris, the husband of Isis. But he was some- times called by the name of Ammuz, or Tam- muz, the concealed, probably to denote his death or burial. The Hebrews, in derision, some- times call him the dead, Psalm evi, 28; Lev. xix, 28; because they wept for him, and repre- sented him as dead im his coffin; and at other times they denominate him the image of jeal- ousy, Ezek. viii, 3, 5, because he was the object of the jealousy of Mars. The Syrians, Phenicians, and Cyprians, called him Adonis; and Calmet is of opinion that the Ammonites and Moabites designated him by the name of Baal-peor. The manner in which they celebrated the festival of this false deity was as follows: They represented him as lying dead in his coffin, wept for him, bensoaned themselves, and sought for him with great eagerness and inquietude. After this, they pretended that they had found him agair, and that he was still living. At this good rews they exhibited marks of the most extravagant joy, and were guilty of a thousand lewd practices, to convince Venus how much they congratulated her on the return and revival of her favourite, as they had before condoled with her on his death. The Hebrew women, of whom the Prophet Ezekiel speaks, celebrated the feasts of Tammuz, or Adonis, in Jerusalem ; and God showed the Prophet these at ADO women weeping for this infamous god, even in his temple. ; Fabulous history gives the following account of Adonis: He was a beautiful young shepherd, the son of Cyniras, king of Cyprus, by his own daughter Myrrha. The goddess Venus fell in love with this youth, and frequently met him on mount Libanus. Mars, who envied this rival, transformed himself into a wild boar, and, as Adonis was hunting, struck him in the groin and killed him. Venus lamented the death of Adonis in an inconsolable manner. The east- ern people, in imitation of her mourning, ge- nerally established some solemn days for the bewailing of Adonis. After his death, Venus went to the shades, and obtained from Proser- pine, that Adonis might be with her six months in the year, and continue the other six in the infernal regions. Upon this were founded those public rejoicings, which succeeded the lamentations of his death. Some say that Adonis was a native of Syria; some, of Cy- prus; and others, of Egypt. : ADOPTION. An act by which one takes another into his family, owns him for his son, and appoints him his heir. The Greeks and Romans had many regulations concerning adoption. It does not appear that adoption, properly so called, was formerly in use among the Jews. Moses makes no mention of it in his laws; and the case of Jacob’s two grand sons, Gen. xlviii, 14, seems rather a substitution. 2. Adoption in a theological sense is that act of God’s free grace by which, upon our being justified by faith in Christ, we are received inte the family of God, and entitled to the inherit- ance of heaven. This appears not so much a distinct act of God, as involved in, and neces- sarily flowing from, our justification; so that at least the one always implies the other. Nor is there any good ground to suppose that in the New Testament the term adoption is used with any reference to the civil practice of adoption by the Greeks, Romans, or other Heathens, and therefore it is not judicious to illustrate the texts in which the word occurs by their for- malities. The Apostles in using the term appear to have had before them the simple view, that our sins had deprived us of our sonship, the favour of God, and the right to the inheritance of eternal life; but that, upon our return to God, and reconciliation with him, our forfeited privileges were not only restored, but greatly heightened through the paternal kindness of God. They could scarcely be forgetful of the affecting parable of the prodigal son; and it is under the same view that St. Paul quotes from the Old Testament, “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you, and I will be a Father unto you, and_ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” Adoption, then, is that act by which we who were alienated, and enemies, and disinherited, are made the sous of God, and heirs of his eternal glory. “Tf children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ ;” where it is to be remarked, that it is not in our own we ADO right, nor in the right of any work done in us, or which we ourselves do, though it should be an evangelical work, that we become heirs ; but jointly with Christ, and in his right. 3. To this state belong, freedom from a ser- vile spirit, for we are not servants but sons ; the special love and care of God our heavenly Father; a filial confidence in him; free access to him at all times and in all circumstances ; a title to the heavenly inheritance; and the Spirit of adoption, or the witness of the Holy Spirit to our adoption, which is the foundation of all the comfort we can derive from those privileges, as it is the only means by which we can know that they are ours. 4. The last mentioned great privilege of adoption merits special attention. It consists in the inward witness or testimony of the Holy Spirit to the sonship of believers, from which flows a comfortable persuasion or conviction of our present acceptance with God, and the hope of our future and eternal glory. This is taught in several passages of Scripture :— Rom. viii, 15, 16, “ For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but the Spirit of pape whereby we cry, Abba, Fa- ther. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God.” In this passage it is to be remarked, 1. That the Holy Spirit takes away “ fear,” a servile dread of God as offended. 2. That the “ Spirit of God” here mentioned, is not the personified spirit or genius of the Gospel, as some would have it, but “the Spirit itseif,” or himself, and hence he is called in the Galatians, “‘ the Spirit of his Son,” which cannot mean the genius of the Gospel. 3. That he inspires a filial confidence in God, as our Father, which is opposed to “ the fear” produced by the “‘ spirit of bondage.” 4. That he excites this filial confidence, and enables us to call God our Father, by witness- ing, bearing testimony with our spirit, ‘ that we are the children of God.” Gal. iv, 4-6, “ But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that. we might receive the adoption of sons; and because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, erying, Abba, Father.” Here also are to be noted, 1. The means of our redemption from under (the curse a) the law,—the incarnation and sufferings of Christ. 2, That the adoption of sons follows upon our actual redemption from that curse, or, in other words, upon our pardon. 3. That upon our being pardoned, the “Spirit of the Son” is “sent forth into our hearts,” producing the same effect as that mentioned in the Epistle to the Romans, viz. filial confidence in God,— “crying, Abba, Father.” To these texts are to be added all those passages, so numerous in the New Testament, which express the confidence and the joy of Christians ; their friendship with God; their confident access to him as their God; their entire union and delightful inter- course with him in spirit. ; This has been generally termed the doctrine D ADO St. Paul, “the full assurance of faith,” and “the full assurance of hope,” may warrant the use of the word. But as there is a current and generally understood sense of this term, imply- ing that the assurance of our present accept- ance and sonship implies an assurance of our final perseverance, and of an indefeasible title to heaven; the phrase, a comfortable persua- sion, or conviction of our justification and adoption, arising out of the Spirit’s inward and direct testimony, is to be preferred. There is, also, another reason for the sparin, and cautious use of the term assurance, which is, that it seems to imply, though not necessa- rily, the absence of all doubt, and shuts out all those lower degrees of persuasion which may exist in the experience of Christians. For, our faith may not at first, or at all times, be equally strong, and the testimony of the Spirit may have its degrees of clearness. Nevertheless, the fulness of this attainment is to be pressed upon every one: “ Let us draw near,” says St. Paul to all Christians, “ with full assurance of faith.” It may serve, also, to remove an objection sometimes made to the doctrine, and to correct an error which sometimes pervades the state- ment of it, to observe that this assurance, per- suasion, or conviction, whichever term be adopted, is not of the essence of justifying faith; that is, justifying faith does not consist in the assurance that I am now forgiven, through Christ. This would be obviously con- tradictory. For we must believe before we can be justified; much more before we can be assured, in any degree, that we are justified :— this persuasion, therefore, follows justification, and is one of its results. But though we must not only distinguish, but separate, this persua- sion of our acceptance from the faith which justifies, we must not separate it, but only dis- tineuish it, from justification itself. With that come in as concomitants, adoption, the “ Spirit of adoption,” and regeneration. ADORATION, the act of rendering divine honours; or of addressing God or any other being as supposing it to be God. (See Worship.) The word is compounded of ad, “to,” and os, “mouth ;” and literally signifies to apply the hand to the mouth; manwm ad os admovere, “to kiss the hand ;” this being in eastern coun- tries one of the great marks of respect and sub- mission. To this mode of idolatrous worshi Job refers, xxxi, 26,27. See also 1 Kings xix, 18. The Jewish manner of adoration was by prostration, bowing, and kneeling. The Chris- tians adopted the Grecian, rather than the Roman, method, and always adored uncovered. The ordinary posture of the ancient Christians was kneeling; but on Sundays, standing. Aporation is also used for certain extraordi- nary acts of civil honour, which resemble those paid to the Deity, yet are given to men. We read of adorations paid to kings, princes, emperors, popes, bishops, abbots, &c., by kneel- ing, falling prostrate, kissing the feet, hands, garments, &c. : The Persian manner of adoration, introduced of assurance, and, perhaps, the expressions of by Cyrus, was by bending the knee, and falling ADO on the face at tae prince’s feet, striking the earth with the forehead, and kissing the ground. This was an indispensable condition on the part of foreign ministers and ambassadors, as well as the king’s own vassals, of being admitted to audience, and of obtaining any favour. This token of reverence was ordered to be paid to their favourites as well as to themselves, as we learn from the history of Haman and Mordecai, in the book of Esther; and even to their sta- tues and images; for Philostratus informs us that, in the time of Apollonius, a golden statue of the king was exposed to all who entered Babylon, and none but those who adored it were admitted within the gates. The ceremony, which the Greeks called xpooxwvsty, Conon re- fused to perform to Artaxerxes, and Callis- thenes to Alexander the Great, as reputing it impious and unlawful. Lhe adoration performed to the Roman and Grecian emperors consisted in bowing or kneel- ing at the prince’s feet, laying hold of his pur- le robe, and then bringing the hand to the ips, Some attribute the origin of this practice to Constantius. They were only persons of rank or dignity that were entitled to the honour. Bare knecling before the emperor to deliver a petition, was also called adoration. It is particularly said of Dioclesian, that he had gems fastened to his shoes, that divine honours might be more willingly paid him, by kissing his feet. And this mode of adoration was continued till the last age of the Greek monarchy. When any one pays his respects to the king of Achen in Sumatra, he first takes off his shoes and stockings, and leaves them at the door. : The practice of adoration may be said to be still subsisting in England, in the custom of kissing the king’s ox queen’s hand. Adoration is also used in the court of Rome, in the ceremony of kissing the pope’s feet. It is not certain at what period this practice was introduced into the church: but it was proba- bly borrowed from the Byzantine court, and ac- companied the temporal power. Dr. Maclaine, in the chronological table which he has sub- joined to his translation of Mosheim’s Ecclesi- astical History, places its introduction in the eighth century, immediately after the grant of Pepin and Charlemagne. Baronius traces it to a much higher antiquity, and pretends that examples of this homage to the vicars of Christ occur so early as the year 204. These prelates finding a vehement disposition in the people to fall down before them, and kiss their feet, pro- cured crucifixes to be fastened on their slippers; by which stratagem, the adoration intended for the pope’s person is supposed to be transferred toChrist. Divers acts of this adoration we find offered even by princes to the pope; and Gre- gory XIII, claims this act of homage as a duty. Adoration properly is paid only to the pope when placed on the altar, in which posture the cardinals, conclavists, alone are admitted to kiss his feet. The people are afterward admit- ted to do the like at St. Peter’s church; the ceremony is described at large by Guicciardin. Adoration is more particularly used for kiss- 26 ADU ing one’s hand in presence of another as a token of reverence. The Jews adored by kiss- ing their hands, and bowing down their heads; whence in their language kissing is properly used for adoration. ‘This illustrates a passage in Psalm ii, “ Kiss the Son lest he be angry,” —that is, pay him homage and worship. . It was the practice among the Greek Chris- tians to worship with the head uncovered, 1 Cor. xi; but in the east the ancient custom of worshipping with the head covered was retained. ADRAMMELECH, the son of Sennacherib, king of Assyria. The king returning to Nine- veh, after his unbeey expedition made into Judea against king Hezekiah, was killed by his two sons, Adrammelech and Sharezer, while at his devotions in the temple of his god Nis- roch, Isaiah xxxvii, 38; 2 Kings xix. It is not known what prompted these two princes to commit this parricide; but after they had com- mitted the murder, they fled for safety to the mountains of Armenia, and their brother, Esar- haddon, succeeded to the crown. ADRAMMELECH was also one o the gods adored by the inhabitants of on who were settled in the country of Samaria, in the room of the Israelites, who were carried beyond the Euphrates. The Sepharvaites made their children pass through the fire in honour of this idol, and another, called Anammelech, 2 Kings xvii, 31. The Rabbins say, that Adrammelech was represented under the form of a mule; but there is much more reason to believe that Adrammelech meant the sun, and Anammelech the moon; the first signifying the magnificent king, the second the gentle king—many east- ern nations adoring the rnoon as a god, not as a goddess. ADRAMYTTIUM, acity on the west coast of Mysia, in Lesser Asia, over against the isle of Lesbos. It was in a ship belonging to this place, that St. Paul sailed from Cesarea to pro- ceed to Rome as a prisoner, Acts xxvii, 2. It is now called Edremit. ADRIA. This name, which occurs in Acts xxvii, 27, is now confined to the gulf lying between Italy on the one side, and the coasts of Dalmatia and Albania on the other. But in St. Paul’s time it was extended to all that por- tion of the Mediterranean between Crete and Sicily. Thus Ptolemy says that Sicily was bounded on the east by the Adriatic, and Crete in a similar manner on the west; and Strabo says that the Ionian Gulf was a part of what, in his time, was called the Adriatic Sea, ADULLAM, a city in the tribe of Judah, to the west of Hebron, whose king was slain by Joshua, Josh. xii, 15. It is frequently men- tioned in the history of Saul and David; and is chiefly memorable from the cave in its neigh- bourhood, where David retired from Achish, king of Gath, when he was joined by the dis- tressed and discontented, to the number of four hundred, over whom he became captain, 1 Sam. xxil, 1. Judas Maccabeus encamped in the plain of Adullam, where he passed the Sabbath day, 2 Mac. xii, 38. Eusebius says that, in his time, Adullam was a very great town, ten miles to the east of Eleutheropolis. ADU 27 ADULTERY, the violation of the marriage bed, The law of Moses punished with death both the man and the woman who were guilty of this crime, Lev. xx, 10. If a woman was betrothed to a man, and was guilty of this in- famous crime before the marriage was com- pleted, she was, in this case, along with her paramour, to be stoned, Deut. xxii, 22-24. When any man among the Jews, prompted by jealousy, suspected his wife of the crime of adultery, he brought her first before the judges, and informed them that in consequence of his suspicions, he had privately admonished her, but that she was regardiess of his admonitions. If before the judges she asserted her innocency, he required that she should drink the waters of jealousy, that God might by these means dis- cover what she attempted to conceal, Num. v, 12, &c. The man then produced his witnesses, and they were heard. After this, both the man and the woman were conveyed to Jerusalem, and placed before the sanhedrim ; the judges of which, by threats and other means, endea- voured to confound the woman, and make her confess. If she persisted in denying the fact, she was led to the eastern gate of the court of Israel, stripped of her own clothes, and dressed in black, before great numbers of her own sex. The priest then told her that if she was really innocent, she had nothing to fear; but if guilty, she might expect to suffer all that the law had denounced against her, to which she answered, “Amen, amen.” The priest then wrote the terms of the law in this form :—‘ If a strange man hath not come near you, and you are not polluted by forsaking the bed of your hus- band, these bitter waters, which I have cursed, wili not hurt you: but if you have polluted yourself by coming near to another man, and gone astray from your husband,—may you be accursed of the Lord, and become an example for all his people; may your thigh rot, and your belly swell till it burst; may these cursed wa- ters enter into your belly, and being swelled therewith, may your thighs putrefy.” After this, the priest filled a pitcher out of the brazen vessel, near the altar of burnt offer- ings, cast some dust of the pavement into it, mingled something with it as bitter as worm- wood, and then read the curses, and received her answer of Amen. Another priest, in the meantime, tore off her clothes as low as her bosom—made her head bare—untied the tresses of her hair—fastened her clothes, which were thus torn, with a girdle under her breast, and then presented her with the tenth part of an ephah, or about three pints, of barley meal. he other priest then gave her the waters of jealousy, or bitterness, to drink; and as soon as the woman had swallowed them, he gave her the meal in a vessel like a frying-pan into her hand. This was stirred before the Lord, and part of it thrown into the fire of the altar. If the wife was innocent, she returned with her husband, and the waters, so far from injur- ing her, increased her health, and made her more fruitful; but if she was guilty, she grew pale immediately, her eyes swelled; and, lest she should pollute the temple, she was instantly ADU carried out, with these symptoms upon her, and died instantly, with all the ignominious cireum- stances related in the curses. On this law of Moses, Michaélis has the fol- lowing remarks :— “This oath was, perhaps, a relic of some more severe and barbarous consuetudinary laws, whose rigours Moses mitigated; as he did in many other cases, where an established usage could not be conveniently abolished alto- gether. Among ourselves, in barbarous times, the ordeal, or trial by fire, was, notwithstand- ing the purity of our married people, in com- mon use; and this, in point of equity, was much the same in effect, as if the husband had had the right to insist on his wife submitting to the hazardous trial of her purity, by drink- ing a poisoned potion; which, according to an ancient superstition, could never hut her if she was innocent. And, in fact, such a right is not altogether unexampled; for, according to Oldendorp’s History of the Mission of the Evangelical Brethren, in the Caribbee Islands, it Is actually in use among some of the savage nations in the interior parts of Western Africa. “Now, when in place of a poisoned potion like this, which very few husbands can be very willing to have administered to their wives, we see, as among the Hebrews, an imprecation- drink, whose avenger God himself promises to become, we cannot but be struck with the con- trast of wisdom and clemency which such a contrivance manifests. In the one case, (and herein consists their great distinction,) inno- cence can only be preserved by a miracle; while on the other, guilt only is revealed and punished by the hand of God himself. “ By one of the clauses of the oath of pur- gation, (and had not the legislator been perfect- ly assured of this divine mission, the insertion of any such clause would have been a very bold step indeed,) a visible and corporeal punish- ment was specified, which the person swearing imprecated on herself, and which God himself was understood as engaging to execute. To have given so accurate a definition of the pun- ishment that God meant to inflict, and still more one that consisted of such a rare disease, would have been a step of incomprehensible boldness in a legislator who pretended to have a divine mission, if he was not, with the most assured conviction, conscious of its reality. “Seldom, however, very seldom, was it likely that Providence would have an opportunity of inflicting the punishment in question. For the oath was so regulated, that a woman of the utmost effrontery could scarcely have taken it without changing colour to such a degree as to betray herself, “Tn the first place, it was not administered to the woman in her own house, but she was under the necessity of going to that place of the land where God in a special manner had his abode, and took it there. Now, the solem- nity of the place, unfamiliarized to her by daily business or resort, would have a great effect upon her mind. In the nezé place there was offered unto God what was termed an ezecra- tion offering, not in order io propitiate his 2 ADU mercy, but to invoke his vengeance on the guilty. Here the process was extremely slow, which gave her more time for reflection than to a guilty person could be acceptable, and that, too, amidst a multitude of unusual ceremonies. For the priest conducted her to the front of the sanctuary, and took holy water, that is, water out of the priests’ laver, which stood before it, together with some earth off its floor, which was likewise deemed holy ; and having put the earth in the water, he then proceeded to un- cover the woman’s head, that her face might be seen, and every change on her countenance during the administration of the oath accurately observed: and this was a circumstance which, in the east, where the women are always veiled, must have had a great effect ; because a woman, accustomed to wear a veil, could, on so extra- ordinary an occasion, have had far less com- mand of her eyes and her countenance than a European adulteress, who is generally a perfect mistress in all the arts of dissimulation, would display. To render the scene still more awful, the tresses of her hair were loosened, and then the execration offering was put into der hand, while the priest held in As the imprecation water. This is commonly termed the ditler water ; but we must not understand this as if the water had really been bitter; for how could it have been so? The earth of the floor of the tabernacle could not make it bitter. Among the Hebrews, and other oriental’ nations, the word bitter was rather used for curse: and, strictly speaking, the phrase does not mean bitler water, but the water of bitterness. that is, of curses. The priest now pronounced the oath, which was in all points so framed that it could excite no terrors in the breast of an innocent woman ; for it expressly consisted in this, that the imprecation water should not harm her if she was innocent. It would seem as if the priest here made a stop, and again left the wo- man some time to consider whether she would proceed with the oath. This I infer from the circumstance of his speech not being directly continued in verse 21st, which is rather the apodosis of what goes before; and from the detail proceeding anew in the words of the his- torian, Then shall the priest pronounce the rest of the oath and the curses to the woman; and proceed thus.—After this stop he pronounced the curses, and the woman was obliged to de- clare her acquiescence in them by a repeated Amen. Nor was the solemn scene yet altoge- ther at an end; but rather, as it were com- menced anew. For the priest had yet to write the curses in a book, which I suppose he did at great deliberation; having done so, he washed them out again in the very impreca- tion water, which the woman had now to drink ; and this water being now presented to her, she was obliged to drink it, with this warn- ing and assurance, in the name of God, that if she was guilty, it would prove within her an absolute curse. Now, what must have been her feelings, while drinking, if not conscious of purity? In my opinion she must have con- ceived that she already felt an alteration in the state of her body, and the germ, as it were, of 3 RA the disease springing within her. Conscience and imagination would conspire together, and render it almost impossible for her to drink it out. Finally, the execration offering was taken out of her hand, and burnt upon the altar. I cannot but think that, under the sanction of such a purgatoriwm, perjury must have been a very rare occurrence indeed. If it happened but once in an age, God had bound himself to unish it; and if this took place but once, (if bat one woman who had taken the oath was attacked with that rare disease which it threat- ened,) it was quite enough to serve as a deter- ment to all others for at least one generation.” This procedure had also the effect of keep- ing in mind, among the Jews, God’s high dis- pleasure against this violation of his law; and though some lax moralists have been found, in modern times, to palliate it, yet the Christian will always remember the solemn denuncia- tions of the New Testament against a crime so aggravated, whether considered in its effects upon the domestic relations, upon the moral character of the guilty parties, or upon society at large,— Whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” . 2 ApuuTsry, in the prophetic scriptures, is often metaphorically taken, and signifies idolatry, and apostasy from God, by which men basely defile themselves, and wickedly violate their ecclesiastical and covenant relation to God, Hos. ii, 2; Ezek. xvi. ADVOCATE, apéxAnros, a patron, one who pleads the cause of any one before another. In this sense the term is applied to Christ cur in- tercessor, 1 John ii, 1. It signifies also a com- cee and an instructer ; and is used of the oly Spirit, John xiv, 16, and xv, 26. ADYTUM isa Greek word, signifying inac- cessible, by which is understood the most retir- ed and secret place of the Heathen temples, into which none but the priests were allowed to enter. The adytwm of the Greeks and Romans answered to the sanctum sanctorwm of the Jews, and was the place from whence oracles were delivered. : JERA, a series of years, commencing from a certain point of time called an epocha: thus we say, the Christian era; that is, the number of years elapsed since the birth of Christ. The generality of authors use the terms era and epocha in a synonymous sense; that is, for the point of time from which any computation begins. The ancient Jews made use of several eras in their computation; sometimes they reckon- ed from the deluge, sometimes from the division of tongues ; sometimes from their departure out of Egypt; and at other times from the building of the temple; and sometimes from the restora- tion after the Babylonish captivity: but their vulgar ra was from the creation of the world, which falls in with the year of the Julian period 953; and consequently they supposed the world created 294 years sooner than according to our computation. But when the Jews be- came subject to the Syro-Macedonian kings, they were obliged to make use of the wra of the Seleucidz in all their contracts, which from AFF hence was called the zra of contracts. This wra begins with the year of the world 3692, of the Julian Period 4402, and before Christ 312. The era in ence use among the Christians is that from the birth of Jesus Christ, concerning the true time of which chronologers differ ; some place it two years, others four, and again others five, before the vulgar zra, which is fixed for the year of the world 4004: but Archbishop Usher, and after him the generality of modern chrono- logers, place it in the year of the world 4000. The ancient Heathens used several eras: 1. The era of the first olympiad is placed in the year of the world 3228, and before the vul- ar era of Jesus Christ 776. 2. The taking of roy by the Greeks, in the year of the world 2820, and before Jesus Christ 1884. 3. The voyage undertaken for the purpose of bringing away the golden fleece, in the year of the world 2760. 4. The foundation of Rome, in 2856. 5. The era of Nabonassar, in 3257. 6. The wera of Alexander the Great, or his last victory over Darius, in 3674, and before Jesus Christ 330. AERIANS, a sect which arose about the mid- dle of the fourth century, being the followers of Aérius, (who must be distinguished from Arius and Aétius,) a monk and a presbyter of Sebas- tia, in Pontus. He is charged with being an Arian, or Semi-Arian; but the heaviest accusa- tion against him is an attempt to reform the church; and, by rejecting prayers for the dead, with certain fasts and festivals then supersti- tiously observed, to reduce Christianity as near- ly as possible “to its primitive simplicity; a urpose, indeed, laudable and noble,” says Dr. Mtoshetn, “ when considered in itself; though the principles from whence it springs, and the means by which it is executed, are sometimes, in many respects, worthy of censure, and may have been so in the case of this reformer.” This gentle rebuke probably refers to a report that the zeal of Aérius originated in his being disappointed of the bishopric of Sebastia, (con- ferred on Eustathius,) which led him to affirm that the Scriptures make no distinction between a presbyter and a bishop, which he founded chiefly on 1 Tim. iv, 14. ence he is consider- ed by many, as the father of the modern Pres- byterians—“ For this opinion, chiefly, says Dy. urner, “he is ranked among the heretics, by Epiphanius, his contemporary, who calls it a notion full of folly and madness. His followers were driven from the churches, and out of all the towns and villages, and were obliged to as- semble in the woods, caverns, and open defiles.” AETIANS, another branch (as it is said) of Arians, so called from Aétius, bishop of An- tioch, who is also charged with maintaining “faith without works,” as “ sufficient to salva- tion,” or rather justification ; and with maintain- ing “that sin is not imputed to believers.” It is added, that he taught God had revealed to him things which he had “ concealed from the Apostles;” which, perhaps, is only a misrepre- sentation of what he taught on the doctrine of divine influences. AFFINITY. There are several degrees of affinity, wherein marriage was prohibited by the law of Moses: thus the sorf could not marry 29 AGA his mother, nor his father’s wife, Lev. xviii, 7, &c. The brother could not marry his sister, whether she were so by the father only, or onl by the mother, and much less if she were his sister both by the same father and mother. The grandfather could not marry his granddaughter, either by his son or daughter. No one could marry the daughter of his father’s wife; nor the sister of his father or mother; nor the uncle, his niece; nor the aunt, her nephew; nor the nephew, the wife of his uncle by the father’s side. The father-in-law could not marry his daughter-in-law ; nor the brother the wife of his brother, while living; nor even after the death of his brother, if he left children. If he left no children, the surviving brother was to raise up children to his deceased brother by marrying his widow. It was forbidden to marry the mother and the daughter at one time, or the daughter of the mother’s son, or the daughter of her daughter, or two sisters, together. It is true the patriarchs, before the law, mar- ried their sisters, as Abraham married Sarah, who was his father’s daughter by another mo- ther; and two sisters together, as Jacob mar- ried Rachel and Leah; and their own sisters, both by father and mother, as Seth and Cain. But these cases are not to be proposed as ex- amples; because in some they were authorized by necessity ; in others, by custom; and the law as yet was not in being. If some other examples may be found, either before or since the law, the Scripture expressly disapproves of them; as Reuben’s incest with Balah, his father’s concu- bine; and the action of Ammon with his sister Tamar; and that of Herod Antipas, who mar- ried Herodias, his sister-in-law, his brother Philip’s wife, while her husband was yet living ; and that which St. Paul reproves and punishes among the Corinthians, 1 Cor. v, 1. AGABUS, a prophet, and as the Greeks say, one of the seventy disciples of our Saviour. He foretold that there would be a great famine over all the earth; which came to pass accordingly, under the emperor Claudius, in the fourth year of his reign, i D. 44, Acts xi, 28. : Ten years after this, as St. Paul was going to Jerusalem, and had already landed at Cesa- rea, in Palestine, the same prophet, Agabus, arrived there, and coming to visit St. Paul and his company, he took this Apostle’s girdle, and binding himself hand and feet, he said, “ Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this gir- dle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles,” Acts xxi, 10. We know no other particulars of the lifé of Agabus. The Greeks say that he suffered martyrdom at Antioch. ‘AGAG. This seems to have been a common name of the princes of Amalek, one of whom was very powerful as early as the time of Moses, Num. xxiv, 7. On account of the cruelties ex- ercised by this king and his army against the Israelites, as they returned from Egypt a bloody and long contested battle took place between Joshua and the Amalekites, in which the former was victorious, Exod. xvii, 8-13. At the same time, God protested with an oath to coe Amalek, verses 14-16; Deut. xxv, 17-19, A. M, AGE 2513. About four hundred years after this, the Lord remembered the cruel treatment of his ple, and his own oath; and he commanded aul, by the mouth of Samuel, to destroy the Amalekites. Saul mustered his army, and found it two hundred thousand strong, 1 Sam. xv, 1, &c. Having entered into their country, he cut in pieces all he could meet with from Havilah to Shur. Agag their king, and the best of their cattle, were however spared, an act of disobedience on the part of Saul, probably dictated by covetousness. But Agag did not long enjoy this reprieve; for Samuel no sooner heard that he was alive, than he sent for him; and notwithstanding his insinuating ad- dress, and the vain hopes with which he flat- tered himself that the bitterness of death was past, he caused him to be hewed to pieces in Gilgal before the Lord, saying, “‘ As wea, in the same identical mode as, thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be child- less among women.” This savage chieftain had hewed many prisoners to death; and, therefore, by command of the Judge of the whole earth, he was visited with the same punishment which he had inflicted upon others. See Love Feast. AGAR, mount Sinai, so called, Gal. iv, 24, 25. But this reading is doubtful, many MSS. having the verse, “ for this Sinai is a mountain of Arabia.” Some critics however contend for the reading of the received text, and urge that Agar, which signifies “a rocky mountain,” is the Arabic name for Sinai. AGATE, 12v, Exod. xxviii, 19; xxxix, 12. In the Septuagint dyarns, and Vulgate, achates. A precious stone, semi-pellucid. Its variega- | tions are sometimes most beautifully disposed, representing plants, trees, rivers, clouds, &c. Its Hebrew name is, perhaps, derived from the country whence the Jews imported it; for the merchants of Sheba brought to the market of Tyre all kinds of precious stones, Ezek. xxvii, 22. The agate was the second stone in the third row of the pectoral of the high priest, Exod. xxviii, 19, and xxxix, 12 AGE, in the most general sense of the term, denotes the duration of any substance, animate or inanimate ; and 1s applied either to the whole period of its existence, or to that portion of it which precedes the time to which the description ofitrefers. In this sense it is used to signify either the whole natural duration of the urs of man, or any interval of it that has elapsed before the period of which wespeak. "When age is under- stood of a certain portion of the life of man, its whole duration is divided into four different ages, viz. infancy, youth, manhood, and old age: the first extending to the fourteenth year; the second, denominated youth, adolescence, or the age of puberty, commencing at fourteen, and terminating at about twenty five; manhood, or the virile age, concluding at fifty; and the ‘ast ending at the close of life. Some divide the first period into infancy and childhood; and the last likewise into two stages, calling that which succeeds the age of seventy-five, decrepit old age. Age is applicable to the duration of things inanimate or factitious; and in this use 30 AGR of the term we speak of the age of a house, of a country, of a state or kingdom, &c. Acz, in chronology, is used for a centwry, or a period of one hundred years: in which sense itis the same with seculum, and diflers from generation. It is also used in speaking of the times past since the creation of the world. The several ages of the world may be reduced to three grand epochas, viz. the age of the law of nature, called by the Jews the void age, from Adam to Moses. The age of the Jewish law, from Moses to Christ, called by the Jews the present age. And the age of grace, from Christ to the present year. ‘I'he Jews call the third age, the age to come, or the future age; denoting by it the time from the advent of the Messiah to the end of the world. The Romans distinguished the time that preceded them into three ages: the obscure or uncertain age, which reached down as low as Ogyges king of Attica, in whose reign the deluge happened in Greece ; the fabulous or heroic age, which ended at the first olympiad; and the historical age, which commenced at the building of Rome. Among the poets, the four ages of the world are, the golden, the silver, the brazen, and the iron age. Age is sometimes used among the ancient poets in the same sense as generation, or a period of thirty years. Thus Nestor is said to have lived three ages, when he was ninety years old. The period preceding the birth of Jesus Christ has been generally divided into six ages. The first extends from the creation to the deluge, and comprehends 1656 years. The second age, from the deluge to Abraham’s en- tering the land of promise, A. M. 2082, com- prehends 426 years. The third age, from Abra- ham’s entrance into the promised land to the Exodus, A. M. 2512, includes 430 years. The fourth age, from the Exodus to the building of the temple by Solomon, A. M. 2992, contains 480 years. The fifth age, from the foundation of Solomon’s temple to the Babylonish captivity, A.M. 3416, comprehends 424 years. The sixth age, from the Babylonish captivity to the birth of Jesus Christ, A. M. 4000, the fourth year be- fore the vulgar zra, including 584 years. Those who follow the Septuagint, or Greek version, divide this period into seven ages, viz. 1. From the creation to the deluge, 2262 years. 2. From the deluge to the confusion of tongues, 738 years. 3. From this confusion to the calling of Abraham, 460 years. 4. From this period to Jacob’s descent into Egypt, 215 years; and from this event to the Exddus, 430 years, making the whole 645 years. 5. From the Exo- dus to Saul, 774 years. 6. From Saul to Cyrus, 583 years. 7 From Cyrus to the vulgar wra of Christians, 538 years; the whole period from the creation to this period containing 6000 ears. AGRIPPA, surnamed Herod, the son of Aristobulus and Mariamne, and grandson of Herod the Great, was born A. M. 3997, three years before the birth of our Saviour, and seven years before the vulgar era. After the death of his father Aristobulus, Josephus informs ug that Herod, his grandfather, took care of his education, and sent him to Rome to make hia’ AGR court to Tiberius. Agrippa, having a great in- clination for Caius, the son of Germanicus, and grandson of Antonia, chose to attach himself to this prince, as if he had some prophetic views of the future elevation of Caius, who at that time was beloved by all the world. The great assiduity and agreeable behaviour of Agrippa so far won upon this prince, that he was unable to live without him. Agrippa, being one day in conversation with Caius, was overheard by one Eutychus, a slave whom Agrippa had emancipated, to say that he should be glad to see the old emperor take his depar- ture for the other world and leave Caius master of this, without meeting with any obstacle from the emperor’s grandson, Tiberius Nero, Euty- chus, some time after this, thinking he had reason to be dissatisfied with Agrippa, com- municated the conversation to the emperor; whereupon Agrippa was loaded with fetters, and committed to the custody of an officer. Soon after this, Tiberius dying, and Caius Caligula succeeding him, the new emperor heaped many favours and much wealth upon Agrippa, changed his iron fetters into a chain of gold, set a royal diadem on his head, and ave him the tetrarchy which Philip, the son of Freroa the Great, had been possessed of, that is, Bataneea and Trachonitis. To this he added that of Lysanias; and Agrippa returned very soon into Judea, io take possession of his new kingdom. The emperor Caius, desiring to be adored as a god, commanded to have his statue set up in the temple of Jerusalem. But the Jews opposed this design with so much resolu- tion, that Petronius was forced to suspend his proceedings in this affair, and to represent, in a letter to the emperor, the resistance he met with from the Jews. Agrippa, who was then at Rome, coming to the emperor at the very time he was reading the letter, Caius told him that the Jews were the only people of all man- kind who refused to own him for a deity; and that they had taken arms to oppose his resolu- tion. At these words Agrippa fainted away, and, being carried home to his house, continued. in that state fora long time. As soon as he was somewhat recovered, he wrote a long let- ter to Caius, wherein he endeavoured to soften him ; and his arguments made such an impres- sion upon the emperor’s mind, that he desisted, in appearance, from the design which he had formed of setting up his statue in the temple. Caius being killed in the beginning of the fol- lowing year, A.D. 41, Agrippa, who was then at Rome, contributed much by his advice to main- tain Claudius in possession of the imperial digni- ty, to which he had been advanced by the army. The emperor, as an acknowledgment for his kind offices, gave him all Judea, and the king- dom of Chalcis, which had been possessed by Herod his brother. Thus Agrippa became of a sudden one of the greatest princes of the east, and was possessed of as much, if not more territory, than had been held by Herod the Great, hs grandfather. He returned to Judea, and governed it to the great satisfaction of the Jews. But the desire of pleasing them, and a Mistaken zeal for their religion, induced him 31 AGU to put to death the Apostle James, and to cast Peter into prison with the same design; and, but for a miraculous interposition, which, how- ever, produced no effect upon the mind of the eae his hands would have been imbrued in the blood of two Apostles, the memory whereof is preserved in Scripture. At Cesarea, he had games performed in honour of Claudius. Here the inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon waited on him to sue for peace. Agrippa being come early in the morning into the theatre, with a design to give them audience, seated himself on his throne, dressed in a robe of silver tissue, worked im the most admirable manner. The rising sun darted his golden beams thereon, and gave it such a lustre as dazzled the eyes of the spectators; and when the king began his speech to the T'yrians and Sidonians, the para- sites around him began to say, it was “the voice of a god and not of man.” Instead of rejecting these impious flatteries, Agrippa re- ceived them with an air of complacency; and the angel of the Lord smote him because he did not give God the glory. Being therefore carried home to his palace, he died, at the end of five days, racked with tormenting pains in his bowels, and devoured with worms. Such was the death of Herod Agrippa, A. D. 44, after a reign of seven years. He left a son of the same name, and three daughters—Bernice, who was married to her uncle Herod, her father’s brother; Mariamne, betrothed to Julius Archelaus; and Drusilla, promised to Epi- phanius, the son of Archelaus, the son of Comagena. AGRIPPA, son of the former Agrippa, was at Rome with the emperor Claudius when his father died. The emperor, we are told by Josephus, was inclined to give him all the de- minions that had been possessed by his father, but was dissuaded from it, Agrippa being only seventeen years of age; and he kept him there- fore at his court four years. Three years after this, Herod, king of Chal- cis, and uncle to young Agrippa, dying, the emperor gave his dominions to this prince, who, notwithstanding, did not go into Judea till four years after, A. D. 53; when, Claudius taking from him the kingdom of Chalcis, gave him the provinces of Gaulonitis, Trachonitis, Batanea, Paneas, and Abylene, which formerly had been in the possession of Lysanias. After the death of Claudius, his successor, Nero, who had a great affection for Agrippa, to his other dominions added Julias in Perza, and that part of Galilee to which Tarichea and Tiberias be- longed. Festus, governor of Judea, coming to his government, A. D. 60, king Agrippa and Bernice, his sister, went as far as Cesarea to salute him; and as they continued there for some time, Festus talked with the king con- cerning the affair of St. Paul, who had been seized in the temple about two years before, and within a few days previous to his visit had ap- pealedtothe emperor. Agrippa wishing to hear Paul, that Apostle delivered that noble address in his presence which is recorded, Acts xxvi. AGUR. The thirtieth chapter of Proverbs begins with this title: “ The words of Agur, AGU the son of Jakeh;” and the thirty-first, with “the words of king Lemuel;” with respect to which some conjecture that Solomon describes himself under these appellations; others, that these chapters are the production of persons whose veal names are prefixed. Scripture his- tory, indeed, affords us no information respect- ing their situation and character; but there must have been sufficient reason for regarding their works in the light of inspired productions, or they would not have been admitted into the sacred canon. They are called Massa, a term frequently applied to the undoubted productions of the prophetic Spirit; and it is not improbable that the authors meant, by the adoption of this term, to lay claim to the character of inspiration. A succession of virtuous and eminent men, fa- voured with divine illuminations, flourished in Judea till the final completion of the sacred code; and, most likely, many more than those whose writings have been preserved. Agur may then have been one of those prophets whom Divine providence raised up to comfort or admonish his chosen people; and Lemuel may have been some neighbouring prince, the son of a Jewish woman, by whom he was taught the Massa contained in the thirty-first chapter. These, of course, can only be con- sidered as mere conjectures; for, in the absence of historic evidence, who can venture to pro- nounce with certainty ? The opinion, however, that Agur and Lemuel are appellations of So- lomon, is sanctioned by so many and such respectable writers, that it demands a more particular examination. The knowledge of names was anciently re- arded as a matter of the highest importance, in order to understand the nature of the per- sons or things which they designate; and, in the opinion of the rabbins, was preferable even to the study of the written law. The Heathens paid considerable attention to it, as appears from the Cratylus of Plato; and some. of the Christian fathers entertained very favourable notions of such knowledge. The Jewish doctors, it is true, refined upon the subject with an amazing degree of subtilty, grounding upon it many ridiculous ideas and absurd fancies ; yet it is unquestionable that many of the proper names in Scripture are significant and charac- teristic. Thus the names Eve, Cain, Seth, Noah, Abraham, Israel, &c, were imposed by reason of their being expressive of the several characters of the persons whom they represent. Reasoning from analogy, we may infer that all the proper names in the Old Testament, at their original imposition, were intended to de- note some quality or circumstance in the per- son or thing to which they belong; and though many, from transference, have ceased to ‘be personally characteristic, yet are they all sig- nificative. As the custom of imposing descriptive names prevailed in the primitive ages, it is not impossible that Agur and Lemuel may be ap- propriated to Solomon, and Jakeh to David, as mystic appellations significative of their respec- tive characters. It is even some confirmation 32 AGU of this opinion, that Solomon is denominated Jedidiah (beloved of the Lord) by the Prophet Nathan; and that in the book of Ecclesiastes, he styles himself Koheleth, or the Preacher. Nevertheless, this hypothesis does not appear to rest upon a firm foundation. It 1s foreign to the simplicity of the sacred _penmen, and con- trary to their custom in similar cases, to adopt a mystic name, without either explaining it, or alleging the reasons for its adoption. In the names ion, Cain, Seth, Noah, &c, before allud- ed to; in the appellation Nabal; in the enigma- tical names in the first chapter of Hosea; in the descriptive names given to pes as Beer- sheba, Jehovah-jireh, Peniel, Bethel, Gilgal; and in many other instances, the meaning of the terms is either explained, or the circum. stances are mentioned which led to their selec- tion. When Solomon is called Jedidiah, it is added that it was “ because of the Lord ;” and when he styles himself Koheleth, an explana- tory clause is annexed, describing himself “ the son of David, the king of Jerusalem.” But if Solomon be meant by the titles Agur and Lem- uel, he is so called without any statement of the reasons for their application, and without any explanation of their import; a circumstance un- usual with the sacred writers, and the reverse to what is practised in the book of Proverbs, where his proper name, Solomon, is attributed to him in three different places. Nor is any thing cha- racteristic of the Jewish monarchs discoverable in the terms themselves. Jakeh, which denotes obedient, is no more applicable to David than to Nathan, or any other personage of eminent worth and piety among the Israelites. The name of Agur is not of easy explanation ; some giving it the sense of recollectus, that is, reco- vered from his errors, and become penitent; an explanation more applicable to David than to Solomon. Simon, in his lexicon, says it may perhaps denote “‘ him who applies to the study of wisdom ;” an interpretation very suitable to the royal philosopher, but not supported by adequate authority ; and in his Onomasticon he explains it in a different manner. Others suppose that it means collector ; though it has been argued, that, as it has a passive form, it cannot have an active sense. But this is not a valid objection, as several examples may be produced from the Bible of a similar form with an active signification. If such be its mean- ing, it is suitable to Solomon, who was not the collector or compiler, but the author, of the Proverbs. With respect to the name Lemuel, it signifies one that is for God, or devoted to God; and is not, therefore, peculiarly descriptive of Solomon. It appears, then, that nothing can be inferred'from the signification of the names Agur and Lemuel in support of the conjecture, that they are appellations of Solomon. The contents, likewise, of the two chapters in question strongly militate against this hypo- thesis. When all these circumstances are taken into consideration, together with the extreme impro- bability that Solomon should be denominated three times by his proper name, and afterward, in the same work, by two different enigmatical AHA names, we are fully warranted in rejecting the notion, that the wise monarch is designed by the appellations Agur and Lemuel. And it seems most reasonable to consider them as denoting real persons. AHAB, the son and successor of Omri. He began his reign over Israel, A. M. 3086, and reigned 22 years. In impiety he far excecded all the kings of Israel. € married Jezebel, the daughter of Ethbaal, king of Zidon, who introduced the whole abominations and idols of her country, Baal and Ashtaroth. 2. Anazthe son of Kolaiah, and Zedekiah the son of Maaseiah, were two false prophets, who, aout A. M. 3406, seduced the Jewish captives at Babylon with hopes of a speedy deliverance, and stirred them up against Jeremiah. The Lord threatened them with a public and igno- minious death, before such as they had deceiv- ed; and that their names should become a curse; men wishing that their foes might be made like Ahab and Zedekiah, whom Nebu- chadnezzar king of Babylon roasted in the fire, Jer. xxix, 21, 22. AHASUERUS was the king of Persia, who advanced Esther to be queen, and at her request delivered the Jews from the destruction plotted for them by Haman. Archbishop Usher is of opinion that this Ahasuerus was Darius Hy- staspes; and that Atossa was the Vashti, and Artystona the Esther, of the Scriptures. But, according to Herodotus, the latter was the daughter of Cyrus, and therefore could not be Esther; and the former had four sons by Da- rius, besides daughters, born to him after he was king; and therefore she could not be the queen Vashti, divorced from her husband in the third year of his reign, nor he the Ahasue- rus who divorced her. Besides, Atossa retained her influence over Darius to his death, and obtained the succession of the crown for his son, Xerxes; whereas Vashti was removed from the presence of Ahasuerus by an irrevocable decree, Esther, i, 19. Joseph Scaliger main- tains that Xerxes was the Ahasuerus, and Ha- mestris his queen, the Esther, of Scripture. The opinion is founded on the similitude of names, but contradicted by the dissimilitude of the cha- racters of Hamestris and Esther. Besides, Hero- dotus says that Xerxes had a son by Hamestris that was marriageable in the seventh year of his reign; and therefore she could not be Esther. The Ahasuerus of Scripture, according to Dr. Prideaux, was Artaxerxes Longimanus. Jose- hus positively says that this was the person. The Septuagint, through the whole book of Esther, uses Artaxerxes for the Hebrew Aha- suerus wherever the appellation occurs; and the apocryphal additions to that book every where call the husband of Esther Artaxerxes; and he could be no other than Artaxerxes Lon- gimanus. The extraordinary favour shown to the Jews by this king, first in sending Ezra, and afterward Nehemiah, to relieve this people, and restore them to their ancient prosperity, affords strong presumptive evidence that they had near his person and high in his regard such an advocate as Esther. Ahasuerus is also a name given in Serpe, Ezra iv, 6, to Cam- 33 AHA byses, the son of Cyrus; and to Astyages, kin of the Medes, Dane ix, 1. pen oe AHAVA. The name of a river of Babylo- nia, or rather of Assyria, where Ezra assembled those captives whom he afterward brought into Judea, Ezra viii, 15. The river Ahava is thought to be that which ran along the Ada- bene, where a river Diava, or Adiava, is men- tioned, and on which Ptolemy places the city Abane or Aavane. This is probably the coun- try called Ava, whence the kings of Assyria translated the people called Avites into Pales- tine, and where they settled some of the captive Israelites, 2 Kings xvii, 24; xviii, 34; xix, 13; xvii, 31. Ezra, intending to collect as many Israelites as he could, who might return to Ju- dea, halted in the country of Ava, or Aahava, whence he sent agents into the Caspian mount- ains, to invite such Jews as were willing to join him, Ezra viii, 16. The history of Izates, king of the Adiabenians, and of ‘his mother Helena, who became converts to Judaism some years after the death of Jesus Christ, sufficiently proves that there were many Jews still settled in that country. AHAZ succeeded his father Jotham, as king of Israel, at the age of twenty years, reigned till the year before Christ, 726; and addicted himself to the practice of idolatry. After the customs of the Heathen, he made his children to pass through fire; he shut up the temple, and destroyed its vessels. He became tributar to Tiglath-pileser, whose assistance he suppli- cated against the kings of Syria and Israel. Such was his impiety, that he was not allowed burial in the sepulchres of the kings of Israel, 2 Kings xvi; 2 Chron. xxviii, AHAZIAH, the son of Ahab, king of Israel. Ahaziah reigned two years, partly alone, and pally with his father Ahab, who appointed him his associate in the kingdom a year before his death. Ahaziah imitated his father’s impieties, 1 Kings xxii, 52, &c, and paid his adorations to Baal and Ashtaroth, the worship of whom had been introduced into Israel by Jezebel his mother. The Moabites, who had been always obedient to the kings of the ten tribes, ever since their separation from the kingdom of Judah, revolted after the death of Ahab, and refused to pay the ordinary tribute. Ahaziah. had not leisure or power to reduce them, 2 Kings i, 1, 2, &c, for, about the same time, having fallen through a lattice from the top of his house, he was considerably injured, and sent messengers to Ekron to consult Baalzebub, the od of that place, whether he should recover, 5 Kings i, I-17. Elijah met the messengers, and informed them he should certainly die; and he died accordingly. 2. Auazian, king of Judah, the son of Jeho- ram and Athaliah. He succeeded his father in the kingdom of Judah, A. M. 3119; being in the twenty-second year of his age, 2 Kings viii, 26, &c; and he reigned one year only in Jerusalem. He walked in the ways of: Ahab’s house, to which he was related, his. mother being of that family. Joram, king of Israel, 2 Kings viii, going to attack Ramoth Gilead, which the kings of Syria had taken from hig AHI predecessors, was there dangerousty wounded, and carried by his own appointment to Jezreel, for the purpese of surgical assistance. Ahaziah, Joram’s friend and relation, accompanied him in this war, and came afterward to visit him at Jezreel. In the meantime, Jehu, the son of Nimshi, whom Joram had left besieging the fortress of Ramoth, rebelled against his master, and set out with a design of extirpating the house of Ahab, according to the commandment of the Lord, 2 Kingsix. Joram and Ahaziah, who knew nothing of his intentions, went to meet him. Jehu killed Joram dead upon the spot: Ahaziah fled, but Jehu’s people overtook him at the going up of Gur, and mortally wounded him; notwithstanding which, he had strength enough to reach Megiddo, where he died. His servants, having laid him in his chariot, carried him to Jerusalem, where he was buried with his fathers, in the city of David. AHIJAH, the prophet of the Lord, who dwelt in Shiloh. He 1s thought to be the per- son who spoke twice to Solomon from God, once while he was building the temple, 1 Kings vi, 11, at which time he promised him the divine protection; and again, 1 Kings xi, 11, after his falling into his irregularities, with great threatenings and reproaches. Ahijah was one of those who wrote the history or annals of this prince, 2’Chron. ix, 29. The same prophet declared to Jeroboam, that he would usurp the kingdom, 1 Kings xi, 29, &c; and, about the end of Jeroboam’s reign, he also pre- dicted the death of Abijah, the only pious son of that prince, as is recorded 1 Kings xiv, 2, &c. Ahijah, in all probability, did not long survive the delivery of this last prophecy; but we are not informed of the time and manner of his death. AHIKAM, the son of Shaphan, and father of Gedaliah. He was sent by Josiah, king of Judah, to Huldah the prophetess, 2 Kings xxii, 12, to consult her concerning the book of the law, which had been found in the temple. AHIMAAZ, the son of Zadok, the high priest. Ahimaaz succeeded his father under the reign of Solomon. He performed a very important Ae of service for David during the war with Absalom. While his father Zadpk was in Jerusalem, 2 Sam. xv, 29, Ahimaaz and Jonathan continued without the city, xvii, 17, near En-Rogel, or the fountain of Rogel; thi- ther a maid servant came to tell them the reso- lution which had been taken in Absalom’s council: whereupon they immediately departed to give the king intelligence. But being dis- covered by a young lad who gave information concerning them to Absalom, that prince sent orders to pursue them: Ahimaaz and Jona- than, fearing to be taken, retired to a man’s house at Baharim, in whose court-yard there was a well, wherein they concealed themselves. After the battle, in which Absalom was over- come and slain, xviii, Ahimaaz desired leave of Joab to carry the news thereof to David. But instead of him Joab sent Cushi to carry the news, and told Ahimaaz that he would send him to the king upon some other occasion; but soon after Cushi was departed, Ahimaaz ap- 34 AHO plied again to Joab, praying to be permitted to run afler Cushi; and, having obtained leave, he ran by the way of the plain, and outran Cushi. He was succeeded in the priesthood by his son Azariah. AHIMELECH. He was the son of Ahitub, and brother of Ahia, whom he succeeded in the high pee He is called Abiathar, Mark ii, 26. During his priesthood the taber- nacle was at Nob, where Ahimelech, with other priests, had their habitation. David, being informed by his friend Jonathan that Saul was determined to destroy him, thought it prudent to retire. He therefore went to Nob, to the high priest Ahimelech, who gave him the shew bread, and the sword of Goliath. One day, when Saul was complaining of his officers, that no one was affected with his misfortunes, or gave him any intelligence of what was car- rying on against him, 1 Sam. xxii, 9, &c, Doeg related to him what had occurred when David came to Ahimelech the high priest. On this information, Saul convened the priests, and having charged them with the crime of treason, ordered his guards to slay them, which they refusing to do, Doeg, who had been their ac- cuser, at the king’s command became their executioner, and with his sacrilegious hand massacred no less than eighty-five of them; the Septuagint and Syriac versions make the number of priests slain by Doeg three hundred and five. Nor did Saul stop here; but, send- ing a party to Nob, he commanded them to slay men, women, and children, and even cat- tle, with the edge of the sword. Only one son of Ahimelech, named Abiathar, escaped the carnage and fled to David. ANITHOPHEL, a native of Giloh, who, after having been David’s counsellor, joined in the rebellion of Absalom, and assisted him with his advice. Hushai, the friend of David, was employed to counteract the counsels of Ahithophel, and to deprive Absalom, under a pretence of serving him, of the advantage that was likely to result from the measures which he proposed. One of these measures was cal- culated to render David irreconcilable, and was immediately adopted; and the other to secure, or to slay him. Before the last coun- sel was followed, Hushai’s advice was desired; and he recommended their assembling together the whole force of Israel, putting Absalom at their head, and overwhelming David by their number. The treacherous counsel of Hushai was preferred to that of Ahithophel; with which the latter being disgusted he hastened to his house at Giloh, where he put an end to his life. He probably foresaw Absalom’s de- feat, and dreaded the punishment which would be inflicted on himself as a traitor, when David was resettled on the throne, A. M. 2981. B.C. 1023. 2 Sam. xv, xvii. : AHOLIBAH. This and Aholah are two feigned names made use of by Ezekiel, xxiii, 4, to denote the two kingdoms of Judah and Sa- maria. Aholah and ‘Anolibah are represented as two sisters of Egyptian extraction. Aholah stands for Samaria, and Aholibah for Jerusa- lem. The first signifies a tent, and the second; Alc my tent is in her. They both prostituted them- selves to the Egyptians and Assyrians, in imi- tating their abominations and idolatries; for which reason the Lord abandoned them to those very people for whose evil practices they had shown so passionate an affection. They were carried into captivity, and reduced to the severest servitude. Al, called by the LXX, Gai, by Josephus Aina, and by others Ajah, a town of Palestine, situate west of Bethel, and at a small distance north-west of Jericho. The three thousand men, first sent by Joshua to reduce this city, were repulsed, on account of the sin of Achan, who had violated the anathema pronounced against Jericho, by appropriating a part of the spoil. After the expiation of this offence, the whole army of Israel marched against Ai, with orders to treat that city as Jericho had been treated, with this difference, that the plunder was to be given tothe army. Joshua, having appointed an ambush of thirty thousand men, marched against the city, and by a feigned re- treat, drew out the king of Ai with his troops ; and upon a signal given by elevating his shield on the top of a pike, the men in ambush enter- ed the city and set fire to it. Thus the soldiers of Ai, placed between two divisions of Joshua’s army, were all destroyed; the king alone being preserved for a more ignominous death on a gibbet, where he hung till sunset. The spoil of the place was afterward divided among the Israelites. The men appointed for ambush are, in one place, said to be thirty thousand, and in another five thousand. For reconciling this apparent contradiction, most commentators have generally supposed, that there were two bodies placed in ambuscade between Bethel and Ai, one of twenty-five thousand and the other of five thousand men; the latter being probably a detachment from the thirty thou- sand first sent, and ordered to lie as near to the city as possible. Masius allows only five thou- sand men for the ambuscade, and twenty-five thousand for the attack. AICHMALOT ARCH, ’Acypadordpyns, sig- nifies the prince of the captivity, or chref of the captives. The Jews pretend that this was the title of him who had the government of their people during the captivity of Babylon; and they believe these princes or governors to have been constantly of the tribe of Judah, and fami- ly of David. But they give no satisfactory proof of the real existence of these Aichmalo- tarchs. There was no prince of the captivity before the end of the second century, from which period the office continued till the eleventh century. The princes of the captivity resided at Babylon, where they were installed with great ceremony, held courts of justice, &c, and were set over the eastern Jews, or those settled in Babylon, Chaldza, Assyria, and Persia. Thus they affected to restore the splen- dour of their ancient monarchy, and in this view the following account may be amusing. The ceremonial of the installation is thus de- scribed: The spiritual heads of the people, the masters of the learned schools, the elders, and the people, assembled in great multitudes within 55 AIC a stately chamber, adorned with rich curtains, in Babylon, where, during his days of splen- dour, the Resch-Glutha fixed his residence. The prince was seated on a lofty throne. The heads of the schools of Sura and Pumbeditha on his right hand and left. These chiefs ot the learned men then delivered an address, exhorting the new monarch not to abuse his power ; and reminded him that he was called to slavery rather than to sovereignty, for he was prince of a captive people. On the next Thursday he was inaugurated by the laying on of hands, and the sound of trumpets, and accla- mations. He was escorted to his palace with great pomp, and received magnificent presents from all his subjects. On the Sabbath all the principal people being assembled before his house, he placed himself at their head, and, with his face covered with a silken veil, pro- ceeded to the synagogue. Benedictions and hymns of thanksgiving announced his en- trance. They then brought him the book of the law, out of which he read the first line, afterward he addressed the assembly, with his eyes closed out of respect. He exhorted them to charity, and set the example by offering liberal alms to the poor. The ceremony closed with new acclamations, and prayers to God that, under the new prince, he would be pleased to put an end to their calamities. The prince gave his blessing to the people, and prayed for each province, that it might be preserved from war and famine. He concluded his orisons in a low voice, lest his prayer should be repeated to the jealous ears of the native monarchs, for he prayed for the restoration of the kingdom of Israel, which could not rise but on the ruins of their empire. The prince returned to his pa- lace, where he gave a splendid banquet to the chief persons of the community. After that day he lived in a sort of stately oriental seclu- sion, never quitting his palace, except to goto the schools of the learned, where, as he entered, the whole assembly rose and continued stand- ing, till he took his seat. He sometimes paid -a visit to the native sovereign in Babylon (Bag- dad.) . This probably refers to a somewhat later period. On these great occasions his imperial host sent his own chariot for his guest; but the prince of the captivity dared not accept the in- vidious distinction, he walked in humble and submissive modesty behind the chariot. Yet his own state was by no means wanting in splendour: he was arrayed in cloth of gold; fifty guards marched before him; all the Jews who met him on the way paid their homage, and fell behind into his train. He was receiv by the eunuchs, who conducted him to the throne, while one of his officers, as he marched slowly along, distributed gold and silver on all sides. As the prince approached the imperial throne, he prostrated himself on the ground, in token of vassalage. The eunuchs raised him and placed -him on the left hand of the sovereign. After the first salutation, the prince represented the grievances, or discussed the nice of his people. : The court of the Resch-Glutha is descrihed as splendid. In imitation of his Persian mas- ALE S ter, he had his officers, counsellors, and cup- bearers; and rabbins were appointed as satraps over the different communities. This state, it is probable, was maintained by a tribute raised from the body of the people, and substituted for that which, in ancient times, was paid for the temple in Jerusalem. His subjects in Babylonia were many of them wealthy. ; AIJALON, a city of the Canaanites; the valley adjoining to which is memorable in sacred history from the miracle of Joshua, in arresting the course of the sun and moon, that the Israelites might have sufficient light to pur- sue their enemies, Joshua x, 12, 13. Aijalon was afterward a Levitical city, and belonged to the tribe of Dan; who did not, however, drive out the Amorite inhabitants, Judges i, 35. AIR, that thin, fluid, elastic, transparent, ponderous, compressible body which surrounds the terraqueous globe to a considerable height. In Scripture it is sometimes used for heaven ; as, “the birds of the air ;” “the birds of heaven.” To “beat the air,” and “to speak to the air,” 1 Cor. ix, 26, signify to fatigue ourselves in vain, and to speak to no purpose. ‘“ The prince of the power of the air’ is the head and chief of the evil spirits, with which both Jews and Heathens thought the air was filled. ALABASTER, ’AdéSacrpov, the name of a genus of fossils nearly allied to marble. It is a bright elegant stone, sometimes of a snowy whiteness. It may be cut freely, and is capa- ble of a fine polish; and, being of a soft nature, it is wrought into any form or figure with ease. Vases or cruises were anciently made of it, wherein to preserve odoriferous liquors and oint- ments. Pliny and others represent it as peculiar- ly proper for this purpose; and the druggists in gypt have, at this day, vessels made of it, in which they keep their medicines and perfumes. In Matt. xxvi, 6, 7, we read that Jesus being at table in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came thither and poured an alabaster box of ointment on his head. St. Mark adds, “She brake the box,” which merely refers to the seal upon the vase which closed it, and kept the perfume from evaporating. This had never been removed, but was on this occa- sion broken, that is, first opened. ALBIGENSES. See Wa pensss. ALEPH, x, the name of the first letter in the Hebrew alphabet, from which the alpha of the Syrians and Greeks was formed. ‘This word signifies, prince, chief, or thousand, expressing, as it were, a leading number. ALEXANDER, commonly called the Great, son and successor of Philip, king of Macedon, is denoted in the prophecies of Daniel by a leopard with four wings, signifying his great strength, and the unusual rapidity of his con- quests, Dan. vii, 6; and by a one-horned he-goat running over the earth so swiftly as not to touch it, attacking a ram with two horns, overthrow- ing him, and trampling him under foot, without any being able to rescue him, Dan. viii, 47. The he-goat prefigured Alexander; the ram, Darius Codomannus, the last of the Persian kings. In the statue beheld by Nebuchadnezzar in his dream, Dan. ii, 39, the belly of brass was 36 ALE the emblem of Alexander. He was appointed by God to destroy the Persian empire, and te substitute in its room the Grecian monarchy. Alexander succeeded his father Philip, A. M, 3668, and B.C. 336. He was chosen, by the Greeks, general of their troops against the Per- sians, and entered Asia at the head of thirty- four thousand men, A. M. 3670. In one cam- paign, he subdued almost all Asia Minor; and afterward defeated, in the narrow passes which led from Syria to Cilicia, the army of Darius, which consisted of four hundred thousand foot, and one hundred thousand horse. Darius fled, and left in the hands of the conqueror, his camp, baggage, children, wife, and mother. After subduing Syria, Alexander came to Tyre; and the Tyrians refusing him entrance into their city, he besieged it. At the same time he wrote to Jaddus, high priest of the Jews, that he expected to be acknowledged by him, and to receive from him the same submis- sion which had hitherto been paid to the king of Persia. Jaddus refusing to comply under the plea of having sworn fidelity to Darius, Alexan- der resolved to march against Jerusalem, when he had reduced Tyre. After a long siege, this city was taken and sacked; and Alexander entered Palestine, A. M. 3672, and subjected it to his obedience. As he was marching against Jerusalem, the Jews became greatly alarmed, and had recourse to prayers and sacrifices. The Lord, in a dream, commanded Jaddus to open the gates to the conqueror, and, at the head of his people, dressed in his pontifical ornaments, and attended by the priests in their robes, to advance and meet the Macedonian king. Jad- dus obeyed; and Alexander perceiving this com- pany approaching, hastened toward the high priest, whom he saluted. He then adored God, whose name was engraven on a thin plate of gold, worn by the high priest upon his fore- head. The kings of Syria who accompanied him, and the great officers about Alexander, could not comprehend the meaning of his con- duct. Parmenio alone ventured to ask him why he adored the Jewish high priest; Alex- ander replied, that he paid this respect to God, and not to the high priest. “For,” added he, “whilst I was yet n Macedonia, I saw the God of the Jews, who appeared to me in the same form and dress as the high priest at present, and who encouraged me and commanded me to march boldly into Asia, promising that he would be my guide, and give me the empire of the Persians. As soon, therefore, as I perceived this habit, I recollected the vision, and under- stood that my undertaking was favoured by God, and that under his protection I might expect prosperity.” Having said this, Alexander accompaniea Jaddus to Jerusalem, where he offered sacrifices in the temple according to the directions of the high priest. Jaddus is said to have showed him the prophecies of Daniel, in which the de- struction of the Persian empire by Alexander is declared. The king was therefore confirmed in his opinion, that God had chosen him to execute this great work. At his departure, Alexander bade the Jews ask of him what they ALE would. The high priest desired only the liberty of living under his government according to their own laws, and an exemption from tribute every seventh year, because in that year the Jews neither tilled their grounds, nor reaped their fruits. With this request Alexander readily complied. aving left Jerusalem, Alexander visited other cities of Palestine, and was every where received with great testimonies of friendship and submission. The Samaritans who dwelt at Sichem, and were apostates from the Jewish religion, observing how kindly Alexander had treated the Jews, resolved to say that they also were by religion Jews. For it was their practice, when they saw the affairs of the Jews in a pros- perous state, to boast that they were descended from Manasseh and Ephraim; but when they thought it their interest to say the contrary, they failed not to affirm, and even to swear, that they were not related to the Jews. They came, therefore, with many demonstrations of joy, to meet Alexander, as far almost as the territories of Jerusalem. Alexander commend- ed their zeal; and the Sichemites entreated him to visit their temple and city. Alexander pro- mised this at his return; but as they petitioned him for the same privileges as the Jews, he asked them if they were Jews. They replied, they were Hebrews, and were called by the Pheni- cians, Sichemites. Alexander said that he had granted this exemption only to the Jews, and that at his return he would inquire into the affair, and do them justice. This prince having conquered Egypt, and regulated it, gave orders for the building of the city of Alexandria, and departed thence, about spring, in pursuit of Darius. Passing through alestine, he was informed that the Samaritans, im a general insurrection, had killed Androma- chus, governor of Syria and Palestine, who had come to Samaria to regulate some affairs. This action greatly incensed Alexander, who loved Andromachus. He therefore commanded all those who were concerned in his murder to be ut to death, and the rest to be banished from amaria; and settled a colony of Macedonians in their room. What remained of their lands he gave to the Jews, and exempted them from the payment of tribute. The Samaritans who escaped this calamity, retired to Sichem, at the foot of mount Gerizim, which afterward became their capital. Lest the eight thousand men of this nation, who were in the service of Alex- ander, and had accompanied him since the siege of Tyre, if permitted to return to their own country, should renew the spirit of rebel- lion, he sent them into Thebais, the most re- mote southern province of Egypt, where he assigned them lands. Alexander, after defeating Darius in a pitched battle, and subduing all Asia and the Indies with incredible rapidity, gave himself up to intemper- ance. Having drunk to excess, he fell sick and died, after he had obliged “all the world to be quiet before him,” 1 Macc. i, 3. Being sen- sible that his end was near, he sent for the erandees of his court, and declared that “ he gave the empire to the most deserving.” - Some 37 ALE affirm that he regulated the succession by a will, The author of the first book of Maccabees says, that he divided his kingdom among his gene- rals while he was living, 1 Macc. i, 7. This he might do; or he might express his foresight of what actually took place after his death. It is certain, that a partition was made of Alexan- der’s don: nions among the four principal off- cers of hiv srmy, and that the empire which he founded in Asia subsisted formany ages. Alex- ander died, A. M. 3684, and B. C. 323, in the thirty-third year of his age, and the twelfth of his reign. The above particulars of Alexander are here introduced because, from his invasion of Palestine, the intercourse of the Jews with the Greeks became intimate, and influenced many events of their subsequent history. On the account above given of the interview between Alexander and the Jewish high priest, by Josephus, many doubts have been cast by critics. But the sudden change of his feelings toward them, and the favour with which the nation was treated by him, render the story not improbable. ALEXANDRIA, a famous city of Egypt, and, during the reign of the Ptolemies, the regal capital of that kingdom. It was founded by Alexander the Great: who being struck with the advantageous situation of the spot where the city afterward stood, ordered its immediate erection; drew the plan of the city himself, and peopled it with colonies of Greeks and Jews: to which latter people, in particular, he gave great encouragement. They were, in fact, made free citizens, and had all the privileges of Mace- donians granted to them; which liberal policy contributed much to the rise and prosperity of the new city; for this enterprising and com- mercial people knew much better than either the Greeks or the Egyptians how to turn the happy situation of ‘Alesendrie to the best ac- count. The fall of Tyre happening about the same time, the trade of that city was soon drawn to Alexandria, which became the centre of com- mercial intercourse between the east and the west; and in process of time grew to such an extent, in magnitude and wealth, as to be second in point of population and magnificence to none but Rome itself. Alexandria owed much of its celebrity as well as its population to the Ptolemies. Ptolemy Soter, one of Alexander’s captains, who, after the death of this monarch, was first governor of Egypt, and afterward assumed the title of king, made this city the place of his residence, about B. C. 304. This prince founded an aca- demy, called the Museum, in which a society of learned men devoted themselves to philoso- phical studies, and the improvement of all the other sciences; and he also gave them a library, which was prodigiously increased by his suc- cessors. He likewise induced the merchants of Syria and Greece to reside in this city, and to make it a principal mart of their commerce. His son and successor, Ptolemy Philadelphus, pursued the designs of his father. In the hands of the Romans, the successors of the Macedonians in the government of Egypt, the trade of Alexandria continued to ALE flourish, until luxury and licentiousness paved the way, as in every similar instance, for its overthrow. Alexandria, together with the rest of Egypt, passed from the dominion of the Romans to that of the Saracens. With this event, the sun of Alexandria may be said to have set: the blighting hand of Islamism was laidon it; and although the genius and the resources of such a city could not be immediately destroyed, it con- tinued to languish until the passage by the Cape of Good Hope, in the fifteenth century, gave a new channel to the trade which for so many centuries had been its support; and at this day, Alexandria, like most eastern cities, presents a mixed spectacle of ruins and wretch- edness,—of fallen greatness and enslaved hu- man beings. Some idea may be formed of the'extent and grandeur of Alexandria, by the boast made by Amrou: “TI have taken,” said he, “the great city of the west. It is impossible for me to enumerate the variety of its riches and beauty. I shall content myself with observing, that it contains four thousand palaces, four thousand baths, four hundred theatres or places of amusement, twelve thousand shops for the sale of vegetable foods, and forty thousand tributary Jews.” It was in Alexandria chiefly that the Grecian philosophy was engrafted upon the stock of ancient oriental wisdom. The Egyptian me- thod of teaching by allegory was peculiarl favourable to such a union: and we may well suppose that when Alexander, in order to pre- serve by the arts of peace that extensive empire which he had obtained by the force of arms, endeavoured to incorporate the customs of the Greeks with those of the Persian, Indian, and other eastern nations, the opinions as well as the manners of this feeble and obsequious race would, in a great measure, be accommodated to those of their conquerors. This influence of the Grecian upon the oriental philosophy continued long after the time of Alexander, and was one principal occasion of the confu- sion of opinions which occurs in the history of the Alexandrian and Christian schools. Alex- ander, when he built the city of Alexandria, with a determination to make it the seat of his empire, and peopled it with emigrants from various countries, opened a new mart of phi- losophy, which emulated the fame of Athens itself. A general indulgence was granted to the promiscuous crowd assembled in this rising city, whether Egyptians, Grecians, Jews, or others, to profess their respective systems of philosophy without molestation. The conse- quence was, that Egypt was soon filled with religious and philosophical sectaries of every kind; and particularly, that almost every Gre- cian sect found an advocate and professor in Alexandria. The family of the Ptolemies, as we have seen, who after Alexander obtained the government of Egypt, from motives of peley encouraged this new _ establishment. tolemy Lagus, who had obtained the crown of Egypt by usurpation, was particularly care- ful to secure the interest of the Greeks in his 38 ALE favour, and with this view invited people from every part of Greece to settle in Egypt, and removed the schools of Athens to Alexandria. This enlightened prince spared no pains to raise the literary, as well as the civil, military, and commercial credit of his country. Under the patronage first of the Egyptian princes, and afterward of the Roman emperors, Alex- andria long continued to enjoy great celebrit as the seat of learning, and to send forth emi- nent philosophers of every sect to distant coun- tries. It remained a school of learning, as well as a commercial emporium, till it was taken, and plundered of its literary treasures by the Saracens. Philosophy, during this period, suf- ferred a grievous corruption from the attempt which was made by philosophers of different sects and countries, Grecian, Egyptian, and oriental, who were assembled in Alexandria, to frame, from their different tenets, one general system of opinions. The respect which had long been universally paid to the schools of Greece, and the honours with which they were now adorned by the Egyptian princes, induced other wise men, and even the Egyptian priests and philosophers themselves, to submit to this innovation. Hence arose a heterogeneous mass of opinions, under the name of the Eclectic philosophy, and which was the foundation of endless confusion, error, and absurdity, not only in the Alexandrian school, but among Jews and Christians; producing among the former that specious kind of philosophy, which they called their Cabala, and among the latter in- numerable corruptions of the Christian faith. At Alexandria there was, in a very early period of the Christian wera, a Christian school of considerable eminence. St. Jerome says, the school at Alexandria had been in being from the time of St. Mark. Pantenus, placed by Lardner at the year 192, presided in it. St. Clement of Alexandria succeeded Pantznus in this school about the year 190; and he was succeeded by Origen. The extensive com- merce of Alexandria, and its proximity to Pa- lestine, gave an easy entrance to the new religion, and when Adrian visited Egypt, he found a church composed of Jews and Greeks, sufficiently important to attract the notice of that inquisitive prince. The theological sys- tem of Plato was introduced into both the phi- losophical and Christian schools of Alexandria; and of course many of his sentiments and ex- pressions were blended with the opinions and language of the professors and teachers of Christianity. _ Alexandria was the source, and for some time the principal stronghold, of Arianism; which had its name from its founder, Arius, a presbyter of the church of this city, about the year 315, His doctrines were condemned by a council held here in the year 320; and after- ward by a general council of three hundred and eighty fathers, held at Nice, by order of Constantine, in 325. These doctrines, how- ever, which suited the reigning taste for dis- putative theology, and the pride and self-suffi- ciency of nominal Christians, better than the unsophisticated simplicity of the Gospel, spread ALE widely and rapidly notwithstanding. Arius was steadfastly opposed by the celebrated Athana- sius, bishop of Alexandria, the intrepid cham- pion of the catholic faith, who was raised to the archiepiscopal throne of Alexandria in 326. This city was, in 415, distinguished by a fierce persecution of the Jews by the patriarch Cyril. They who had enjoyed the rights of citizens, and the freedom of religious worship, for seven hundred years, ever since the founda- tion of the city, incurred the hatred of this ecclesiastic; who, in his zeal for the extermi- nation of heretics of every kind, pulled down their synagogues, plundered their property, and expelled them, to the number of forty thousand, from the city. It was in a ship belonging to the port of Alexandria, that St. Paul sailed from Myra, a city of Lycia, on his way to Rome, Acts xxvii, 5,6. Alexandria was also the native place of Apollos. ; ALEXANDRIAN LIBRARY. This cele- brated collection of books was first founded by Ptolemy Soter, for the use of the academy, or society of learned men, which he had founded at Alexandria. Beside the books which he procured, his son, Ptolemy Philadelphus, add- ed many more, and left in this library at his death a hundred thousand volumes; and the succeeding princes of this race enlarged it still more, till at length the books lodged in it amounted to the number of seven hundred thousand volumes. The method by which they are said to have collected these books was this: they seized all the books that were brought by the Greeks or other foreigners into Egypt, and sent them to the academy, or mu- seum, where they were transcribed by persons employed for that purpose. The transcripts were then delivered to the proprietors, and the originals laid up in the library. Ptolemy Eu- ergetes, for instance, borrowed of the Athenians the works of Sophocles, Euripides, and A‘schy- lus, and only returned them the copies, which he caused to be transcribed in as beautiful a manner as possible; the originals he retained for his own library, presenting the Athenians with fifteen talents for the exchange, that is, with three thousand pounds sterling and up- wards. As the museum was at first in the quarter of the city called Bruchion, the library was placed there; but when the number of books amounted to four hundred thousand volumes, another library, within the Serapeum, was erected by way of supplement to it, and, on that account, called the daughter of the former. The books lodged in this increased to the number of three hundred thousand volumes; and these two made up the number of seven hundred thousand volumes, of which the royal libraries of the Ptolemies were said to consist. In the war which Julius Cesar waged with the inhabitants of Alexandria, the library of Bruchion was accidentally, but un- fortunately, burnt. But the library in Sera- peum still remained, and there Cleopatra de- posited the two hundred thousand volumes of the Pergamean library with which she was presented by Marc Antony. These, and 39 ALL ochers added to them from time to time, ren- dered the new library more numerous and con- siderable than the former; and though it was plundered more than once during the revolu- tions which happened in the Roman empire, yet it was as frequently supplied with the same number of books, and continued, for many ages, to be of great fame and use, till it was burnt by the Saracens, A. D. 642. Abulpha- ragius, in his history of the tenth dynasty, gives the following account of this catastrophe: John Philoponus, surnamed the Grammarian, a famous peripatetic philosopher, being at Alexandria when the city was taken by the Saracens, was admitted to familiar intercourse with Amrou, the Arabian general, and pre- sumed to solicit a gift inestimable in his opinion, but contemptible in that of the barba- rians; and this was the royal library. Amrou was inclined to gratify his wish, but his rigid integrity scrupled to alienate the least object without the consent of the caliph. He accord- ingly wrote to Omar, whose well known an- swer was dictated by the ignorance of a fanatic. “Tf these writings of the Greeks agree with the Koran, or book of God, they are useless, and need not be preserved; if they disagree, they are pernicious, and ought to be destroyed.” The sentence of destruction was executed with blind obedience: the volumes of paper or parch- ment were distributed to the four thousand baths of the city; and such was their number, that six months were barely sufficient for the consumption of this precious fuel. ALGUM, mx or mnubx, 1 Kings x, 11, 12. This is the name of a kind of wood, or tree, large quantities of which were brought by the fleet of Solomon from Ophir, of which he made pillars for the house of the Lord, and for his own palace; also musical instruments. See ALmue. ALLEGORY, a figure in rhetoric, whereby we make use of terms which, in their proper signification, mean something else than win they are brought to denote; or it is a figur- whereby we say one thing, expecting it shau be understood of another, to which it alludes; or which, under the literal sense of the words, conceals a foreign or distant meaning. An allegory is, properly, a continued metaphor, or a series of several metaphors in one or more sentences. Such is that beautiful allegory in Horace, lib. i, Od. 14. “ O navis, referent in mare te novt Fluctus,” &e. [0 ship, shall new billows drive thee again to sea, &c.] Where the ship is usually held to stand for the republic; waves, for civil war; port, for peace and concord; oars, for soldiers; and mariners for magistrates. Thus, also, in Prior’s Henry and Emma, Emma describes her constancy to Henry in the following allegorical manner :— ‘Did I but purpose to embark with thee On the smooth surface of a summer's sea, While gentle zephyrs play with prosperous gales, And fortune’s favour fills the swelling sails ; But would forsake the ship, and make the shore, When the winds whistle, and the tempests roar?” Cicero, likewise, speaking of himself, in Pison. c. 9, tom. vi. p. 187, uses tnis allegorical lan- ALL age: “Nor was I so timorous, that, after I fad steered the ship of the state through the greatest storms and waves, and brought her safe into port, I should fear the cloud of your forehead, or your colleague’s pestilential breath. I saw other winds, I perceived other storms, I did not withdraw from other impending tem- pests; but I exposed myself singly to them for the common safety.” Here the state is com- pared to a ship, and all the things said of it under that image, are expressed in metaphors made use of to denote the dangers with which it had been threatened. We have also a very fine example of allegory in Psalm Ixxx; in which the people of Israel are represented un- der the image of a vine, and the figure is sup- orted throughout with great correctness and eauty. Whereas, if, instead of describing the vine as wasted by the boar from the wood, and devoured by the wild beasts of the field, the Psalmist had said, it was afflicted by Heathens, or overcome by enemies, which is the real meaning, the figurative and the literal meaning would have been blended, and the allegory ruined. The learned bishop Lowth, De Sacra Poest Hebraorwm, Pral. 10, 11, has specified three forms of allegory that occur in sacred poetry. The first is that which rhetoricians call a continued metaphor. When several metaphors succeed each other, they alter the form of the composition; and this succession has, very properly, in reference to the etymology of the word, been denominated by the Greeks a\\nyopta, an allegory; although Aristotle, in- stead of considering it as a new species of figure, has referred it to the class of metaphors. The principle of allegory in this sense of the term, and of the simple metaphor, is the same; nor is it an easy matter to restrict each to its proper limit, and to mark the precise termina- tion of the one, and the commencement of the other. This eminently judicious critic observes, that when the Hebrew poets use the congenial figures of metaphor, allegory, and comparison, particularly in the prophetic poetry, they adopt a peculiar mode of doing it, and seldom regu- late the imagery which they introduce by an fixed principle or standard. Not satisfied wit a simple metaphor, they often run it into an allegory, or blend with it a direct comparison. The allegory sometimes follows, and sometimes precedes the simile: to this is added a frequent change of imagery, as well as of persons and tenses; and thus are displayed an energy and boldness, both of expression and meaning, which are unconfined by any stated rules, and which mark the discriminating genius of the Hebrew poetry. Thus, in Gen. xlix, 9, ‘Judah isalion’s whelp;” this metaphor is immediately drawn out into an allegory, with a change of person: ‘From the prey, my son, thou art gone up,” that is, to the mountains, which is understood; and in the succeeding sentences the person is again changed, the image is gradually advanced, and the metaphor is joined with a comparison that is repeated. ‘*He stoopeth down, he coucheth as a lion ; And as a lioness ; who shall rouse him?” A similar instance occurs in the prophecy, re- 40 ALL corded in Psalm ex, 3, which explicitly foretels the abundant increase of the Gospel on its first promulgation. This kind of allegory, how- ever, sometimes assumes a more regular and perfect form, and then occupies the whole subject and compass of the discourse. An ex- ample of this kind occurs in Solomon’s well known allegory, Eccles. xii, 2-6, in which old age is so admirably depicted. There is also, in Isaiah xxvii, 24-29, an allegory, which, with no less elegance of imagery, is more simple and regular, as well as more just and complete, both in the form and the method of treating it. Another kind of allegory is that which, in the proper and more restricted sense, may be called a parable; and consists of a continued narra- tion of some fictitious event, accommodated, by way of similitude, to the illustration of some important truth. The Greeks call these alle- gories aio, or apologues, and the Latins fabule, or fables. (See Parable.) The third species of allegory, which often occurs in the pro- phetic poetry, is that in which a double mean- ing is couched under the same words, or when the same discourse, differently interpreted, de- signates different events, dissimilar in their nature, and remote as to time. These different relations are denominated the literal and mys- tical senses. This kind of allegory, which the learned prelate calls mystical, seems to derive its origin from the principles of the Jewish religion; and it differs from the two former species in a variety of respects. In these alle- gories the writer a adopt any imagery that is most suitable to his fancy or inclination; but the only prcper materials for this allegory must be supplied from the sacred rites of the Hebrews themselves; and it can only be intro- duced in relation to such things as are imme- diately connected with the Jewish religion, or their immediate opposites. The former kinds partake of the common privileges of poetry; but the mystical allegory has its foundation in the nature of the Jewish economy, and is adapt- ed solely to the poetry of the Hebrews. Be- sides, in the other forms of allegory, the exterior or ostensible imagery is mere fiction, and the truth lies altogether in the interior or remote sense; but in this allegory each idea is equally agreeable to truth. The exterior or ostensible’ image is itself a reality; and although it sus- tains another character, it does not wholly lay aside its own. There is also a great variety in the use and conduct of the mystical allegory; in the modes in which the corresponding images are arranged, and in which they are obscured or eclipsed by one another. Sometimes the obvious or literal sense is so prominent and conspicuous both in the words and sentiments, that the remote or figurative sense is scarcely permitted to glimmer through it. On the other hand, the figurative sense is more frequently found to beam forth with so much perspicuity and lustre, that the literal sense is quite cast into the shade, or becomes indiscernible. Sometimes the principal or figurative idea is exhibited to the attentive eye with a constant and equal light; and sometimes it unexpectedly glares upon us, and breaks forth with sudden ALM and astonishing coruscations, like a flash of lightning bursting from the clouds. But the mode or form of this figure which possesses the chief beauty and elegance, is, when the two ima- ges, equally conspicuous, run, as it were, parallel throughout the whole poem, mutually illustrat- ing and correspondent to eachother. The learn- ed author has illustrated these observations b instances selected from Psalms ii, and Ixxii. He adds, that the mystical allegory is, on ac- count of the obscurity resulting from the nature of the figure, and the style of the composition, so agreeable to the nature of the prophecy, that it is the form which it generally, and indeéd lawfully, assumes, as best adapted to the pre- diction of future events. It describes events in a manner exactly conformable to the intention of prophecy; that is, in a dark, disguised, and intricate manner, sketching out, in a general way, their form and outline; and seldom de- scending to a minuteness of description and exactness of detail. ALLELUIA, or Hatuev-sau, mon, praise the Lord ;,or, praise to the Lord: compounded of 1$5n, praise ye, and ™, the Lord. This word occurs at the beginning, or at the end, of many Psalms. Alleluia was sung on solemn days of rejoicing: “ And all her streets shall sing Alle- luia,” says Tobit, speaking of the rebuilding of Jerusalem, Tob. xiii, 18. St. John, in the Revelation, xix, 1, 3, 4, 6, says, “I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, who cried, Alleluia; and the four living creatures fell down, and worshipped God, saying, Alle- Juia.” This expression of joy and praise was transferred from the synagogue to the church. At the funeral of Fabiola, “several psalms were sung with loud alleluias,” says Jerom, in Epitaphio Paula. ““The monks of Palestine were awaked at their midnight watchings, with the singing of alleluias.” It is still occasion- ally used in devotional psalmody. ALMAH, nnby, a Een word signifying properly a virgin, a young woman unacquainted with man. In this sense it occurs in the fa- mous passage of Isaiah, vii, 14: ‘Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son.” The Hebrew has no term that more properly signi- fies a virgin than almah. St. Jerom, in his commentary on this passage, observes, that the Prophet declined using the word ethaul which signifies any young woman, or young person, but employed the term almah, which denotes a virgin never seen by man. ‘This is the import of the word almah, which is derived from a root which signifies to conceal. It is very well known, that young women in the east do not appear in public, but are shut up in their houses, and their mothers’ apartments, like nuns. The Chaldee paraphrast and the Sep- tuagint translate almah “a virgin ;” and Akiba, the famous rabbin, who was a great enemy to Christ and Christians, and lived in the second century, understands it in the same manner. The Apostles and Evangelists, and the Jews of our Seviouis time, explained it in the same sense, and expected a ‘Messiah born of a virgin. The Jews, that they may obscure this plain text, and weaken this proof of the truth of the 4% ALM Christian religion, pretend that the Hebrew word signifies a young woman, and not a vir- gin. But this corrupt translation is easily con- futed. 1. Because thie word constantly denotes a virgin in all other passages of Scripture in which it is used. 2. From the intent of the passage, which was to confirm their faith by a strange and wonderful sign. It surely could be no wonder, that a young woman should conceive a child; but it was a very extraordi- nary circumstance that a virgin should con- ceive and bear a son. ALMIGHTY, an attribute of the Deity, Gen. xvii,1. The Hebrewnamo, vw, Shaddai, signifies also all-sufficient, oy all-bountiful. See Gen. xxviii, 3; xxxv, 11; xlili, 14; xlix, 25. Of the omnipotence of God, we have a most ample revelation in the Scriptures, expressed in the most sublime language. From the annun- ciation by Moses of a divine existence who was “in the beginning,” before all things, the very first step is to the display of his almighty power in the creation out of nothing, and the imme- diate arrangement in order and perfection, of the “ heaven and the earth ;” by which is meant, not this globe only with its atmosphere, or even with its own celestial system, but the uni- verse itself; for “he made the stars also.” We are thus at once placed in the presence of an agent of unbounded power; for we must all feel that a being which could create such a world as this, must, beyond all comparison, possess a power greater than any which we experience in ourselves, than any which we observe in other visible agents, and to which we are not authorized by our observation or know-. ledge to assign any Tonite of space or duration. 2. That the saered writers should so fre- quently dwell upon the omnipotence of God, has important reasons which arise out of the very design of the revelation which they were the means of communicating to mankind. Men were to be reminded of their obligations to obedience; and God is therefore constantly exhibited as the Creator, the Preserver, and Lord of all things. His solemn worship and fear were to be enjoined upon them; and, by the manifestation of his works, the veil was withdrawn from his glory and majesty. Idola- try was to be checked and reproved, and the true God was therefore placed in contrast with the limited and powerless gods of the Heathen: “ Among the gods of the nations, is there no god like unto thee; neither are there any works like thy works.” Finally, he is exhibited as the object of trust to creatures constantly re- minded by experience of their own infirmity and dependence; and to them it is essential to know, that his power is absolute, unlimited, and irresistible, and that, in a word, he is “ mighty to save.” 3. In a revelation which was thus designed to awe and control the wicked, and to afford strength of mind and consolation to good men under all circumstances, the omnipotence of God is therefore placed in a great variety of impressive views, and connected with the most striking illustrations. It is declared by the fact of creation, the ALM creation of beings out of nothing ; which itself, though it had been confined to a single object, however minute, exceeds finite comprehension, and overwhelms the faculties. This with God required no effort: ‘ He spake and it was done, he commanded and it stood fast.” The vast- ness and variety of his works enlarge the con- ception: “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handy work.” “He spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea; he maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, and the cham- bers of the south; he doeth great things, past finding out, yea, and wonders without number. He stretcheth out the north over the empty ae and hangeth the earth upon nothing. e bindeth up the waters in the thick clouds, and the cloud is not rent under them; he hath compassed the waters with bounds until the day and night come to an end.” The ease with which he sustains, orders, and controls the most powerful and unruly of the elements, arrays his omnipotence with an aspect of in- effable dignity and majesty: ‘‘ By him all things consist.” ‘‘ He brake up for the sea a decreed place, and set bars and doors, and said, Hitherto shalt thou come and no farther, and here shall thy proud waves be stayed.” “ He looketh to the end of the earth, and seeth under the whole heaven, to make the weight for the winds, to weigh the waters by measure, to make a decree for the rain, and a way for the lightning of the thunder.” ‘ Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, meted out heaven with a span, comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance.” The de- scriptions of the divine power are often terri- ble: ‘“‘ The pillars of heaven tremble, and are astonished at his reproof; he divideth the sea by his power.” “He removeth the mountains, and they know it not; he overturneth them in his anger; he shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble; he com- mandeth the sun and it riseth not, and sealeth up the stars.” The same absolute subjection of creatures to his dominion is seen among the intelligent inhabitants of the material universe ; and angels, mortals the most exalted, and evil Spirits, are swayed with as much ease as the most passive elements: ‘‘ He maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.” They veil their faces before his throne, and acknow- ledge themselves his servants: “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the in- habitants thereof are as grasshoppers,” “as the dust of the balance, less than nothing and vanity.” ‘He bringeth princes to nothing.” “ He setteth up one and putteth down another ;” “for the kingdom is the Lord’s, and he is go- vernor among the nations.” ‘“ The angels that sinned he cast down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment.” The closing scenes of this world complete these transcendent conceptions of the majesty and power of God. The dead of all ages rise from their graves at his voice: and the sea gives up the dead which are init. Be fore his face heaven and earth fly away; the 42 ALM stars fall from heaven, and the powers of hea- ven are shaken. The dead, small and great, stand before God, and are divided as a shepherd divideth the sheep from the goats. The wicked go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal. — 4, Of these amazing views of the omnipo. tence of God, spread almost through every page of the Scriptures, the power lies in their truth. They are not eastern exaggerations, mistaken for sublimity. Every thing in nature answers to them, and renews from age to age the energy of the impression which they cannot but make on the reflecting mind, The order of the astral revolgtions indicates the constant presence of an invisible but incomprehensible power. The seas hurl the weight of their billows upon the rising shores, but every where find a “ bownd fixed by a perpetual decree.” The tides reach their height; if they flowed on for a few hours, the earth would change places with the bed of the sea; but, under an invisible control, they become refluent. The expression, “ He touch- eth the mountains and they smoke,” is not mere imagery :—every volcano is a testimony of its truth; and earthquakes proclaim, that, before him, “ the pillars of the world tremble.” Men collected into armies, or populous nations, give us vast ideas of human power; but let an army be placed amidst the sand storms and burning winds of the desert, as, in the east; or, before “Ais frost,” as in our own day in Russia, where one of the mightiest armaments were seen retreating before, or perishing under, an unexpected visitation of snow and storm; or let the utterly helpless state of a populous country which has been visited by famine, or by a resistless pestilential disease, be reflected upon; and we feel that it is scarcely a figure of speech to say, that ‘all nations before him are less than nothing and vanity.” 5. Nor, in reviewing this doctrine of Serj ture, ought the great practical uses made of the omnipotence of God, by the sacred writers, to be overlooked. By them nothing is said for the mere display of knowledge, as in Heathen writers; and we have no speculations without a subservient moral. To excite and keep alive in man the fear and worship of God, and to bring him to a felicitous confidence in that almighty power which pervades and controls all things, are the noble ends of those ample displays of the omnipotence of God, which roll through the sacred volume with a sublimity that inspiration only could supply. “ Declare his glory among the Heathen, ie marvellous works among all nations; for great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised.—Glory and honour are in his presence, and strength and gladness in his place—Give unto the Lord, ye kindreds of the people, give unto the Lord glory and strength; give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name—The Lord is my light and my sal- vation; whom shall I fear?—The Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid? If God be for us, who then can be against us? Our help standeth in the name of the Lord, who made heaven and earth—What time I am afraid, I will trust in thee."—Thus, as one ab- & are ue SES Rae eee Pee eee ALM 43 serves, “our natural fears, of which we must have many, remit us to God, and remind us, since we know what God is, to lay hold on his almighty power.” 6. Ample, however, as are these views of the power of God, the subject is not exhausted. As, when the Scriptures speak of the eternity of God, they declare it so as to give us a mere glimpse of that fearful peculiarity of the divine nature, that God is the fountain of being to himself, and that he is eternal, because he is the “Tam;” so we are taught not to measure God’s omnipotence by the actual displays of it which we see around us. These are the mani- festations of the fact, but not the measure of the attribute; and should we resort to the dis- coveries of modern philosophy, which, by the help of instruments, has so greatly enlarged the known boundaries of the visible universe, | and add to the stars which are visible to the naked eye, those new exhibitions of the divine power in the nebulous appearances of the hea- vens which are resolvable into myriads of distinct celestial luminaries, whose immense distances commingle their light before it reach- es our eyes; we thus almost infinitely expand the circle of created existence, and enter upon a formerly unknown and overwhelming range of divine operation. But still we are only re- minded that his power is truly almighty and measureless—“ Lo, all these are parts of his ways; but how little a portion is known of him, and the thunder of his power who can under- stand?” It is a mighty conception that we form of a power from which all other power is derived, and to which it is subordinate; which nothing can oppose; which can beat down and annihilate all other power whatever; which operates in the most perfect manner, at once, in an instant, with the utmost ease; but the Scriptures lead us to the contemplation of greater and even unfathomable depths. The omnipotence of God is inconceivable and boundless. It arises from the infinite perfec- tion of God, that his power can never be actu- ally exhausted ; and, in every imaginable instant in eternity, that inexhaustible power of God can, if it please him, be adding either more creatures to those in existence, or greater per- fection to them; since “ it belongs to self-exist- ent being, to be always full and communicative, and, to the communicated contingent being, to be ever empty and craving.” . 7. One limitation of the divine power it is true we can conceive, but it detracts nothing from its perfection. Where things in them- selves imply a contradiction, as that a body may be extended and not extended, in a certain place and not in it, at the same time; such things cannot be done by God, because contra- dictions are impossible in their own nature. Nor is it any derogation from the divine power to say, they cannot be done; for as the object of the understanding, of the eye, and the ear, is that which is intelligible, visible, and audi- ble; so the object of power must be that which is possible; and as it is no prejudice to the most perfect understanding, or sight, or hearing, that it does not understand what is not intelligible, ALM or sce what is not visible, or hear what is not audible; so neither is it any diminution to the most perfect power, that it does not do what is not possible. In like manner, God cannot do any thing that is pienam to his other perfec- tions: he cannot lie, nor deceive, nor deny himself; for this would be injurious to his truth. He cannot love sin, nor punish innocence; for this would destroy his holiness and goodness : and therefore to ascribe a power to him that is Inconsistent with the rectitude of his nature, is not to magnify but debase him; for all unright- eousness 1s weakness, a defection from right reason, a deviation from the perfect rule of ac- tion, and arises from a want of goodness and power. Ina word, since all the attributes of God are essentially the same, a power in him which tends to destroy any other attribute of the divine nature, must be a power destructive of itself. Well, therefore, may we conclude him absolutely omnipotent, who, by being able to effect all things consistent with his perfections, showeth infinite ability, and, by not being able to do any thing repugnant to the same perfections demonstrates himself subject to no infirmity. 8. Nothing certainly in the finest writings of antiquity, were all their best thoughts collected as to the majesty and power of God, can bear any comparison with the views thus presented to us by divine revelation. Were we to forget, for a moment, what is the fact, that their noblest notions stand connected with fancies and vain speculations which deprive them of their force, still their thoughts never rise so high; the cur- rent is broken, the round of lofty conception is not completed, and, unconnected as their views of divine power were with the eternal destiny of man, and the very reason of creation, we never hear in them, as in the Scriptures, “ the THUNDER of his power.” ALMOND TREE, nb. Arabic, 2auz. Trans- lated hazel, Gen. xxx, 37; 1pw, rendered almond, Gen. xlii, 11; Exod. xxv, 33, 34; xxxvii, 19, 20; Num. xvii, 8; Eccles. xii, 5; and Jer. i, 11. The first name may be that of the tree; the other, that of the fruit, or nut. A tree resembling the peach tree in its leaves and blossoms, but the fruit is longer and more compressed, the outer green coat is thinner and drier when ripe, and the shell of the stone is not so rugged. This stone, or nut, contains a kernel, which is the only esculent part. The whole arrives at maturity in September, when the outer tough cover splits open and discharges the nut. From the circumstance of its blossom- ing the earliest of any of the trees, beginning as soon as the rigour of the winter is past, and be- fore it is in leaf, it has its Hebrew name shakad, which comes from a verb signifying to make haste, to be in a hurry, or to awake early. To the forwardness of the almond tree there seems to be a reference in Jeremiah: “ The word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Jeremiah, what seest thou? And I said, I see a rod of an almond tree. Then said the Lord unto me, Thou hast well seen: for I will hasten my word to perform it;” or rather, “I am hastening, or watching over my word to fulfil it,” Jer. i, 11,12. In this manner it is rendered by the Seventy; ALO and by the Vulgate, Vigilabo ego super verbum meum, [I will watch over my word.] This is the first vision with which the Prophet was honoured ; and his attention is roused by a very significant emblem of that severe correction with which the Most High was hastening to visit his people for their iniquity ; and from the species of tree to which the rod belonged, he is warned of its near approach. The idea which the appearance of the almond rod suggested to his mind, is confirmed by the exposition of God himself: “I am watching over, or on account of, my word to fufil it;” and this double mode of instruction, first by emblem, and then by exposition, was certainly intended to_make a deeper impression on the mind both of Jeremiah and of the people to whom he was sent. | It is probable that the rods which the princes of Israel bore, were scions of the almond tree, at once the ensign of ‘their office, and the emblem of their vigilance. Such, we know from the testi- mony of Scripture, was the rod of Aaron; which renders it exceedingly probable, that the rods of the other chiefs were from the same tree. The hoary head is beautifully compared by Solomon to the almond tree, covered in the ear- liest days of spring with its snow white flowers, before a single leaf has budded: “ The almond tree shall flourish, and the Brapehopnet shall be a burden, and desire shall fail,” Eccl. xii, 5. Man has existed in this world but a few days, when old age begins to appear, sheds its snows upon his head, prematurely nips his hopes, darkens his earthly prospects, and hurries him into the grave. ALMUG TREE, a certain kind of wood, mentioned 1 Kings, x, 11; 2 Chron. ii, 8; ix, 10, 11. Jerom and the Vulgate render it, ligna thyina, and the Septuagint éida wedexnra, wrought wood. Several critics understand it to mean gummy wood; but a wood abounding in resin must be very unfit for the uses to which this is said to be applied. Celsus queries if it be not the sandal; but Michaelis thinks the particular species of wood to be wholly unknown to us. Dr. Shaw supposes that the almug tree was the cypress; and he observes that the wood of this tree is still used in Italy and other places for violins, harpsichords, and other stringed instru- ments. ALOB, »by, a plant with broad leaves, near- ly two inches thick, as and serrated. It rows about two feet high. A very bitter gum is extracted from it, used for medicinal pur- poses, and anciently for embalming dead bo- dies. Nicodemus is said, John xix, 39, to have brought one hundred pounds’ weight of myrrh and aloes to embalm the body of Jesus. The aa has been exclaimed against by certain ews as being enough for fifty bodies. But instead of fkarév it might originally have been written décarov, ten pounds’ weight. However, at the funeral of Herod there were five hundred dpwuardpogors, spice bearers ; and at that of R. Ga- mialiel, eighty pounds of opobalsamum were used. The wood which God showed Moses, that with it he might sweeten the waters of Marah, is called alvah, Exod. xv, 25. The word has gome relation to aloe; and some interpreters are 4 ALO of opinion that Moses used a bitter sort of wood. that so the power of God might be the more remarkable. Mr. Bruce mentions a town, or large village, by the name of Elvah. It is thickly planted with trees; is the oasis parva of the ancients; and the last inhabited place to the west that is under the jurisdiction of Egypt, He also observes that the Arabs call a shrub or tree, not unlike our hawthorn, either in wood or flower, by the name of elvah. “‘ It was this,” say they, “with which Moses sweetened the waters of Marah; and with this, too, did Kalib Tbn el Walid sweeten those of Elvah, once bit- ter, and give the place the name of this circum- stance.” It may be that God directed Moses to the very wood proper for the purpose. M. Nei- buhr, when in these parts, inquired after wood capable of this effect, but could gain no informa- tion of any such. It will not, however, from hence follow that Moses really used a bitter wood; but, as Providence usually works by the proper and fit means to accomplish its ends, it seems likely that the wood he made use of was, in some degree at least, corrective of that quali- ty which abounded in the water, and so rendered it potable. This seems to have been the opinion of the author of Ecclesiasticus, xxxvili, 5. That other water, also, requires some correction, and that such a correction is applied to it, appears from the custom in Egypt in respect to that of the Nile, which, though somewhat muddy, is rendered pure and salutary by being put into jars, the inside of which is rubbed with a paste made of bitter almonds. The first discoverers of the Floridas are said to have corrected the stagnant and fetid water they found there, by infusing in it branches of sassafras; and it is understood that the first inducement of the Chi- nese to the general use of tea, was to correct the water of their ponds and rivers. The Licn-Auog, or agallochum, Num. xxiv, 6; Psalm xlv,9; and Cantic. iv, 14. nbmx, mas- culine, nx, whose plural is =»onx, is a small tree about eight or ten feet high. That the flower of this plant yielded a fragrance, is assur- ed tous in the following extract from Swin- burne’s Travels, letter xii: ‘“ This morning, like many of the foregoing ones, was delicious. The sun rose gloriously out of the sea, and all the air around was perfumed with the effluvia of the aloe, as its rays sucked up the dew from the leaves.” This extremely bitter plant contains under the bark three sorts of wood. The first is black, solid, and weighty; the second is of a tawny colour, of a light spongy texture, very porous, and filled with a resin extremely fra- grant and agreeable; the third kind of wood, which is the heart, has a strong aromatic odour, and is esteemed in the east more precious than gold itself. It is used for perfuming habits and apartments, and is administered as a cordial in fainting and epileptic fits. These pieces, called calunbac, are carefully preserved in pewter boxes, to prevent their drying. When they are used they are ground upon a marble with such liquids as are best suited to the purpose for which they are intended. This wood, mention- ed Cantic. iv, 14, in conjunction with several other odoriferous plants there referred to, was ALT in high esteem among the Hebrews for its ex- quisite exhalations. The scented aloe, and each shrub that showers Gum from its veins, and odours from its flowers. Thus the son of Sirach, Ecclesiasticus xxiv, 15: “T gave a sweet smell like the cinnamon and aspalathus. I yielded a pleasant odour like the best myrrh; like galbanum and onyx, and fragrant storax, and like the fume of frankin- cense in the tabernacle.” It may not be amiss to observe that the Persian translator renders ahalim, sandal wood; and the same was the opinion of a certain Jew in Arabia who was consulted by Neibuhr. ALPHA, the first letter of the Greek alpha- bet; Omega being the last letter. Eieues Alpha and Omega is a title which Christ ap- propriates to himself, Rev. i, 8; xxi, 6; xxii, ib : as signifying the beginning and the end, the first and the last, and thus properly denoting his perfection and eternity. ALPHEUS, father of James the less, Matt. x,3; Luke vi, 15. Alpheus was the husband of Mary, believed to have been sister to the mother of Christ; for which reason, James is called the Lord’s brother ; but the term brother is too general in its application to fix their relation, though the fact is probable. Many are of opinion that Cleopas, mentioned Luke xxiv, 18, is the same as Alpheus; Alpheus be- ing his Greek name, and Cleopas his Hebrew, or Syriac name, according to the custom of this province, (or of the time,) where men often , had two names; by one of which they were known to their friends and countrymen, by the other to the Romans or strangers. 2. Avryeus, father of Levi, or Matthew, whom Jesus took to be an Apostle and Evange- list, Mark ii, 14. ALTAR. Sacrifices are nearly as ancient as ree. and altars are of almost equal an- tiquity. Scripture speaks of altars, erected by the patriarchs, without describing their form, or the materials of which they were composed. The altar which Jacob set up at Bethel, was the stone which had served him for a pillow ; Gideon sacrificed on the rock before his house. The first altars which God commanded Moses to raise, were of earth or rough stones; and it was declared that if iron were used in con- structing them they would become impure, Exod. xx, 24, 25. The altar which Moses enjoined Joshua to build on Mount Ebal, was to be of unpolished stones, Deut. xxvii, 5; Josh. vii, 31; and it is very probable that such were those built by Sarre. Saul, and David. The altar which Solomon erected in the temple was of brass, but filled, it is believed, with rough stones, 2 Chron. iv, 1-3. It was twenty cubits long, twenty wide, and ten high. That built at Jerusalem, by Zerubbabel, after the return from Babylon, was of rough stones; as was that of Maccabees. Josephus says that the altar which in his time was in the temple was of rough stones, fifteen cubits high, forty long, and forty wide. ; mong the Romans altars were of two kinds, the higher and the lower; the higher were intended for the celestial gods, and were called 45 ALT aitaria, from aliws; the lower were for the terrestrial and infernal gods, and were called are. Those dedicated to the heavenly gods were raised a great height above the surface of the earth; those of the terrestrial gods were almost even with the surface; and those for the infernal deities were only holes dug in the ground called scrobiculz. Before temples were in use the altars were placed in the groves, highways, or on tops of mountains, inscribed with the names, ensigns, or characters of the respective gods to whom they belonged. The great temples at Rome generally contained three altars; the first in the sanctuary, at the foot of the statue, for incense and libations; the second before the gate of the temple, for the sacrifices of victims ; and the third was a portable one for the offer- ings and sacred vestments or vessels to lie a ae The ancients used to swear upon the altars upon solemn occasions, such as confirm- ing alliances, treaties of peace, &c. They were also places of- refuge, and served as an asylum and sanctuary to all who fled to them, whatever their crimes were. The principal altars among the Jews were those of incense, of burnt-offering, and the altar or table for the shew bread. The altar of incense was a small table of shittim wood covered with plates of gold. It was a cubit long, a cubit broad, and two cubits high. At the four corners were four horns. The priest, whose turn it was to officiate, burnt incense on this altar, at the time of the morning sacrifice between the sprinkling of the blood and the laying of the pieces of the victim on the altar of burnt-offering. He did the same also in the evening, between the laying of the pieces on the altar and the drink-offering. At the same time the people prayed in silence, and their prayers were offered up by the priests. The altar of burnt-offering was of shittim wood also, and carried upon the shoulders of the priests, by staves of the same wood overlaid with brass. In Moses’s days it was five cubits square, and three high: but it was greatly en- larged in the days of Solomon, being twenty cubits square, and tenin height. It was cover- ed with brass, and had a horn at each corner to which the sacrifice was tied. This altar was placed in the open air, that the smoke might not sully the inside of the tabernacle or tem- ple. On this altar the holy fire was renewed from time to time, and kept constantly burn- ing. Hereon, likewise, the sacrifices of lambs and bullocks were burnt, especially a lamb every morning at the third hour, or nine of the clock, and a lamb every afternoon at three, Exod. xx, 24, 25; xxvii, 1, 2,4; xxxviii, 1. The altar of burnt-offering had the privilege of being a sanctuary or place of refuge. The wilful murderer, indeed, sought protection there in vain; for by the express command of God he might be dragged to justice, even from the altar. The altar or table of shew bread was of shittim wood also, covered with plates of gold, and had a border round it adorned with sculp- ture. It was two cubits long, one wide, and one and a half in height. This table stood in AMA the sanctum sanctorwm, [holy of holies,] and upon it were placed the loaves of shew bread. After the return of the Jews from their cap- tivity, and the building of the second temple, the form and size of the altars were somewhat changed. Sacrifices according to the laws of Moses, could not be offered except by the priests; and at any other place than on the altar of the tabernacle or the temple. Furthermore, they were not to be offered to idols, nor with any superstitious rites. See Lev. xvii, 1-7; Deut. xii, 15, 16. Without these precautionary mea- sures, the true religion would hardly have been secure. If a different arrangement had been adopted, if the priests had been scattered about to various altars, without being subjected to the salutary restraint which would result from a mutual observation of each other, they would no doubt some of them have willingly con- sented to the worship of idols; and others, in their separate situation, would not have been in a condition to resist the wishes of the multi- tude, had those wishes been wrong. The necessity of sacrificing at one altar, (that of the tabernacle or bamplen is frequently and emphatically insisted on, Deut. xii, 13,14; and all other altars are disapproved, Lev. xxvi, 30, compare Joshua xxii, 9-34. Notwithstanding this, it appears that, subsequently to the time of Moses, especially in the days of the kings, altars were multiplied; but they fell under suspicions, although some of them were perhaps sacred to the worship of the true God. It is, nevertheless, true, that prophets, whose cha- racters were above all suspicion, sacrificed, in some instances, in other places than the one designated by the laws, 1 Sam. xiii, 3-14; xvi, 1-5; 1 Kings xviii, 21-40. AMALEKITES, a people whose country adjoined the southern border of the land of Canaan, in the north-western part of Arabia Petra. They are generally supposed to have been the descendants of Amalek, the son of Eliphaz, and grandson of Esau. But Moses speaks of the Amalekites long before this malek was born; namely, in the days of Abraham, when Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, devastated their country, Gen. xiv, 7; from which it may be inferred that there was some other and more ancient Amalek, from whom this people sprang. The Arabians have a tradition that this Amalek was a son of Ham; and when we consider that so early as the march from Egypt the Amalekites were a peo- ple powerful enough to attack the Israelites, it is far more probable that they should derive their ancestry from Ham, than from the then recent stock of the grandson of Esau. It may also be said, that the character and fate of this Beye were more consonant with the dealings of Providence toward the families of the for- mer. This more early origin of the Amalek- ites will likewise explain why Balaam called them the “ first of the nations.” They are supposed by some to have been a party or tribe of the shepherds who invaded gypt, and kept it in subjection for two hundred years. This will agree with the Arabian tra- 46 AMA dition as to their descent. It also agrees with their pastoral and martial habits, as well as with their geographical position; which was erhaps made choice of on their retiring from Eevol, adjoining that of their countrymen the Philistines, whose history is very similar. It also furnishes a motive for their hostility to the Jews, and their treacherous attempt to destroy them in the desert. The eee of this hos- tility has been very generally supposed to have been founded in the remembrance of Jacob’s depriving their progenitor of his birthright. But we do not find that the Edomites, who had this ground for a hatred to the Jews, made any attempt. to molest them, nor that Moses ever reproaches the Amalekites for attacking the Israelites as their brethren; nor do we ever find in Scripture that the Amalekites joined with the Edomites, but always with the Ca naanites and the Philistines. These consider- ations would be sufficient, had we no other reasons for believing them not to be of the stock of Esau. They may, however, be deduced from a higher origin; and viewing them as Cuthite shepherds and warriors, we have an adequate explanation both of their imperious and warlike character, and of the motive of their hostility to the Jews in particular. If expelled with the rest of their race from Egypt they could not but recollect the fatal overthrow at the Red Sea; and if not participators in that catastrophe, still, as members of the same family, they must bear this event in remeni- brance with bitter feelings of revenge. But an» additional motive is not wanting for this hos- tility, especially for its first act. ‘The Amalek- ites probably knew that the Israelites were advancing to take possession of the land of Canaan, and resolved to frustrate the purposes of God in this respect. Hence they did not wait for their near approach to that country, but came down from their settlements, on its southern borders, to attack them unawares at Rephidim. Be this as it may, the Amalekites came on the Israelites, when encamped at that place, little expecting such an assault. Moses commanded Joshua, with a chosen band, to attack the Amalekites; while he, with Aaron and Hur, went up the mountain Horeb. During the engagement, Moses held up his hands to heaven; and so long as they were maintained in this attitude, the Israelites prevailed, but when through weariness they fell, the Ama- lekites prevailed. Aaron and Hur, seeing this, held up his hands till the latter were entirely defeated with great slaughter, Exod. xvii. The Amalekites were indeed the earliest and the most bitter enemies the Jews had to en- counter. They attacked them in the desert; and sought every opportunity afterward of molesting them. Under the judges, the Ama- lekites, in conjunction with the Midianites, invaded the land of Israel; when they were defeated by Gideon, Judges vi, vii. But God, for their first act of treachery, had declared that he would “utterly put out the remem- brance of Amalek from under heaven;” a denunciation which was not long after accom- plished. Saul destroyed their entire army AMA with the exception of Agag their king; for sparing whom, and permitting the Israelites to take the spoil of their foes, he incurred the dis- leasure of the Lord, who took the sceptre from im. Agag was immediately afterward hewn in pieces by Samuel, 1 Sam. xv. It is remark- able, that most authors make Saul’s pursuit of the Amalekites to commence from the lower Euphrates, instead of from the southern border of the land of Canaan. (See Havilah.) Da- vid a few years after, defeated another of their armies; of whom only four hundred men esca- ped on camels, 1 Sam. xxx; after which event, the Amalekites appear to have been obliterated as a nation. AMASA, the son of Ithra and Abigail, Da- vid’s sister, whom Absalom, when he rebelled against his father, appointed general of his army, 2Sam. xvii, 25. Amasa having thus received the command of Absalom’s troops, en- gaged his cousin Joab, general of David’s army, and was worsted. But, after the defeat of Ab- salom’s party, David, being angry at Joab for killing Absalom, pardoned Amasa, and gave him the command ofhis own army. Upon the revolt of Sheba, the son of Bichri, David gave orders to Amasa to assemble all Judah and march against Sheba. Amasa not being able to form his army in the time prescribed, David directed Abishai to pursue Sheba with the guards. Joab, with his people, accompanied him ; and these troops were scarcely got as far as the great stone in Gibeon, before Amasa came and joined them with his forces. Then said Joab to Amasa, “ Art thou in health, my brother ?’ and took him by the beard with his right hand to kiss him; and _treacherously smote him under the fifth rib, so that he expired. AMAZIAH, one of the kings of Judah, 2 Chron. xxiv, 27, son of Joash, succeeded his father A. M. 3165, B. C. 839. He wastwenty- five years of age when he began to reign, and reigned twenty-nine years at Jerusalem. “ He did good in the sight of the Lord, but not with a perfect heart.” When settled in his kingdom, he put to death the murderers of his father, but avoided a barbarous practice then too common, to destroy also their children; in which he had respect to the precept, “‘ The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers ; every man shall ‘be put to death for his own sin,” Deut. xxiv, 16; 2 Chron. xxv, 1-3. Inthe muster which Amaziah made of his people, he found three hundred thousand men able to bear arms. He hired, besides, one hun- dred thousand men of Israel; for which he paid the king of Israel a hundred talents, about thirty-four thousand pounds English. His de- ee was to employ these troops against Edom, which had revolted from Judah, in the reign of Joram, about fifty-four years before, 2 Kings, viii, 20. But a prophet of the Lord came to him, and said, “ 3} King, let not the army of Israel go with thee; for the Lord is not with Israel.” Amaziah, hereupon, sent back those troops; and they returning, strongly irritated against Amaziah, dispersed themselves over the cities of Judah, from Bethoron to Samaria, 47 AMB killed three thousand men, and carried off a great booty, to make themselves amends for the loss of the plunder of Edom. Amaziah, with his own forces gave battle to the Edom- ites in the Valley of Salt, and defeated them; but having thus punished Edom, and taken their idols, he adored them as his own deities. This provoked the Lord, who permitted Amaziah to be so blinded as to believe himself invincible. He therefore sent to defy the king of Israel, saying, ‘‘ Come, let us look one another in the face.” The motive of this challenge was pro- bably to oblige Joash, king of Israel, to repair the ravages which his troops had committed on their return homewards. Joash answered him by the fable of the cedar of Lebanon, and the thistle trodden down by a beast, 2 Kings xiv, 8,9. But Amaziah, deaf to these reason- ings, advanced to Bethshemesh, and was defeat- ed and taken prisoner there, by Joash, who carried him to Jerusalem. Joash ordered the demolition of four hundred cubits of the city wall, carried to Samaria all the gold and silver, the rich vessels of the house of God, the treasu- ries of the royal palace, and the sons of those among his own people who had been hostages there. Amaziah reigned after this, fifteen or sixteen years at Jerusalem, but returned not to the Lord. He endeavoured to escape from a conspiracy to Lachish ; but was assassinated. He was buried with his ancestors in the city of David, and Uzziah, or Azariah, his son, about sixteen years of age, succeeded him. AMBASSADOR, a_ messenger sent by a sovereign, to transact affairs of great moment, Ministers of the Gospel are called ambassadors, because, in the name of Jesus Christ the King of kings, they declare his will to men, and pro- pose the terms of their reconciliation to God, 2 Cor. v, 20; Eph. vi, 20. Eliakim, Shebna, and Joah, the servants of king Hezekiah, were called ‘‘ ambassadors of peace.” In their mas- ter’s name they earnestly solicited a peace from the Assyrian monarch, but were made “to weep bitterly” with the disappointment and re- fusal, Isaiah xxxiii, 7. AMBER, Snwn, Ezek. i, 4, 27; vill, 2. The amber is a hard inflammable bitumen. When rubbed it is highly endowed with that remark- abie property called electricity, a word which the moderns have formed from its Greek name *éxrpov. But the ancients had also a mixed metal of fine copper and silver, resembling the amber in colour, and called by the same name. From the version of Ezekiel i, 4, by the LXX, Kai éy r péow dvrov Ws boats HrEKTpOU ev péoWrov mvpds, “And in the midst of it as the appear- ance of electrum in the midst of the fire,” it ap- pears that those translators by #\é«7pov, could not mean amber, which grows dim as soon as it feels the fire, and quickly dissolves into a resinous or pitchy substance; but the mixed metal above mentioned, which is much celebrated by the ancients for its beautiful lustre, and which, when exposed to the fire like other metals, rows more bright and shining. St. Jerom, Fr heodore!, St. Gregory and Origen think, that, in the above cited passages from Ezekiel, a pre- cious and highly polished metal is meant. AMM AMEN. inv, in Hebrew, signifies true, faith- ful, certain. It is used likewise in affirmation ; and was often thus employed by our Saviour: “Amen, amen,” that is, “ Verily, verily.” Itis also understood as expressing a wish, ““ Amen! so be it!” or an affirmation, “ Amen, yes, I believe it:” Num. v, 22. She shall answer, “ Amen! amen!” Deut. xxvii, 15, 16,17, &c. “« All the people shall answer, Amen! amen!” 1 Cor. xiv, 16. “ How shall he who occupieth the place of the unlearned, say, Amen! at thy giving of thanks ? seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest.” ‘“ The promises of God are Amen in Christ;” that is, certain, confirmed, granted, 2 Cor. i, 20. The Hebrews end the five books of Psalms, according to their distri- bution of them, with “ Amen, amen ;” which the Septuagint translate, Déorro, yévorro, and the Latins, Fiat, fiat. The Gospels, &c, are ended with amen. The Greek, Latin, and other churches, preserve this word in their prayers, as well as alleluia and hosanna. At the con- clusion of the public prayers, the people ancient- Ht answered with a loud voice, “ Amen!” and erom says, that, at Rome, when the people answered, ‘‘ Amen!” the sound was like a clap of thunder, in simililudinem calestis tonitrut Amen reboat, [Amen rings again like a peal of thunder.] ‘The Jews assert that the gates of heaven are opened to him who answers, “ Amen!” with all his might. The Jewish doctors give three rules for pro- nouncing the word: 1. That it be not pronounc- ed too hastily and rapidly, but with a grave and distinct voice. 2. That it be not louder than the tone of him that blesses. 3. That it be ex- pressed in faith, with a certain persuasion that God would bless them, and hear their prayers. Amen is a title of our Lord, “ The Amen, the true and faithful witness,” Rev. i, 14. AMETHYST. nobnx, Exod. xxviii, 19; and xxix, 12; and once in the New Testament, Rev. xxi, 20, dpéOvoros. A transparent gem, of a colour which seems composed of a strong blue and deep red; and, according as either prevails, affords different tinges of purple, sometimes approaching to vio- Jet, and sometimes even fading to a rose colour. The stone called amethyst by the ancients was evidently the same with that now generally known by this name; which is far from being the case with regard to some other gems. The oriental is the hardest, scarcest, and most valu- able. It was the ninth stone in the pectoral of the high priest, and is mentioned as the twelfth in the foundations of the New Jerusalem. AMMINADAB, or ABINADAB, a Levite, and an inhabitant of Kirjath-jearim, with whom the ark was deposited after it was brought back from the land ofthe Philistines, 1 Sam. vii. This Amminadab dwelt in Gibeath, that is to say, in the highest part of the city of Kirjath-jearim. 2. The chariots of Amminadab are mention- ed, Canticles vi, 12, as being extremely light. He is thought to have been some celebrated charioteer, whose horses were singularly swift. AMMON, or HAMMON, or JUPITER- AMMON, an epithet given to Jupiter in Lybia, where was a celebrated temple of that deity 48 AMM under the denomination of Jupiter Ammon, which was visited by Alexander the Great. The word Amoun, which imports ‘“‘ shining,” according to Jablonski, denoted the effects pro- duced by the sun on attaining the equator, such as the increase of the days; a more splendid light; and above all, the fortunate presage of the inundation of the Nile, and its consequent abundance. Ammon is by others derived from Ham, the son of Noah, who first peopled Egypt and Lybia, after the flood; and, when idolatry began to gain ground soon after this period, became the chief deity of those two countries, in which his descendants continued. A temple, it is said, was built to his honour, in the midst of the sandy deserts of Lybia, upon a spot of good ground, about two leagues broad, which form- ed a kind of island or oasis in a sea of sand. He was esteemed the Zeus of Greece, and the Jupiter of Latium, as well as the Ammon of the Egyptians. In process oftime, these two names were joined; and he was called Jupiter Ammon. For this reason the city of Ammon, No-ammon, or the city of Ham, was called by the Greeks Diospolis, or the city of Jupiter. Plutarch says, that of all the Egyptian deities which seemed to have any correspondence with the Zeus of Greece, Amon or Ammon was the most pecu- liar and appropriate. From Egypt his name and worship were brought into Greece; as in- deed were almost all the names of all the deities that were there worshipped. Jupiter Ammon, or the Egyptian Jupiter, was usually represent- ed under the figure of a ram; though in some medals he appears of a human shape, having only two ram’s horns growing out beneath his ears. The Egyptians, says Proclus, in the Timeus of Plato, had a singular veneration for the ram, because the image of Ammon bore its head, and because this first sign of the zodiac was the presage of the fruits of the earth. Eu sebius adds, that this symbol marked the conjunc- tion of the sun and moon in the sign of the ram. 2. Ammon, or Ben-Ammi, the son of Lot, by his youngest daughter, Gen. xix, 38. He was the father ofthe Ammonites, and dwelt on the east side of the Dead Sea, in the mountains of Gilead. AMMONIANS, the disciples of Ammonius Saccas, of the Alexandrian school. His cha- racter was so equivocal, that it is disputed whether he was a Heathen oraChristian. Mr. Milner calls him “a Pagan Christian,” who imagined “ that all religions, vulgar and philo- sophical, Grecian and barbarous, Jewish and Gentile, meant the same thing in substance. He undertook, by allegorizing and subtilizing various fables and systems, to make up a coali- tion of all sects and religions; and from his labours, continued by his disciples,—some of whose works still remain,—his followers were taught to look on Jew, philosopher, vulgar, Pagan, and Christian, as all of the same creed,’ and worshippers of the same God, whether de- nominated “ Jehovah, Jove, or Lord.” AMMONITES, the descendants of Ammon, the son of Lot. They took possession of the country called by their name, after having AMM driven out the Zamzummims, who were its ancient inhabitants. The precise period at which this expulsion took place is not ascer- tained. The Ammonites had kings, and were uncircumcised, Jer. ix, 25, 26, and seem to have been pee ee to husbandry. They, as well as the Moabites, were among the nations whose peace or prosperity the Israelites were forbidden to disturb, Deut. ii, 19, &c. However, neither the one nor the other were to bo admitted into the congregation to the tenth generation, because they did not come out to relieve them in the wilderness, and were implicated in hiring Balaam to curse them. Their chief and peculiar deity is, in Scripture, called Moloch. Chemosh was also a god of the Ammonites. Before the Israelites entered Canaan, the Amorites conquered a great part of the country belonging to the Ammonites and Moabites; but it was retaken by Moses, and divided between the tribes of Gad and Reuben. Previous to the time of Jephthah, B. C. 1188, the Ammonites engaged as principals in a war, under a king whose name is not given, against the Israelites. This prince, determining to re- cover the ancient country of the Ammonites, made a sudden irruption into it, reduced the land, and kept the inhabitants in subjection for eighteen years. He afterwards crossed Jordan with a design of falling upon the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Ephraim. The Israel- ites resisted the invader; and, assembling at Mizpeh, chose Jephthah for their general, and sent an expostulatory message to the king of the Ammonites, Judges x, x1. The king re- plied, that those lands belonged to the Ammon- ites, who had been unjustly dispossessed of them by the Israelites, when they came out of Egypt, and exhorted Jephthah to restore them peaceably to the lawful owners. Jephthah re- monstrated on the injustice of his claim; but finding a war inevitable, he fell upon the Am- monites near Aroer, and defeated them with great slaughter. On this occasion the Ammon- ites lost twenty cities; and thus an end was put, after eighteen years’ bondage, to the tyranny of Ammon over the Israelites beyond Jordan. In the days of Saul, 1 Sam. xi, B. C. 1095, the old claim of the Ammonites was re- vived by Nahash their king, and they laid siege to the city of Jabesh. The inhabitants were inclined to acknowledge Nahash as their sove- reign; but he would accept their submission only on condition that every one of them should consent to lose his right eye, and that thus he might fix a lasting reproach upon Israel: but from this humiliating and severe requisition they were delivered by Saul, who vanquished and dispersed the army of Nahash. Upon the death of Nahash, David sent ambas- sadors lo his son and successor Hanun, to con- gratulate him on his accession; but these ambassadors were treated as spies, and dis- missed in a very reproachful manner, 2 Sam. x. This indignity was punished by David with rigour. Rabbah, the capital of -Hanun, and the other cities of Ammon, which resisted the progress of the conqueror, were destroyed and razed to the ground i, and the inhabitants were 49 AMM put to death or reduced to servitude. In the reign of Jehoshaphat the Ammonites united with their brethren, the Moabites, and the inhabitants of Mount Seir, against the king of Judah; but they were completely routed. They were afterward overthrown by Uzziah, king of Judah, and made tributary, 2 Chron. xxvi, 8; and rebelling in the reign of his son Jotham, they were reduced to the necessity of purchas- ing peace at a very dear rate. After the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manas- seh, were carried into captivity by Tiglath Pileser, B. C. 740, the Ammonites and Moab- ites took possession of the cities belonging to these tribes, and were reproached for it by Jeremiah, xlix, 1. Their ambassadors were exhorted to submit to Nebuchadnezzar, and threatened, on their refusal, with captivity and slavery, Jer. xxvii, 2,3,4. The Protheviaekial, xxv, 4-10, denounces their entire destruction, and informs them, that God would deliver them up to the people of the east; and that the Am- monites should no more be mentioned among the nations: and this punishment they were to suffer for insulting the Israelites on actount of their calamities, and the destruction of their temple by the Chaldeans. This malediction began to be inflicted upon them in the fifth year after the taking of Jerusalem, when Nebu- chadnezzar made war against all the people around Judea, A. M. 3420 or 3421, B. é. BBB It is probable that Cyrus granted to the Ammon- ites and Moabites liberty to return into their own country, whence they had been removed by Nebuchadnezzar; for they were exposed to the revolutions that were common to the peo- ple of Syria and Palestine, and were subject sometimes to the kings of Egypt, and some- times to the kings of Syria. Polybius informs us, that Antiochus the Great took Rabboth, or Philadelphia, the capital of the Ammonites, demolished the walls, and put a garrison into: it, A. M. 3806, B.C. 198. During the persecu- tions of Antiochus Epiphanes, the Ammonites manifested their hatred to the Jews, and exer- cised great cruelties against such of them as lived in their parts. At length their city Jaser, and the neighbouring town, fell a prey to the Jews, who smote the men, carried their wives and children into captivity, and plundered and burned the city. Thus ended their last conflict with the descendants of Israel. Ammon was, however, a highly productive and populous country when the Romans became masters of all the’ provinces of Syria; and several of the ten allied cities, which gave name to the cele- brated Decapolis, were included within its boundaries. Even when first invaded by the Saracens, this country, ee Moab, was enriched by the various benefits of trade, covered with a line of forts, and possessed some strong and populous cities. Volney bears wit- ness, “that in the immense plains of the Hau- ran, ruins are continually to be met with, and that what is said of its actual fertility perfectly corresponds with the idea given of it in the Hebrew writings.” The fact of its natural fer- tility is corroborated by every traveller who has visited it. And “it is evident,” says Burck- AMM hardt, “that the whole country must have been extremely well cultivated in order to have afforded subsistence to the inhabitants of so many towns,” as are now visible only in their tuins. While the fruitfulness of the land of Ammon, and the high degree of prosperity and power in which it subsisted long prior and long subsequent to the date of the predictions, are thus indisputably established by historical evi- dence and by existing proofs, the researches of recent travellers ae were actuated by the mere desire of exploring these regions and ob- taining geographical information) have made known its present aspect; and testimony the most clear, unexceptionable, and conclusive, has been borne to the state of dire desolation to which it is and has long been reduced. It was prophesied concerning Ammon, “ Son of man, set thy face against the Ammonites, and prophesy against them. I will make Rab- bah of the Ammonites a stable for camels and a couching place for flocks. Behold, I will stretch out my hand upon thee, and deliver thee for g spoil to the Heathen ; I will cut thee off from the people, and cause thee to perish out of the countries; I will destroy thee. The Ammonites shall not be remembered among the nations. Rabbah” (the chief city) “ of the Ammonites shall be a desolate heap. Ammon shall be a perpetual desolation,” Ezek. xxv, 2, 5, 7,10; xxi, 32; Jer. xlix, 2; Zeph. ii, 9. Ammon was to be delivered to be a spoil to the Heathen—to be destroyed, and to be a per- petual desolation. ‘‘ All this country, formerly so populous and flourishing, is now changed into a vast desert.” (Scetzen’s Travels.) Ruins are seen in every direction. The country is divided between the Turks and the Arabs, but chiefly possessed by the latter. The extortions of the one, and the depredations of the other, keep it in ‘ perpetual desolation,” and make it ‘Ca spoil to the Heathen.” ‘ The far greater part of the country is uninhabited, being aban- doned to the wandering Arabs, and the towns and villages are in a state of total ruin.” (JLid.) “ At every step are to be found the vestiges of ancient cities, the remains of many temples, public edifices, and Greek churches.” (Burck- hardt’s Travels.)' The cities are left desolate. “Many of the ruins present no objects of any interest. They consist of a few walls of dwell- ing houses, heaps of stones, the foundations of some public edifices, and a few cisterns filled up; there is nothing entire, though it appears that the mode of building was very solid, all the remains being formed of large stones. In the vicinity of Ammon there is a fertile plain interspersed with low hills, which for the great- er part are covered with ruins.” (Burckhardt’s Travels in Syria.) While the country is thus despoiled and desolate, there are valleys and tracts throughout it which “ are covered with a fine coat of verdant pasture, and are places of resort to the Bedouins, where they pasture their camels and their sheep.” (Buckingham’s Travels in Palestine.) ‘ The whole way we traversed,” says Seetzen, “we saw villages in ruins, and met numbers of Arabs with their camels,” &c. Mr. Buckingham describes a 50 AMM building among the ruins of Ammon, “the ma- sonry of which was evidently constructed of materials gathered from the ruins of other and older buildings on the spot. On entering it at the south end,” he adds, “ we came to an open square court, with arched recesses on each side, the sides nearly facing the cardinal points, The recesses in the northern and southern wall were originally open passages, and had arched door ways facing each other; but the first of these was found wholly closed up, and the last was partially filled up, leaving only a narrow passage, just sufficient for the entrance of one man and of the goats, which the Arab keepers drive in here occasionally for shelter during the night.” He relates that he lay down among “flocks of sheep and goats,” close beside the ruins of Ammon; and particularly remarks that, during the night, he ‘‘ was almost entirely prevented from sleeping by the penne of flocks.” So literally true is it, although Seet. zen, and Burckhardt, and Buckingham, who relate the facts, make no reference or allusion whatever to any of the prophecies, and travelled for a different object than the elucidation of the Scriptures,—that “the chief city of the Ammon- ites is a stable for camels, and a couching place for flocks.” “The Ammonites shall not be remembered among the nations.” While the Jews, who were long their hereditary enemies, continue as distinct a people as ever, though dispersed among all nations, no trace of the Ammonites remains; none are now designated by their name, nor do any claim descent from them. They did exist, however, long after the time when the eventual annihilation of their race was foretold; for they retained their name, and continued a great multitude until the second century of the Christian era. (Justin ye “Yet they are cut off from the people. - mon has perished out of the countries; it is destroyed.” No people is attached to its soil; none regard it as their country and adopt its name: “ And the Ammonites are not remem- bered among the nations.” “ Rabbah” (Rabbah Ammon, the chief city of Ammon) “ shall be a desolate heap.” Situ- ated, as it was, on each side of the borders of a plentiful stream, encircled by a fruitful region, strong by nature and fortified by art, nothing could have justified the suspicion, or warranted the conjecture in the mind of an uninspired mortal, that the royal city of Ammon, what- ever disasters might possibly befal it in the fate of war or change of masters, would ever un- dergo so total a transmutation as to become a desolate heap. But although, in addition to such tokens of its continuance as a city, more than a thousand years had given uninterrupted experience of its stability, ere the prophets of Israel denounced its fate ; yet a period of equal length has now marked it out, as it exists to this day, a desolate heap, a perpetual or per- manent desolation. Its ancient name is still preserved by the Arabs, and its site is now “covered with the ruins of private buildings— nothing of them remaining except the founda- tions and some of the door posts. The build- AMO ings, exposed to the atmosphere, are all in decay,” Burckhardt’s Travelsin Syria,)sothat they may be said literally to form a desolate heap. The public edifices, which once strength- ened or adorned the city, after a long resistance to decay, are now also desolate; and the re- mains of the most entire among them, sub- jected as they are to the abuse and spoliation of the wild Arabs, can be adapted to no better object than “a stable for camels.” Yet these broken walls and ruined palaces, says Mr. Keith, which attest the ancient splendour of Ammon, can now be made subservient, by means of a single act of reflection, to a far nobler purpose than the most magnificent edi- fices on earth can be, when they are contem- plated as monuments on which the historic and prophetic truth of Scripture is blended in one bright inscription. MORITES, the descendants of Amori, or Hemorri, or Amorrhzus, Gen. x, 16, the fourth son of Canaan, whose first possessions were in the mountains of Judea, among the other fami- lies of Canaan: but, growing strong above their fellows, and impatient of confinement within the narrow boundaries of their native district, they passed the Jordan, and extended _ their conquests over the finest provinces of Moab and Ammon; seizing and maintaining posses- sion of that extensive and almost insulated por- tion of country included between the rivers Jordan, Jabbok, and Arnon. This was the kingdom, and Heshbon the capital, of the Amorites, under Sihon their king, when the Israelites, in their way from HEY Esc aneciod a passage through their country. This request, however, Sihon refused; and came out against them with all his force, when he was slain, his people extirpated, and his kingdom taken pos- session of by the Israelites. It was subse- quently divided between the tribes of Reuben and Gad, Num. xiii, 29; xxi, 13, 25; Joshua v,1; xi, 3; Judges xi, 19, 22. AMOS, the fourth of the minor prophets, who in his youth had been a herdsman in Te- koa, a small town about four leagues southward of Jerusalem. He was sent to the people of Samaria, to bring them back to God by repent- ance, and reformation of manners. Hence it is natural to suppose that he must have been born within the territories of Israel, and that he only retired to Tekoa, on being expelled from Bethel by Amaziah, the priest of the calves at Bethel. He frequently complains of the vio- lence offered him by those who endeavoured to impose silence on him. He boldly inveighs against the crying sins of the Isra¢lites, such as idolatry, oppression, wantonness, and obsti- nacy. Nor does he spare the sins of Judah, such as their carnal security, sensuality, and injustice. He utters frequent La against them both, and predicts their ruin. It is observable in this prophecy, that, as it begins with denunciations of judgment and_destruc- tion against the Syrians, Philistines, Tyrians, and other enemies of the Jews, so it concludes with comfortable promises of the restoration of the tabernacle of David, and the establishment of the kingdom of Christ. Amos was called to 51 AMY the prophetic office in the time of Uzziah, kung of Judah, and Jeroboam, the son of Joash, king of Israel. Some writers, in adverting to the condition of Amos, have, with a minute affectation of criticism, pretended to discover a certain rude- ness and vulgarity in his style; and even Je- rom is of opinion that he is deficient in mag- nificence and sublimity. He applies to him the words which St. Paul speaks of himself, that he was rude in speech, though not in knowledge; and his authority, says Bishop Lowth, “has influenced many commentators to represent him as entirely rude, and void of elegance; whereas it requires but little atten- tion to be convinced that he is not a whit be- hind the very chiefest of the prophets ;” equal to the greatest in loftiness of sentiment, and scarcely inferior to any in the splendour of his diction, and in the elegance of his composition. Mr. Locke has observed, that his comparisons are chiefly drawn from lions, and other ani- mals, because he lived among, and was convers- ant with, such objects. But, indeed, the finest images and allusions, which adorn the poetical parts of Scripture, in general are drawn from scenes of nature, and from the grand objects that range in her walks; and true genius ever delights in considering these as the real sources of beauty and magnificence. The whole book of Amos is animated with a fine and masculine eloquence. AMULET, a charm or supposed preservative against diseases, witchcraft, or any other mis- chief. They were very frequent among the Jews, the Greeks, and the Romans, and were made of stone, metal, animal substances, or, in short, any thing which a weak imagination ae The Jews were very superstitious in the use of amulets, but the Mishna forbids them, unless received from some person of whose cures, at least, three instances could be produced. ‘The phylacteries worn by the Pha- risees and others of the Jewish nation were a sort of amulets. Amulets among the Greeks were called, pr\axriipta, mepiarra, drorédecpara, meptdppara, Boj- Bra, and e&6Ama. The Latins called them amu- leta, appensa, pentacula, g-c. Remains of this Superstition continue among ignorant people even in this country, which ought to be strongly discountenanced as weak or wicked. The word amulet is probably derived from amula, a small vessel with lustral water in it, anciently carried in the pocket for the sake of purification and expiation. AMYRALDISM, a name given by some writers to the doctrine of universal grace, as explained and asserted Py Amyraldus, or Mo- ses Amyraut, and his followers, among the reformed in France, toward the middle of the seventeenth century. This doctrine princi- pally consisted of the following particulars, viz. that God desires the happiness of all men from which none are excluded by a divine de- cree; that none can obtain salvation without faith in Christ; that God refuses to none the power of believing, though he does not grant to all his assistance, that they may improve ANA 5 this power to saving purposes; and that many perish through their own fault. Those who embraced this doctrine were called Universal- ists, although, it is evident that they rendered grace universal in words. but partial in reality, and are chargeable with greater inconsisten- cies than the Supralapsarians. Amyraldus is said to have formed his system with a view of producing a reconciliation between the Luther- ans and Calvinists. This theory was supported in England by Baxter. See BaxTerianismM. ANABAPTISTS, a name given to those Christians who maintain that baptism ought always to be performed by immersion; that it ought not to be administered to children before the age of discretion ; and that at this age it ought to be readministered to those who have been baptized in theirinfancy. They affirm that the administration of this sacrament is neither valid nor useful if it be done by sprinkling only, and not by immersion; or if the persons who receive it be not in a condition to give the reasons of their belief. The Anabaptists of Germany brought the name into great odium by their turbulent conduct; but by the people of this persuasion generally, the conduct of these fanatics was at all times condemned. In Eng- land they form a most respectable, though not a very numerous body. The word Anabaptist is compounded of ava, new, and fazriorijs, a baptist; and has been in- discriminately ee to people of very differ- ent principles. any of them object to the name, because the baptism of infants by sprink- ling is, in their opinion, no baptism; and others hold nothing in common excepting some one or other of the above mentioned opinions con- cerning baptism. See Baptism. ANAGOGICAL. This is one of the four senses in which Scripture may be interpreted, viz. the literal, allegorical, anagogical, and tropological. The anagogical sense is given when the text is explained with regard to the end which Christians should have in view, that is, eternal life: for example, the rest of the Sabbath, in the anagogical sense, corresponds to the repose of everlasting blessedness. ANAK, ANAKIM, famous giants in Pales- tine. Anak, father of the Anakim, was son of Arba, who gave his name to Kirjath-Arba, or Hebron. Anak had three sons, Sheshai, Ahi- man, and Talmai, whose descendants were terrible for their fierceness and stature. The Hebrew spies reported that in comparison of those monstrous men, they themselves were but grasshoppers. Some have thought that the name Phenician, given to the Canaanites, and particularly to the Sidonians, was origi- nally from Bene-Anak, sons of Anak. Caleb, assisted by the tribe of Judah, took Kirjath- Arba, and destroyed the Anakim, A. M. 2559. Josh. xv, 14; Judg. i, 20. ANALOGY OF FAITH. This has been often and largely descanted upon as an import- ant rule for interpreting Scripture, founded, as it is said, upon Rom. xii, 6, “‘ Let us prophesy ac- cording to the proportion” (analogy) “ of faith.” The principle of this rule has been thus J ANA act without a design in the system of Chmis- tianity, any more than in the works of nature. Now this design must be uniform ; for as in the system of the universe every part is propor- tioned to the whole, and made subservient to it,—so, in the system of the Gospel, all the various truths, doctrines, declarations, precepts, and promises must correspond with, and tend to, the end designed. For instance, supposing the glory of God in the salvation of sinners by free grace be the grand design,—then, what- ever doctrine, -assertion, or hypothesis agrees not with this, it is to be considered as false. The effect however of this view of the case appears to be oftendelusive. If nothing more be meant than that, what is obscure in a reve- lation should be interpreted by that which is plain, the same rule applies to all sober inter- pretations of any book whatever; but if we call our opinions, perhaps hastily taken up, or ad- mitted on some authority without examination by the light of Scripture, ‘‘the analogy of faith,” we shall greatly err. On this subject Dr. Cam- bell remarks :— “In vain do we search the Scriptures for their testimony concerning Christ, if, independ- ently of these Scriptures, we have received a testimony from another quarter, and are deter- mined to admit nothing as the testimony of Scripture which will not perfectly quadrate with that formerly received. This was the very source of the blindness of the Jews in our Sa- viour’s time. They searched the Scriptures as much as we do; but, in the disposition they were in, they would never have discovered what that sacred volume testifies of Christ. Why ? because their great rule of interpreta- tion was the analogy of the faith; or, in other words, the system of the Pharisean scribes, the doctrine then in vogue, and in the profound veneration of which they had been educated. This is that veil by which the understandings of that people were darkened, even in reading the law, and of which the Apostle observed, that it remained unremoved in his day, and of which we ourselves have occasion to observe, that it remains unremoved in ours. And is it not precisely in the same way that the phrase is used by every sect of Christians, for the par- ticular system or digest of tenets for which they themselves have the greatest reverence? The Latin church, and even the Greek, are ex- pier in their declarations on this article. ith each, the analogy of the faith is their own! system alone. And that different parties of | Protestants, though more reserved in their manner of speaking, aim at the same thing, is undeniable; the same, I mean, considered rela-. tively to the speakers; for, absolutely con- sidered, every party means a different thing. ‘But,’ say some, ‘is not this mode of interpre- tation warranted by Apostolical authority? Does not Paul, Rom. xii, 6, in speaking of the exercise of the spiritual gifts, enjoin the pro- phets to prophesy xara ri dvadoyiay rijs misrews, according to the proportion of faith, as our translators render it, but as some critics ex- stated: It is evident the Almighty doth not pe it, according to the analogy of the faith? hough this exposition has been admitted into ANA some versions, and adopted by Hammond and other commentators, and may be called literal, it is suited neither to the ordinary meaning of the words, nor to the tenor of the context. The word dvaoyia strictly denotes proportion, measure, rate, but by no means that complex notion conveyed in the aforesaid phrase by the term analogy, which has been well observed by Whitby to be particularly unsuitable in this place, where the Apostle treats of those who speak by inspiration, not of those who explain what has been thus spoken by others. The context manifestly leads us to understand dvadoyia niorews, verse 6, as equivalent to pérpov miorews, verse 3. And for the better understand- ing of this phrase, the measure of faith, it may be proper to observe, 1. That a strong convic- tion of any tenet, from whatever cause it arises, is in Scripture sometimes termed faith. Thus in the same epistle, Rom. xiv, 22, the Apostle says, ‘Hast thou faith? have it, to thyself be- fore God.’ The scope of his reasoning shows that nothing is there meant by faith, but a con- viction of the truth in regard to the article of which he had been treating, namely, the equal- ity of days and meats, in point of sanctity, un- der the Gospel dispensation, The same is evidently the meaning of the word, verse 23, ‘Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin;’ where, without regard to the morality of an action abstractly considered, that is concluded to be sin which is done by one who doubts of its lawfulness. 2. As to spiritual gifts, prophecy and inspiration in particular, they appear to have been accompanied with such a faith or conviction that they came from the Spirit, as left no room for hesitation. And indeed it is easy to perceive that something of this kind was absolutely necessary to enable the inspired person to distinguish what proceeded from the Spirit of God, from what was the creature of his own imagination. The prophets of God were not acted upon like machines in deliver- ing their predictions, as the diviners were sup- posed to be among the Heathen, but had then, as at other times, the free use of their faculties, both of body and mind.” This caution is therefore with great propriety given them by the Apostle, to duce them to be attentive in prophesying, not to exceed the precise measure allowed them, (for different measures of the same gift were committed to different persons,) and not to mingle aught of their own with the things of God’s Spirit. Let him prophesy ac- cording to the proportion in which he has received this gift, which is in proportion to his faith. Though a sense somewhat different has been given to the words by some ancient Greek expositors, none of them seems to have formed a conception of that sense, which, as was ob- served above, has been given by some moderns. This has, nevertheless, a sound and sober prin- ciple included in it, although capable of great abuse. Undoubtedly there is a class of great and leading truths in the Scriptures so clearly revealed as to afford principles of interpreta- tion in doubtful passages, and these are so obvious that persons of sound minds and hearts will not need those formal rules for the appli- 53 ANA eation of the analogy of faith to interpretation, which have been drawn up by several writers, and which when not misleading, are generally superfluous. ANANIAS was the son of Nebedeus, high priest of the Jews. According to Josephus, he succeeded Joseph, the son of Camith, in the forty-seventh year of the Christian «ra; and was himself succeeded by Ishmael, the son of Tabeeus, in the year 63. Quadratus, governor of Syria, coming into Judea, on the rumours which prevailed among the Samaritans and Jews, sent the high priest Ananias to Rome, to vindicate his conduct to the emperor. The high priest justified himself, was acquitted, and returned. St. Paul being apprehended at Jeru- salem by the tribune of the Roman troops that guarded the temple, declared to him that he was a citizen of Rome. This obliged the offi- cer to treat him with some regard. As he was ignorant of what the Jews accused him, the next day he convened the priests, and placed St. Paul in the midst of them, that he might justify himself. St. Paul began as follows: “Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.” He had scarcely spoken this, when the high priest, Ananias, commanded those who were near him tosmite him on the face. The Apostle immedi- ately replied, ‘God shall judge thee, thou whited wall; for, sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?’ They that stood by said, “ Revilest thou God’s high priest?’ And Paul answered, “I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy pee Acts xxii, 23, 24; xxiii, 1-5; by which words many suppose that the Apostle spake in bitter irony; or at least that he considered Ananias as a usurper of the office of the priesthood. _ After this, the assembly being divided in opinion, St. Paul was sent by the tribune to Cesarea, that Felix, governor of the province, might take cognizance of the affair. When it was known that the Apostle had arrived at Cesarea, Ananias the high priest, and other Jews, went thither to accuse him; but the af- fair was adjourned, and St. Paul continued two years in prison in that city, Acts xxiv. The Apostle’s prediction that God would smite Ananias, was thus accomplished: Albi- nus, governor of Judea, being come into that country, Ananias found means to gain him by presents; and Ananias, by reason of this pa- tronage, was considered as the first man of his nation. However, there were in his party some violent persons, who plundered the coun- try, and seized the tithes of the priests ; and this they did with impunity, on account of the great credit of Ananias. At the same time, several companies of assassins infested Judea, and committed great ravages. When any of their companions fell into the hands of the governors of the province, and were about to be executed, they failed not to seize some do- mestic or relation of the high priest Ananias, that he might procure the liberty of their asso- ciates, in exchange for those whom they de- ANA tained. Having taken Eleazer, one of Ana- nias’s sons, they did not release him till ten of their companions were liberated. By this means their number considerably increased, and the country was exposed to their ravages. At length, Eleazer, the son of Ananias, heading a party of mutineers, seized the temple, and for- bade any sacrifices for the emperor. Being joined by the assassins, he pulled down the house of his father Ananias, with his brother, hid himself inthe aqueducts belonging to the roy- al palace, but was soon discovered, and both of them were killed. ‘Thus God smote this whited wall, in the very beginning of the Jewish wars. 2. Ananias, one of the first Christians of Jerusalem, who being converted, with his wife Sapphira, sold his estate; {as did the other Christians at Jerusalem, under a temporary regulation that they were to have all things in common ;) but privately reserved a part of the purchase money to himself. Having brought the remainder to St. Peter, as the whole price of the inheritance sold, the Apostle, to whom the Holy Ghost had revealed this falsehood, rebuked him severely, as having lied not unto men but unto God, Acts v. At that instant, Ananias, being struck dead, fell down at the Apostle’s feet ; and in the course of three hours after, his wife suffered a similar punishment. This happened, A. D. 33, or 34. It is evident, that in this and similar events, the spectators and civil magistrates must have been convinced that some extraordinary power was exerted, for if Peter had himself slain Ananias, he would have been amenable to the laws as a murderer. But, if by forewarning him that he should im- mediately die, and the prediction came to pass, it is evident that the power which attended this word of Peter was not from Peter, but from God. This was made the more certain by the death of two persons, in the same manner, and under the same circumstances, which could not be attributed to accident. 3. Anantas, a disciple of Christ, at Damas- cus, whom the Lord directed to visit Paul, then lately converted. Ananias answered, ‘“ Lord, Ihave heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem ; and how he hath authority from the chief pace to bind all that call upon thy name.” ut the Lord said unto him, “ Go thy way, for he is a chosen vessel unto me.” Ananias, therefore, went to the house in which God had revealed unto him that Paul was, and putting his hands on him, said, “ Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared unto thee in the way, hath sent me that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost,” Acts ix, 10-12, &. We are not informed of any other circumstance of the life of Ananias. ANATHEMA, from dvari@nyc, signifies some- thing set apart, separated, or devoted, Mic. iv, 13, or the formula vy which this is effected. To anathematize is generally understood to denote the cutting off or separating any one from the communion of the faithful, the num- ber of the living, or the privileges of society ; or the devoting of an animal, city, or other thing, to destruction. See Accursep. 54 ANG ANATHEMA MARANATHA. “TIfany man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha,” 1 Cor. xvi, 22. Why these two words, one Greek and the other Sy- riac, were not translated, is not obvious. They are the words with which the Jews began their greater excommunication, whereby they not only excluded sinners from their society, but delivered them up to the divine cherem, or anathema, that is, to misery in this life, and perdition in the life to come. “Let him be Anathema” is, “ Let him be accursed.” Ma- ranatha signifies, ‘‘ The Lord cometh,” or, “ will come;” that is, to take vengeance. See Ac- CURSED. ANDREW, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, a native of Bethsaida, and the brother of Peter. He was at first a disciple of John the Baptist, whom he left to follow our Saviour, after the testimony of John, “ Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world,” John i, 29, and was'the first disciple received by our Saviour. Andrew then introduced his brother Simon, and they went with him to the marriage in Cana, but afterward returned to their ordi- nary occupation, not expecting, perhaps, to be farthet employed in his service. owever, some months after, Jesus meeting them, while fishing together, called them to a regular at- tendance upon him, and promised to make them fishers of men, Matt. iv, 19. After our Saviour’s ascension, tradition states that Andrew was appointed to preach in Scy- thia and the neighbouring countries. Accord- ing to Eusebius, after this Apostle had planted the Gospel in several places, he came to Patre, in Achaia, where, endeavouring to convert the pro-consul AZgeas, he was, by that governor’s orders, first scourged, and then ecusieed, The time of his suffering martyrdom is not known; but all the ancient and modern martyrologies of the Greeks and Latins agree in celebrating his festival on the 30th of November. His body was embalmed, and decently interred at Patre, by Maximilla, a lady of great quality and estate. It was afterward removed to Con- stantinople, by Constantine the Great, who buried it in the great church which he had built to the honour of the Apostles. It is not known for what reason painters represent St. Andrew’s cross like an X. Peter Chrysologus says that he was crucified upon a tree; and the spurious Hippolytus assures us that it was an olive tree. Nevertheless, the tradition which describes him to have been nailed to a cross is very ancient. ANGEL, a spiritual, intelligent substance, the first in rank and dignity among created beings. The word angel, dyyédos, is not pro- perly a denomination of nature but of office; denoting as much as nwncius, messenger, a person employed to carry one’s orders, or de- clare his will. Thus it is St. Paul represents angels, Heb. i, 14, where he calls them “ minis- tering spirits ;” and yet custom has prevailed so much, that angel is now commonly taken for the denomination of a particular order of spiritual beings, of great understanding and Rowers superior to the souls or spirits of men. ome of these are spoken of in Scripture in ANG such a manner as plainly to signify that the are real beings, of a spiritual nature, of hig power, ea dignity, and happiness. Others of them are distinguished as not hav- ing kept their first station, Jude 6. These are represented as evil spirits, enemies of God, and intent on mischief. The devil as the head of them, and they as his angels, are represented as the rulers of the darkness of this world, or spiritual wickednesses, or wicked spirits, 7a mvevparixa ris movnptas év rots Exovpaviors, Hh. vi, 12; which may not be unfitly rendered, “the ‘spi- ritual managers of opposition to the kingdom of God.” The existence of angels is supposed in all religions, though it is incapable of being proved @ priori. Indeed, the ancient Sadducees are represented as denying all spirits; and yet the Samaritans, and Caraites, who are reputed Sadducees, openly allowed them: witness Abusaid, the author of an Arabic version of the Pentateuch; and Aaron, a Caraite Jew, in his comment on the Pentateuch; both extant in manuscript in the king of France’s library. In the Alcoran we find frequent mention of angels. The Mussulmen believe them of dif- ferent orders or degrees, and to be destined for different employments both in heaven and on earth. They attribute exceedingly great power to the angel Gabriel, as that he is able to de- scend in the space of an hour from heaven to earth; to overturn a mountain with a single feather of his wing, &c. The angel Asrael, they suppose, is appointed to take the souls of such as die; and another angel, named Esra- phil, they tell us, stands with a trumpet ready in his mouth to proclaim the day of judgment. The Heathen philosophers and poets were also agreed as to the existence of intelligent beings, superior to man; as is shown by St. Cyprian in his treatise of the vanity of idols; from the testimonies of Plato, Socrates, Tris- ees &c. They were acknowledged under different appellations; the Greeks calling them demons, and the Romans genii, or lares. curus seems to have been the only one among the old philosophers who absolutely rejected them. Authors are not so unanimous about the na- ture as about the existence of angels. Clemens Alexandrinus believed they had bodies ; which was also the opinion of Origen, Cesarius, Ter- tullian, and several others. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Gregory Nicene, St. Cyril, St. Chry- sostom, &c, held them to be mere spirits. It has been the more current opinion, especially in later times, that they are substances entirely spiritual, who can, at any time, assume bodies, and appear in human or other shapes. Ecclesi- astical writers make a hierarchy of nine orders of angels. Others have distributed angels into nine orders, according to the names by which they are called in Scripture, and reduced these orders into three hierarchies; to the first of which belong seraphim, cherubim, and thrones; to the second, dominions, virtues, and powers ; and to the third, principalities, archangels, and angels, The Jews reckon four orders or com- panies of angels, each headed by an archangel; the first order being that of Michael; the second, 55 Epi-. ANG of Gabriel; the third, of Uriel; and the fourth, of Raphael. Following the Scripture account, we shall find mention made of different orders of these superior beings; for such a distinction of orders seems intimated in the names given to different classes. Thus we have thrones, dominions, principalities, or princedoms, powers, authorities, living ones, cherubim and scraphim. That some of these titles may indicate the same class of angels is probable ; but that they all should be but different appellations of one common and equal order is improbable. We learn also from Scripture, that they dwell in the immediate presence of God; that they “excel in strength ;” that they are immortal ; and that they are the agents through which God very often accomplishes his special pur- poses of judgment and mercy. Nothing is more frequent in Scripture than the missions and appearances of good and bad angels, whom God employed to declare his will; to correct, teach, reprove, and comfort. God gave the law to Moses, and appeared to the old patri- archs, by the mediation of angels, who repre- sented him, and spoke in his name, Acts vii, 30, 35; Gal. iii, 19; Heb. xiii, 2. Though the Jews, in general, believed the existence of angels, there was a sect among them, namely, the Sadducees, who denied the existence of all spirits whatever, God only ex- cepted, Acts xxiil, 8. Before the Babylonish captivity, the Hebrews seem not to have known the names of any angel. The Talmudists say they brought the names of angels from Baby- lon. Tobit, who is thought to have resided in Nineveh some time before the captivity, men- tions the angel Raphael, Tob. iii, 17; xi, 2, 7; and Daniel, who lived at ‘Babylon some time after Tobit, has taught us the names of Michael and Gabriel, Dan. viii, 16; ix, 21; x, 21. In the New Testament, we find only the two latter mentioned by name. There are various opinions as to the time when the angels were created. Some think this took place when our heavens and the earth were made. For this opinion, however, there is no just foundation in the Mosaic account. Others think that angels existed long before the formation of our solar system; and Scrip- ture seems to favour this opimion, Job xxxvili, 4, 7, where God says, ‘‘ Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth ?—and all the sons of God shouted for joy.” Though it be a universal opinion that angels are of a spi- ritual and incorporeal nature, yet some of the fathers, misled by a passage in Gen. vi, 2, where it is said, ‘“ The sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were fair, and they took them wives of all which they chose,” imagined them to be corporeal, and capable of sensual pleasures. But, without noticing all the wild reveries which have been propagated by bold or ignorant persons, let it suffice to - observe, that by “the sons of God” we are evi- dently to understand the descendants of Seth, who, forthe great piety wherein they continued for some time, were so called; and that “ the daughters of men” were the progeny of wicked Cain. ANG As to the doctrine of tutelary or guarding angels, presiding over the affairs of empires, nations, provinces, and particular persons, though received by the later Jews, it appears to be wholly Pagan in its origin, and to have no countenance in the Scriptures. The pas- sages in Daniel brought to favour this notion are capable of a much better explanation; and when our Lord declares that the “ angels” of little children ‘‘do always behold the face of God,” he either speaks of children as being the objects of the general ministry of angels, or, still more probably, by angels he there means the disembodied spirits of children ; for that the Jews called disembodied spirits by the name of anels, appears from Acts xii, 15. . n this question of guardian angels, Bishop Horsley observes: ‘ That the holy angels are often employed by God in his gov21nment of this sublunary world, is indeed to be clearly proved by holy writ. That they have power over the matter of the universe, analogous to the powers over it which men possess, greater in extent, but still limited, is a thing which might reasonably be supposed, if it were not declared. But it seems to be confirmed by many passages of holy writ; from which it seems also evident that they are occasionally, for certain specific purposes, commissioned to exercise those powers to a prescribed extent. That the evil angels possessed before their fall the like powers, which they are still occasion- ly permitted to exercise for the punishment of wicked nations, seems also evident. ‘That they have a power over the human sensory, which they are occasionally permitted to exer- cise, and by means of which they may inflict diseases, suggest evil thoughts, and be the in- struments of temptation, must also be admitted. But all this amounts not to any thing of a dis- cretional authority placed in the hands of tutelar angels, or to an authority to advise the Lord God with respect to the measures of his government. Confidently I deny that a single text is to be found in holy writ, which, rightly understood, gives the least countenance to the abominable doctrine of such a participation of the holy angels in God’s government of the world. In what manner then, it may be asked, are the holy angels made at all subservient to the purposes of God’s government ? This ques- tion is answered by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Hebrews, in the last verse of the first chap- ter; and this is the only passage in the whole Bible in which we have any thing explicit upon the office and employment of angels: ‘ Are they not all,’ saith he, ‘ ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them that shall be heirs of salvation? They are all, however high in rank and order, nothing more than ‘minister- ing spirits,’ or, literally, ‘serving spirits ;’ not invested with authority of their own, but ‘sent forth,’ occasionally sent forth, to do such serv- ice as may be required of them, ‘ for them that shall be heirs of salvation.’ ” The exact number of angels is no where mentioned in Scripture ; but it is always repre- sented as very great. Daniel, vii, 10, says of the Ancient of Days, “ A fiery stream came from 56 ANG before him; thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.” Jesus Christ says, that his heavenly Father could have given him more than twelve legions of angels, that is, more than seventy-two thousand, Matt. xxvi, 53; and the Psalmist declares, that the chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels, Ixviii, 17. These are all intended not to express any exact number, but indefinitely a very large one. : Though all the angels were created alike good, yet Jude informs us, verse 6, that some of them “kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation,” and these God hath ‘“ reserved in everlasting chains under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day.” Speculations on the cause and occasion of their fall are all vain and trifling. Milton is to be read on this sub- ject, as on others, not asadivine, but as a poet. All we know, is, that they are not in their first “estate,” or in their original place; that this was their own fault, for “they left their own habitation ;” that they are in chains, yet with liberty to tempt; and that they are reserved to* the general judgment. am Dr. Prideaux observes, that the minister of the synagogue, who officiated in offering the public prayers, being the mouth of the congre- gation, delegated by them, as their representa- tive, messenger, or angel, to address God in prayer for them, was in Hebrew called sheliack- zibbor, that is, the angel of the church ; and that from hence the chief ministers of the seven churches of Asia are in the Revelation, by a name borrowed from the synagogue, called angels of those churches. HE ANGEL OF THE LORD, or the Angel Jehovah, a title given to Christ in his different appearances to the patriarchs and others in the Old Testament. When the Angel of the Lord found Hagar in the wilderness, ‘‘she called the name of Jewovan that spake to her, Thou God seest me.”—JEHOVAH appeared unto Abraham in the plains of Mamre. Abraham lifted up his eyes, and three men, three persons in human form, “stood by him.” One of the three is called Jehovah. And Jenovau said, “ Shall I hide from Abraham the thing that Ido?” Appearances of the same personage occur to Isaac and to Jacob under the name of “the God of Abra- ham, and of Isaac.” After one of these mani- festations, Jacob says, ‘‘I have seen God face to face;” and at another, “Surely the Lord (Jenovan) is in this place.” The same Jehovah was made visible to Moses, and gave him his commission; and God said, “I am raat I am; thou shalt say to the children of Israel, I am hath sent me unto you.” The same Jenov ie went before the Israclites by day in a pillar ot cloud, and by night in a pillar of fire; and by Him the law was given amidst terrible displays of power and majesty from mount Sinai. “I am the Lord (JeHovan) thy God, whith have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage: Thou shalt have no other gods before me,” &c. The collation of a few passages, or of the different parts of tha ANG same passages, of Scripture, will show that Jehovah, and “the Angel of the Lord,” when used in this eminent sense, are the same person. Jacob says of Bethel, where he had exclaimed, * Surely Jehovah is in this place;” “The Angel of God appeared _to me in a dream, saying, I am the God of Bethel.” Upon his death bed he gives the names of God and Angel to this same person: “ ‘The God which fed me all my life long unto this day, the Angel which re- deemed me from all evil, bless the lads.” So in Hosea xii, 2, 5, it is said, “ By his strength he had power with God; yea, he had power over the Angel, and prevailed.” “ We found him in Bethel, and there he spake with us, even the Lord God of Hosts; the Lord is his memorial.” Here the same person has the names, God, Angel, and Lord God of Hosts. “ The Angel of .the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven, and said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, (Jenovan,) that since thou hast done this thing, in blessing will Ibless thee.” The Angel of the Lord appeared to Moses in a flame of fire; but this same Angel “ called to him out of the bush, and said, [ am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abra- ham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God.” To omit many other pas- sages, St. Stephen, in alluding to this part of the history of Moses, in his speech before the council, says, “‘ There appeared to Moses in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, an Angel of the Lord in a flame of fire,” showing that that phraseology was in use among the Jews in his day, and that this Angel and Jehovah were re- garded as the same being; for he adds, ‘‘ Moses was in the church in the wilderness with the Angel which spoke unto him in Mount Sinai.” There is one part of the history of the Jews in the wilderness, which so fully shows that they distinguished this Angel of Jehovah from all created angels, as to deserve particular atten- tion. In Exodus xxili, 20, God makes this romise to Moses and the Israelites: ‘ Behold, send an Angel before thee to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice; provoke him not; for he will not ardon your transgressions, for my name is in him.” Of this Angel let it be observed, that he is here represented as the guide and pro- tector of the Spaces to him they were to owe their conquests and their settlement in the promised land, which are in other places often attributed to the immediate agency of God; that they are cautioned to “beware of him,” to reverence and stand in dread of him; that the pardoning of transgressions belongs to him ; finally, “that the name of God was in him.” This name must be understood of God’s own peculiar name, Jenovan, I am, which he as- sumed as his distinctive appellation at his first appearing to Moses; and as the names of God are indicative of his nature, he who had a right to bear the peculiar name of God, must also have his essence. This view is put beyond all doubt by the fact, that Moses and the Jews so understood the matter; for afterward when 57 ANG their sins had provoked God to threaten not to go up with them himself, but to commit them to “an angel who should drive out the Canaan- ite,” &c, the people mourned over this as a great calamity, and Moses betook himself to special intercession, and rested not until he obtained the repeal of the threat, and the re- newed promise, “My presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest.” othing, therefore, can be more clear than that Moses and the Israelites considered the promise of the Angel, in whom was “the name of God,” as a romise that God himself would go with thenf. ith this uncreated Angel, this presence of the Lord, they were satisfied, but not with “an angel” indefinitely, who was by nature of that order of beings usually so called, and therefore acreated being; for at the news of God’s de- termination not to go up with them, Moses hastens to the tabernacle to make his inter- cessions, and refuses an inferior conductor : — “If thy presence go not with me, carry us not up hence.” The Jews held this Word, or Angel of the Lord, to be the future Messiah, as appears from the writings of their older rabbins. So that he appears as the Jehovah of all the three dis- pensations, and yet is invariably described as a separate person from the anseen Jehovah who sends him. He was then the Word to be made flesh, and to dwell for a time among us, to open the way to God by his sacrifice, and to rescue the race, whose nature he should assume, from sin and death. This he has now actually effected; and the Patriarchal, Mosaic, and Christian religions are thus founded upon the same great principles—the fall and misery of mankind, and their deliverance by a Divine Redeemer. ANGELICS, worshippers of Angels. Those who consider this as a sect of the Apostolic age, think St. Paul, Coloss. ii, 18, cautions Christians against a superstitious reverence of these celestial agents of the Deity, which they conceive to have been borrowed from the idola- trous reverence paid by the Heathen to genii and demons. The Jews of that time are also accused of worshipping angels, and probably this superstition might through them influence the Judaizing members of some of the Apostolic churches. This idolatry may now he too justly charged upon the Romish and some other cor- rupt churches. ANGER, a resentful emotion of the mind, arising upon the receipt, or supposed receipt, of an affront or injury; and also simple feel- ing of strong displacency at that which is in itself evil, or base, or injurious to others. In the latter sense it is not only innocent but com- mendable. Strong displeasure against evil doers, provided it be free from hatred and malice, and interferes not with a just placable- ness, is also blameless, Eph. iv, 26. When it is vindictive against the person of our neigh- bour, or against the innocent creatures of God, it is wicked, Matt. v,22. When anger, hatred, wrath, and fury, are ascribed to God, they de- note no tumultuous passion, but merely his holy and just displeasure with sin and sinners; ANI and the evidence of it in his terrible threaten- ings, or righteous judgments, Psalm vi, 1, and vi, LL. e must, however, take care that we refine not too much. ‘These are Scriptural terms, and are often used of God; and though they express not a tumultuous, much less an unjust, passion, there is something in God which answers to them. In him they are principles arising out of his holy and just na- ture; and for this reason they are more steady and uniform, and more terrible, than if they were emotions, or as we say, passions. Nor can we rightly regard the severity of the judg- ments which God has so often executed upon sin without standing in awe of him, “as a consuming fire” to the ungodly. ANIMAL, is an organized and living body, endowed with sensation. Minerals are said to grow or increase, plants to grow and live, and animals alone to have sensation. The Hebrews distinguished animals into pure and impure, clean and unclean; or those which might be eaten and offered, and those whose use was prohibited. The sacrifices which they offered, were, 1. Of the beeve kind; a cow, bull, or calf. The ox could not be offered, because it was mutilated ; and when it is said oxen were sacrificed, we are to understand bulls, Lev. xxii, 18, 19. Calmet thinks, that the mutila- tion of animals was neither permitted, nor used, among the Israelites. 2. Of the goat kind; a he-goat, a she-goat, or kid, Lev. xxii, 24. 3. Of the sheep kind; a ewe, ram, or lamb. When it is said sheep are offered, rams are chiefly meant, especially in burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin; for as to peace-offerings, or sacrifices of pure devotion, a female might be sometimes offered, provided it was pure, and without blemish, Lev. iii, 1. Besides these three sorts of animals, used in sacrifices, many others might be eaten, wild or tame; as the stag, the roe-buck, and in gene- ral all that have cloven feet, or that chew the cud, Lev. ix, 2, 3, &c. All that have not cloven hoofs, and do not chew the cud, were esteemed impure, and could neither be offered nor eaten. The fat of all sorts of animals sacrificed was forbidden to be eaten. The blood of all kinds of animals generally, and in all cases, was prohibited on pain of death, Lev. iii, 17; vii, 23-27. Neither did the Israelites eat animals which had been taken and touched by a devouring or impure beast, as adog, a wolf, a boar, &c, Exodus xxii, 3; nor of any animal that died of itself. Whoever touched its carcass was impure until the even- ing; and till that time, and before he had washed his clothes, he did not return to the com- pany of other Jews, Lev. xi, 39,40; xvii, 15; xxii, 8. Fish that had neither fins nor scales were unclean, Lev. xi, 20. Birds which walk on the ground with four fect, as bats, and flies that have many feet, were impure. The law, however, excepts locusts, which have their hind feet higher than those before, and rather leap than walk. Those were clean, and might be eaten, Lev. xi, 21, 22, as they still are in Palestine. The distinction between clean and unclean animals has been variously 58 ANIL accounted for. Some have thought it symbolt- cal, intended to teach the avoidance of those evil qualities for which the unclean animals were remarkable; others, that, in order that the Hebrews might be preserved from idolatry, they were commanded to kill and eat many animals which were sacred among the Egyp- tians, and were taught to look with abhorrence upon others which they reverenced. Others have found a reason in the unwholesomeness of the flesh of the creatures pronounced by the law to be unclean, so that they resolve the whole into a sanalive regulation. But it is not to be forgotten that this division of ani- mals into clean and unclean existed both before the law of Moses, and even prior to the flood. The foundation of it was therefore clearly sa- crificial ; for before the deluge it could not have reference to health, since animal food was not allowed to men prior to the deluge; and as no other ground for the distinction appears, ex- cept that of sacrifice, it must therefore have had reference to the selection of victims to be solemnly offered to God, as a part of worship, and as the means of drawing near to him by expiatory rites for the forgiveness of sins. Some, it is true, have regarded this distinction of clean and unclean beasts as used by Moses by way of prolepsis, or anticipation,—a notion which, if it could not be refuted by the con- text, would be perfectly arbitrary. Not only are the beasts, which Noah was to receive, spoken of as clean and unclean; but it will be noticed, that, in the ccmmand to take them into the ark, a difference is made in the nwm- ber to be preserved—the clean being to be received by sevens, and the wnclean by two ofa kind. This shows that this distinction among beasts had been established in the time of Noah; and thus the assumption of a prolepsis is refut- ed. The critical attempts which have been made to show that animals were allowed to man for food, previous to the flood, have wholly failed. A second argument is furnished by the pro- hibition of blood for food, afier animals had been granted to man for his sustenance along with the “herb of the field.” This prohibition is repeated by Moses to the Israclites, with this explanation :—“I have given it upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls.” From this it has indeed been argued, that the doctrine of the atoning power of blood was new, and was then, for the first time, announc- ed by Moses, or the same reason for the pro- hibition would have been given to Noah. To this we may reply, 1. That unless the same be supposed _as the ground of the prohibition of blood to Noah, as that given by Moses to the Jews, no reason at all can be conceived for this restraint being put upon the appetite of mankind from Noah to Moses. 2. That it is a mistake to suppose, that the declaration of Moses to the Jews, that God had “ given them the blood for an atonement,” is an additional reason for the interdict, not to be found in the original prohibition to Noah. The whole pas- sage in Lev. xvii, is, “ And thou shalt say to them, Whatsoever man there be of the house ANI 59 of Israel, or of thestrangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood, I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and I will cut him off from among his people: For THE Lire of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it upon the altar, to make atonement for your souls: for it is the BLOOD (or LiFe) that maketh atonement for the sow,” The great reason, then, of the prohibi- tion of blood is, that it is the LIFE; and what follows respecting atonement is exegetital of this reason; the life is in the blood, and the blood or life is given as an atonement. Now, by turning to the original prohibition of Gene- sis, we find that precisely the same reason is given: ‘But the flesh with the blood, whichis the life thereof, shall yenot eat.” The reason, then, being the same, the question is, whether the exegesis added by Moses must not neces- sarily be understood in the general reason given for the restraint to Noah. Blood is proibitet for this cause, that it is the life; and oses adds, that it is “the blood,” or life, “which makes atonement.” Let any one attempt to discover any cause for the prohibi- tion of blood to Noah, in the mere circumstance that itis “the life,” and he will find it impos- sible. It is no reason at all, moral or institut- ed, except that as it was life substituted for life, the life of the animal in sacrifice for the life of man, and that it had a sacred appropria- tion. The manner, too, in which Moses in- troduces the subject is indicative that, although he was renewing a prohibition, he was not publishing a “new doctrine;” he does not teach his people that God had then given, or appointed, blood to make atonement; but he prohibits them from eating it, because he had made this appointment, without reference to time, and as a subject with which they were familiar. Because the blood was the life, it was sprinkled upon, and poured out at, the altar: and we have in the sacrifice of the pas- chal lamb, and the sprinkling of its blood, a sufficient proof, that, before the giving of the law, not only was blood not eaten, but was appropriated to a sacred sacrificial purpose. or was this confined to the Jews; it was customary with the Romans and Greeks, who, in like manner, poured out and sprinkled the blood of victims at their altars, a rite derived, robably, from the Egyptians, as they derived it, not from Moses, but from the sons of Noah. The notion, indeed, that the blood of the vic- tims was peculiarly sacred to the gods, is im- pressed upon all ancient Pagan mythology. If, therefore, the distinction of animals into clean and unclean existed before the flood, and was founded upon the practice of animal sa- erifice, we have not only a proof of the antiquity of that practice, but that it was of divine insti- tution and appointment, since almighty God gave laws for its right and acceptable perform- ance. Still farther, if animal sacrifice was of divine appointment, it must be concluded to be typical only, and designed to teach the great doctrine of moral atonement, and to direct faith to the only true sacrifice which could take away the sins of men ;—“‘ the Lamb ANO slain from the foundation of the world,”- -the victim “without spot,” who suffered the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God. See Sacririces. ANISE, an annual umbeliferous plant, the seeds of which have an aromatic smell, a plea- sant warm taste, and acarminative quality But by dvndov, Matt. xxiii, 23, the dill is meant. Our translators seem to have been first misled by a resemblance of the sound. No other ver- sions have fallen into the mistake. The Greek of anise is dutoov 3; but of dill, &vndov. ANNA, the daughter of Phanuel, a prophetess and widow, of the tribe of Asher, Luke ii, 36, 37. She was married early, and had lived only seven years with her husband. Being then disengaged from the ties of marriage, she thought only of pleasing the Lord; and con- tinued without ceasing in the temple, serving God night and day, with fasting and prayer, as the Evangelist expresses it. However, her serving God at the temple night and day, says Dr. Prideaux, is to be understood no otherwise than that she constantly attended the morning and evening sacrifice at the temple; and then with great devotion offered up her prayers to God; the time of morning and evening sacri fice being the most solemn time of prayer among the Jews, and the temple the most solemn place for this devotion. Anna was fourscore years of age when the holy virgin came to present Jesus in the temple; and en- tering accidentally, while Simeon was pro- nouncing his thanksgiving, she likewise began to praise God, and to speak of the Messiah to all those who waited for redemption in Jerusa- lem. We know nothing more either of the life or death of this holy woman. ANNAS, or ANANUS, as Josephus calls him, was the son of Seth, and high priest of the Jews. He succeeded Joazar, the son of Simon, enjoyed the high priesthood eleven years, and was succeeded by Ishmael, the son of Phabi. After he was deposed, he still pre- served the title of high priest, and had a great share in the management of public affairs. He is called high priest in conjunction with Caia- phas, when John the Baptist entered upon the exercise of his mission; though Calmet thinks that at that time he did not, strictly speaking, possess or officiate in that character, Luke iii, 2. On the contrary, Macknight and some others are of opinion, that at this time Caiaphas was only the deputy of Annas. He was father-in- law to Caiaphas; and Jesus Christ was carried before him, directly after his seizure in the garden of Olives, John xviii, 13. Josephus remarks, that Annas was considered as one of the happiest men of his nation, for five of his sons were high priests, and he himself pos- sessed that great dignity many years. This was an instance of good fortune which, till that time, had happened to no person. oe ANOINT, to pour oil upon, Gen. xxviii, 18; xxxi, 13. The setting up of a stone and anointing it by Jacob, as here recorded, in grateful memory of his celestial vision, proba- bly became the occasion of idolatry in succeed- ing ages, and gave rise to the erection of tem- ANO ples composed of shapeless masses of unhewn stone, of which so many astonishing remains are scattered up and down the Asiatic and the European world. Under the law, persons and things set apart for sacred purposes were anointed with the holy oil; which appears to have been a typical Pe eect elbae of the communication of the oly Ghost to Christ and to his church. See Exod. xxviii, xxix. Hence the Holy Spirit is called an wnction or anointing, 1 John ii, 20, 27; and our Lord is called the ‘ Messiah,” or “‘ Anointed One,” to denote his being called to the offices of mediator, prophet, priest, and king, to all of which he was consecrated by the anointing of the Holy Ghost, Matt. iii, 16, 17. When we hear of the anointing of the Jew- ish kings, we are to understand by it the same as their inauguration ; inasmuch as anointing was the principal ceremony on such an oc- casion, 2 Sam. i1,4; v,3. As far as we are informed, however, unction, as a sign of inves- titure with the royal authority, was bestowed only ue Saul and David, and subsequently upon Solomon and Joash, who ascended the throne under such circumstances, that there was danger of their right to the succession be- ing forcibly disputed, 1 Sam. x, 24; 2 Sam. ii, 4; v, 1-3; 1 Chron. xi, 1,2; 2 Kings xi, 12- 20; 2Chron. xxiii, 1-21. The ceremony of regal anointing needed not to be repeated in every instance of succession to the throne, be- cause the unction which the first one who held the sceptre in any particular line of princes had received was supposed to suffice for the suc- ceeding incumbents in the same descent. In the kingdom of Israel, those who were inducted into the royal office appear to have been inaugurated with some additional cere- monies, 2 Kings ix, 13. The private anoint- ings, which we learn to have been performed by the prophets, 2 Kings ix, 3, comp. 1 Sam. x, 1; xvi, 1-18, were only prophetic symbols or intimations that the persons who were thus anointed should eventually receive the kingdom. The holy anointing oil which was made by Moses, Exod. xxx, 22-23, for the maintaining and consecrating of the king, the high priest, and all the sacred vessels made use of in the house of God, was one of those things, as Dr. Prideaux observes, which was wanting in the second temple. The oil made and consecrated for this use was commanded to be kept by the children of Israel, throughout their generations, and therefore it was laid up in the most holy place of the tabernacle and the first temple. ANOMCSANS, the name by which the pure Arians were called in the fourth century, in contradistinction to the Semi-Arians. The word is formed from the Greek dvdpoos, different. For the pure Arians asserted, that the Son was of a nature different from, and in nothing like, that of the Father ; whereas the Semi-Arians acknowledged a likeness of nature in the Son, at the same time that they denied, with the ure Arians, the consubstantiality of the Word. he Semi-Arians condemned the Anomeans in the council of Seleucia; and the Anomeans, in their turn, condemned the Semi-Arians in ow ANT the councils of Constantinople and Antioch, erasing the word like out of the formula of Rimini and Constantinople. ANSWER. Besides the common usage of this word, in the sense of a reply, it has other significations. Moses, having composed a thanksgiving, after the passage of the Red Sea Miriam, it is said, answered, “Sing ye to the Lord,” &c,—meaning, that Moses, with the men on one side, and Miriam, with the women on the other side, sung the same song, as it were, in two choruses, or divisions; of which one answered the other. Num. xxi, 17, “ Then Israel sung this song, Spring up, O well, answer unto it;” that is, sing responsively, one side (or choir) singing first, and then the other. 1 Sam. xxix, 5, “Is not this David of whom they sung one to another in dances, saying, Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands?’ They sung this song to his honour in distinct choruses. This word is taken likewise for, to accuse or to defend any one, judicially. Gen. xxx, 33, ‘““My righteousness shall answer for me;” it shall be my advocate before thee. Deut. xxxi, 21, “ The song which thou shalt compose and teach them shall testify (answer) against them as a witness.” Isaiah says, ‘The show of their countenance will testify (answer) against them ; their impudence will be like a witness and an accuser. Hosea, v, 5, ‘“ The pride of Israel doth testify (answer) to his face.” To answer, is likewise taken in a bad sense ; as when it is said that a son answers his father insolently, or a servant his master. Rom. ix, 20, ‘‘ Who art thou that repliest against God ?” that is, to contest or debate with him. John xviii, 22, “Answerest thou the high priest so ?” St. Paul declares that he “had in himself the answer (or sentence) of death;” 2 Cor. i, 9; like a man who has had notice of condemna- tion, he had a certain assurance of dying. To answer is also used in Scripture for the commencement of a discourse, when no reply toany question or objection is intended. This mode of speaking is often used by the evangel- ists, ‘‘ And Jesus answered and said.” It isa Hebrew idiom. ANT, nbo:, inthe Turkish and Arabic, nem, Prov. vi, 6; xxx, 25. It is a little insect, fa- mous from all antiquity for its social habits, its economy, unwearied industry, and prudent fore- sight. It has afforded a pattern of commenda- ble frugality to the profuse, and of unceasing diligence to the slothful. Solomon calls the ants “exceeding wise; for though a race not strong, ie they prepare their meat in the sum- mer.” e therefore sends the sluggard to these little creatures, to learn wisdom, foresight, care, and diligence. Go to the ant; learn ofits ways, be wise; It early heaps its stores, lest want surprise. Skill’d in the various year, the prescient sago Beholds the summer chill’d in winter’s rage. Survey its arts; in each partition’d cell Economy and plenty deign to dwell.” That the ant hoarded up grains of corn against winter for its sustenance, was ver generally believed by the ancients, hough ANT 6] modern naturalists seem to question the fact. Thus Horace says, ee Stcut Parvula (nam exemplo est) magni formica laboris Ore trahit quodcunque potest, atque addit acervo Quem strut, haud ignara ac non incauta Sfuturi ; Qua, simul inversum contristat aquarius annum, Non usquam prorepit, et illis utitur ante Quaesitis supiens.”’ Sat. i, 1.1, v.33 “For thus the little ant (to human lore No mean example) forms her frugal store, Gather’d with mighty toil on every side, Nor ignorant nor careless to provide For future want; yet, when the stars appear That darkly sadden the declining year, No more she comes abroad, but wisely lives On the fair stores industrious summer gives.” The learned Bochart, in his Hierozoicon, has displayed his vast reading on this subject, and has cited passages from Pliny, Lucian, lian, Zoroaster, Origen, Basil, and Epiphanius, the Jewish rabbins and Arabian naturalists, all concurring in opinion that ants cut off the heads of grain, to prevent their germinating; and it is observable that the Hebrew name of the insect is derived from the verb $n, which signifies to cut off, and _is used for cutting off ears of corn, Job xxiv, 24. The following remarks are from “ the Intro- duction to Entomology,” by Kirby and Spence : “Till the manners of exotic ants are more accurately explored, it would be rash to affirm that no ants have magazines of provisions; for, although, during the cold of our winters in this country, they remain in a state of torpidity, and have no need of food, yet in warmer regions, during the rainy seasons, when they are proba- bly confined to their nests, a store of provisions may be necessary for them. Even in northern climates, against wet seasons, they may provide in this way for their sustenance and that of the young brood, which, as Mr. Smeatham ob- serves, are very voracious, and cannot bear to be long deprived of their food; else why do ants carry worms, living insects, and many other such things, into their nests? Solomon’s lesson to the sluggard has been generally ad- duced as a strong confirmation of the ancient opinion: it can, however, only relate to the species of a warm climate, the habits of which are probably different from those of a cold one; so that his words, as commonly interpreted, may be perfectly correct and consistent with nature, and yet be not at all applicable to the species that are indigenous to Europe.” The ant, according to the royal preacher, is one of those things which are little upon the earth, but exceeding wise. The superior wis- dom of the ant has been recognised by eal writers. Horace, in the passage from whic the preceding quotation is taken, praises its sagacity; Virgil celebrates its foresight, in pro- viding for the wants and infirmities of old age, while it is young and vigorous :— Ame tnopt metuens formica senecta. {And the ant dreading a destitute old age.] And we learn from Hesiod, that among the earliest Greeks it was called Idris, that is, wise, because it foresaw the coming storm, and the ANT inauspicious day, and collected her store. Cicero believed that the ant is not only fur- nished with senses, but also with mind, reason, and memory :—Jn formica non modo sensus sed etiam mens, ratio, memoria. [The ant possesses not only senses, but also mind, reason, memory.] The union of so many noble qualities in so smail a corpuscle, is indeed one of the most re- markable phenomena in the works of nature. ANTHROPOMORPHITES, a sect of an- clent heretics, who were so denominated from two Greek words dv0pwros, man, and pon, Shape. They understood every thing spoken in Serip- ture in a literal sense, and particularly that passage of Genesis in which it is said, “God made man after his own image.” Hence they maintained, that God had a human shape. ANTHROPOPATHY, a metaphor by which things belonging to creatures and espé- cially to man are ascribed to God. Instances of this abound in the Scriptures, by which they adapt themselves to human modes of speaking, and to the limited capacities of men. These anthropopathies we must however interpret in a manner suitable to the majesty of the divine nature. Thus, when the members of a human body are ascribed to God, we must understand by them those perfections of which such mem- bers in us are the instruments. The eye, for instance, represents God’s knowledge and watchful care; the am, his power and strength; the cars, the regard he pays to prayer and to the cry of oppression and misery, &c. Farther, when human affections are attributed to God, we must so interpret them as to imply no im- perfection, such as perturbed feeling in him, ‘When God is said to repent, the antecedent, by a frequent figure of speech, is put for the con- sequent; and in this case we are to understand an altered mode of proceeding on the part of God, which in man is the effect of repenting. ANTICHRIST, compounded of dzi, con- tra, against, and Xprorés, Christ, in a general sense, denotes an adversary of Christ, or one who denies that the Messiah is come. In this sense, Jews, infidels, &c, may be said to be antichrists. The epithet, in the gencral sense of it, is also applicable to any Rahs or person acting in direct opposition to Christ or his doc- trine. Its particular meaning is to be collected from those passages of Scripture in which it occurs. Accordingly, it may either signify one who assumes the place and office of Christ, or one who maintains a direct enmity and oppo- sition to him. The Fathers all speak of anti- christ as a single man; though they also assure us, that he is to have divers precursors, or fore- runners. Yet many Protestant writers apply to the Romish church, and the pope who is at the head of it, the several marks and signa- tures of antichrist enumerated in the Apoca- lypse, which would imply antichrist to be, not a single person, but a corrupt society, or a long series of persecuting pontiffs, or rather, a cer- tain power and government, that may be held for many generations, by a number of indivi- duals succeeding one another. The antichrist mentioned by the Apostle John, first Epistle ii, 18, and more particularly described in the book ANT of Revelation, seems evidently to be the same withthe man of sin, &c, characterized by St. Paul in his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, chap. ii; and the whole description literally applies tothe Papal power. A late writer, after collecting the principal prophecies relating to antichrist, infers from them that a power, some- times represented as the little horn, the man of sin, the antichrist, the beast, the harlot, the star falling from heaven, the false prophet, the dra- gon, or as the operation of false teachers, was to be expected to arise in the Christian world to persecute and oppress, and delude the disci- ples of Christ, corrupt the doctrine of the primi- tive church, enact new laws, and establish its dominion over the minds of mankind. He then proceeds to show, from the application of prophecy to history, and to the remarkable train of events that are now passing in the world, how exactly Popery, Mohammedanism, and Infidelity, correspond with the character given in Scripture of the power of antichrist, which was to prevail a certain time for the especial trial and punishment of the corrupted church of Christ. Upon this system, the dif- ferent opinions of the Protestants and Papists, concerning the power of antichrist, derived from partial views of the subject, are not wholly incompatible with each other. With respect to the commonly received opinion, that the church of Rome 1s antichrist, Made and New- ton, Daubuz and Clarke, Lowman and Hurd, Jurieu, Vitringa, and many other members of the Protestant churches who have written upon the subject, concur in maintaining, that the prophecies of Daniel, St. Paul, and St. John, point directly to this church. This was like- wise the opinion of the first reformers; and it was the prevalent opinion of Christians, in the earliest ages, that antichrist would appear soon after the fall of the Roman empire. Gregory the Great, in the sixth century, applied the rophecies concerning the beast in the Reve- ation, the man of sin, and the apostasy from the faith mentioned by St. Paul, to him who should presume to claim the title of universal priest, or universal bishop, in the Christian church; and yet his immediate successor, Boni- face III, received from the tyrant Phocas the precise title which Gregory had thus censured. At the synod of Rheims, held in the tenth cen- tury, Arnulphus, bishop of Orleans, appealed to the whole council, whether the bishop of Rome was not the antichrist of St. Paul, “sitting in the temple of God,” and perfectly correspond- ing with the description of him given by St. Paul. In the eleventh century, all the charac- ters of antichrist seemed to be so united in the person of Pope Hildebrand, who took the name of Gregory VII, that Johannes Aven- tinus, a Romish historian, speaks of it as a subject in which the generality of fair, candid, and ingenuous writers agreed, that at that time began the reign of antichrist. And the Albigenses and Waldenses, who may be called the Broiestants of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, expressly asserted in their declar- ations of faith, that the church of Rome was the whore of Babylon. The Papists imagine 62 ANT they view in the prophetical picture of anti- christ, imperial Rome, elated by her victories, exulting in her sensuality and her spoils, pol- luted by idolatry, persecuting the people of God, and finally falling like the first Babylon; whilst a new and holy city, represented by their own communion, filled with the spotless votaries of the Christian faith, rises out of its ruins, and the victory of the cross is completed over the temples of Paganism. This scheme has had its able advocates, at the head of whom may be placed Bossuet, bishop of Meaux, Gro- tius, and Hammond. Some writers have main- tained, that Caligula was antichrist; and others have asserted the same of Nero. But in order to establish the resemblance, they violate the order of time, disregard the opinions of the primitive Christians, and overlook the ap- propriate descriptions of the Apostles. After the point had been maturely debated at the council of Gap, held in 1603, a resolution was taken thereupon to insert an article in the con- fession of faith, whereby the Pope is formall declared to be antichrist. Pope Clement VIII was stung with this decision; and even king Henry IV, of France, was not a little mortified, to be thus declared, as he said, an imp of antichrist. 7 In the book of Daniel it is foretold, that this power should exercise dominion until a time and times, and the dividing of time, Dan. vii, 25. This expression is generally admitted to denote 1260 years. The papal power was com- pletely established in the year 755, when it obtained the exarchate of Ravenna. Some, however, date the rise of antichrist in the year of Christ 606; and Mede places it in 456. If the rise of antichrist be not reckoned till he was possessed of secular authority, his fall will happen when this power shall be taken away. If his rise began, according to Mede in 456, he must have fallen in 1716; if in 606, it must be in 1866; if in 755, in 2015. If however, we use prophetical years, consisting of three hun- dred and sixty days, and date the rise of anti- christ in the year 755, his fall will happen in the year of Christ 2000. Every thing however in the state of the world betokens a speedy overthrow of the Papal and Mohammedan pow- ers, both of which have indeed been already roy weakened. ANTLLIBANUS. The Greeks give this name to that chain of mountains east of Liba- nus, which, properly speaking, forms, together with Libanus, but one ridge of mountains, ex- tending from north to south, and afterward from south to north, in the shape almost of a horse shoe, for the space of about fourscore leagues. The western part of these mountains was called Libanus; the eastern was called An- tilibanus; the former reached along the Medi- terranean, from Sidon, almost to Arada, or Symira. The Hebrew text never mentions An- tilibanus; but uses the general name Libanus: and the coins struck at Laodicea and Hierapo- lis, have the inscription, “cities of Libanus,”’ though they belong rather to Antilibanus. The Septuagint, on the contrary, puts Antilibanus often instead of Libanus. The valley whick ANT separates Libanus from Antilibanus is very fruit- fal: it was formerly, on the side of Syria, in- closed with a wall, whereof there are now no traces. Strabo says, that the name of Ceelo- Syria, or “the hollow Syria,” belongs principally to the valley between Libanus and Antilibanus. ANTINOMIANS are those who maintain that the law is of no use or obligation under the Gospel dispensation, or who hold doctrines that clearly supersede the riecessity of good works and a virtuous life. The Antinomians took their origin from John Agricola, about the year 1538, who taught that the law was in no wise necessary under the Gospel; that good works do not promote our salvation, nor ill ones hinder it; that repentance is not to be preach- ed from the decalogue, but only from the Gos- pel. This sect sprung up in England during the protectorate of Oliver Cromwell; and ex- tended their system of libertinism much farther than Agricola, the disciple of Luther. Some of their teachers expressly maintained, that as the elect cannot fall from grace nor forfeit the divine favour, the wicked actions they commit are not really sinful, nor are to be considered as instances of their violation of the divine law; and that consequently they have no occasion either to confess their sins, or to break them off by repentance. According to them, it is one of the essential and distinctive characters of the elect, that they cannot do any thing which is displeasing to God. Luther, Rutherford, Schlus- selburgh, Sedgwick, Gataker, Witsius, Bull, Williams, &c, have written refutations; Crisp, Richardson, Saltmarsh, &c, defences, of the Antinomians; Wigandus, a comparison be- tween ancient and modern Antinomians. The doctrine of Agricola was in itself obscure, and is thought to have been represented worse than it really was by Luther, who wrote against him with acrimony, and first styled him and his followers Antinomians. Agricola, in defending himself, complained that opinions were imput- ed to him which he did not hold. The writings of Dr. Crisp in the seventeenth century are con- sidered as highly favourable to Antinomianism, though he acknowledges that, ‘‘in respect of the rules of righteousness, or the matter of obedience, we are under the law still, or else,” as he adds, ‘‘ we are lawless, to live every man as seems good in his own eyes, which no true Christian dares so much as think of.” The following sentiments, however, among others, are taught in his sermons: “ The law is cruel and tyrannical, requiring what is naturally impossible.” ‘The sins of the elect were so imputed to Christ, as that though he did not commit them, yet they became actually his transgressions, and ceased to be theirs.” “ The feelings of conscience, which tell them that sin is theirs, arise from a want of knowing the truth.” “Tt is but the voice of a lying spirit in the hearts of believers, that saith they have yet sin wasting their consciences, and lying as a burden caiticney for them to bear.” “‘ Christ’s righteousness is so imputed to the elect, that they, ceasing to be sinners, are as righteous as he was, and all that he was.” ‘ An elect per- son is not in a condemned state while an un- 63 ANT believer; and should he happen to die before God call him to believe, he would not be lost.” “ Repentance and confession of sin are not necessary to forgiveness. A believer may cer- tainly conclude before confession, yea, as soon as he hath committed sin, the interest he hath in Christ, and the love of Christ embracing him.” These dangerous sentiments, and others of a similar bearing, have been fully answered by many writers; but by none more ably than by the Rev. John Fletcher, in his “Checks i Antinomianism.” ANTIOCH, a city of Upper Syria, on the river Orontes, about twenty miles from the place where it discharges itself into the Mediter- ranean. It was built by Seleucus Nicanor, about three hundred years before Christ; and became the seat of empire of the Syrian kings of the Macedonian race, and afterward of the Roman governors of the eastern provinces; being very centrally and commodiously situat- ed midway between Constantinople and Alex- andria, about seven hundred miles from each, in 37° 17’ north latitude, and 36° 45’ east lon- gitude. No city perhaps, Jerusalem excepted, has experienced more frequent revolutions, or suffered more numerous and dire calamities, than Antioch; as, besides the common plagues of eastern cities, pestilence, famine, fire, and sword, it has several times been entirely over- thrown by earthquakes. Tn 362, the emperor Julian spent some months at Antioch; which were chiefly occupied in his favourite object of reviving the mythology of Paganism. The grove at Daphne, planted by Seleucus, which, with its temple and oracle, presented, during the reigns of the Macedonian kings of Syria, the most splendid and fashion- able place of resort for Pagan worship in the east, had sunk into neglect since the establish- ment of Christianity. The altar of the god was deserted, the oracle was silenced, and the sacred grove itself defiled by the interment of Chris- tians. Julian undertook to restore the ancient honours and usages of the place; but it was first necessary to take away the pollution occa- sioned by the dead bodies of the Christians, which were disinterred and removed! Among these was that of Babylas, a bishop of Antioch, who died in prison in the persecution of Decius, and after resting near a century in his grave within the walls of Antioch, had been removed by order of Gallus into the midst of the Baye of Daphne, where a church was built over him; the remains of the Christian saint effectually supplanting the former divinity of the place, whose temple and statue, however, though ne- elected, remained uninjured. The Christians of Antioch, undaunted by the conspiracy against their religion, or the presence of the emperor himself, conveyed the relics of their former bishop in triumph back to their ancient reposito- ry within the city. The immense multitude who joined in the procession, chanted forth their execrations against idols and idolaters; and on the same night the image and the temple of the Heathen god were consumed by the flames. A dreadful vengeance might be expected to have followed these scenes; but the real or affected ANT clemency of Julian contented itself with shut- ting up the cathedral, and confiscating its wealth. Many Christians, indeed, suffered from the zeal of the Pagans; but, as it would appear, without the sanction of the emperor. In 1268, Antioch was taken oy Bibars, or Bondocdar, sultan of Egypt. The slaughter of seventeen thousand, and the captivity of one nundred thousand of its inhabitants, mark the final siege and fall of Antioch; which, while they close the long catalogue of its public woes, attest its extent and population. From this time it remained in a ruinous and nearly de- serted condition, till, with the rest of Syria, it passed into the hands of the Ottoman Turks, with whose empire it has ever since been in- corporated. To distinguish it from other cities of the same name, the capital of Syria was called Antiochia apud Daphnem, or Antioch near Daphne, a village in the neighbourhood, where was a temple dedicated to the goddess of that name; though, in truth, the chief deity of the place was Apollo, under the fable of his amor- ous pursuit of the nymph Daphne; and the worship was worthy of its object. The temple stood in the midst of a grove of laurels and cypresses, where every thing was assembled which could minister to the senses; and in whose recesses the juvenile devotee wanted not the countenance of a libertine god to aban- don himself to voluptuousness. Even those of riper years and graver morals could not with safety breathe the atmosphere of a place where pleasure, assuming the character of religion, roused the dormant passions, and subdued the firmness of virtuous resolution. Such being the source, the stream could scarcely be ex- pected to be more pure; in fact, the citizens of Antioch were distinguished only for their lux- ury in life and licentiousness in manners. This was an unpromising soil for Christianity to take root in. But here, nevertheless, it was planted at an early period, and flourished vigor- ously. It should be observed, that the inhabit- ants of Antioch were partly Syrians, and partly Greeks; chiefly, perhaps, the latter, who were invited to the new city by Seleucus. To these Greeks, in particular, certain Cypriot and Cy- yenian converts, who had fled from the perse- cution which followed the death of Stephen, addressed themselves; ‘and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord.” When the heads of the church at Jerusalem were in- formed of this success, they sent Barnabas to Antioch, who encouraged the new disciples, and added many to their number; and finding how great were both the field and the harvest, went to Tarsus to solicit the assistance of Paul. Both this Apostle and Barnabas then taught conjointly at Antioch; and great numbers were, by their labours during a whole year, added to the rising church, Acts xi, 19-26; xv, 22-35. Here they were also joined by Peter, who was reproved by Paul for his dissimulation, and his concession to the Jews respecting the observ- ance of the law, Gal. ii, 11-14. Antioch was the birthplace of St. Luke and Theophilus, and the see of the martyr Ignatius. 64 ANT In this city the followers of Christ had first the name of Cipetase given them. We have the testimony of Chrysostom, both of the vast in- crease of this illustrious church in the fourth century, and of the spirit of charity which con- tinued to actuate it. It consisted at this time of not less than a hundred thousand persons, three thousand of whom were supported out of the public donations. It is painful to trace the progress of declefision in such a church as this, But the period now referred to, namely, the age of Chrysostom, toward the close of the fourth century, may be considered as the bright- est of its history subsequent to the Apostolic age, and that from which the church at Anti- och may date its fall. It continued, indeed, outwardly prosperous; but superstition, secular ambition, the pride of life; pomp and formality in the service of God, in place of humility and sincere devotion; the growth of faction, and the decay of charity; showed that real religion was fast disappearing, and that the foundations were laid of that great apostasy which, in two centuries from this time, overspread the whole Christian world, led to the entire extinction of the church in the east, and still holds dominion over the fairest portions of the west. Antioch, under its modern name of Antakia, is now but little known to the western nations. It occupies, or rather did till lately occupy, a remote corner of the ancient enclosure of its walls. Its splendid buildings were reduced to hovels; and its population of half a million, to ten thousand wretched beings, living in the usual debasement and insecurity of Turkish subjects. Such was nearly its condition when visited by Pocock about the year 1738, and again by Kinneir in 1813. ut its ancient subterranean enemy, which, since its destruc- tion in 587, never long together withheld its assaults, has again triumphed over it: the earth- quake of the 13th of August, 1822, laid it once more in ruins; and every thing relating to An- tioch is past. ANTIOCH, of Pisidia. Beside the Syrian capital, there was another Antioch visited by St. Paul when in Asia, and called, for the sake of distinction, Antiochia ad Pisidiam, as belong- ing to that province, of which it was the capi- tal. Here Paul and Barnabas preached; but the Jews, jealous, as usual, of the reception of the Gospel by the Gentiles, raised a sedition against them, and obliged them to leave the city, Acts xiii, 14, to the end. There were several other cities of the same name, sixteen in number, in Syria and Asia Minor, built by the Seleucide, the successors of Alexander in these countries; but the above two are the only ones which it is necessary to describe as oc- curring in Scripture. ANTIOCHUS. There were many kings of this name in Syria, much celebrated in the Greek, Roman, and Jewish histories, after the time of Seleucus Nicanor, the father of Antio- chus Soter, and reckoned the first king of Syria after Alexander the Great. 1. Antiocnus SoTer was the son of Seleucus Nicanor, and obtained the surname of Soter, or Saviour, from having hindered the invasion ANT of Asia by the Gauls. Some think that it was on the following occasion: The Galatians hav- ing marched to attack the Jews in Babylon, whose army consisted only of eight thousand men, reinforced with four thousand Macedon- ians, the Jews defended themselves with so much bravery, that they killed one hundred and twenty thousand men, 2 Mac. viii, 20. It was perhaps, too, on this occasion, that Antio- chus Soter made the Jews of Asia free of the cities belonging to the Gentiles, and permitted them to live according to their own laws. 2. AntiocHus THEos, or, the God, was the son and successor of Antiochus Soter. He married Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy Phila- delphus, king of Egypt. Laodice, his first wife, seeing herself despised, poisoned Antiochus, Berenice, and their son, who was intended to succeed in the kingdom. After this, Laodice procured Seleucus Callinicus, her son by Antio- chus, to be acknowledged king of Syria. These events were foretold by Daniel: ‘‘ And in the end of years,” the king of Egypt, or of the south, and the king of Syria, or of the north, “shall join themselves together; for the king’s daughter of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement: but she shall not retain the power of the arm; neither shall he stand, nor his arm: but she shall be given up, and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that strengthened her in these times,” Dan. xi, 6. 3. AntiocHus THE Great was the son of Seleucus Callinicus, and brother to Seleucus Ceraunus, whom he succeeded in the year of the world 3781, and before Jesus Christ 223. He made war against Ptolemy Philopator, king of Egypt, but was defeated near Raphia, 3 Mac. 1. Thirteen years after, Ptolemy Philopator being dead, Antiochus resolved to become master of Egypt. He immediately seized Ceelo-Syria, Phenicia, and Judea; but Scopas, general of the Egyptian army, entered Judea while Antiochus was occupied by the war against Attalus, and retook those places. However, he soon lost them again to Antiochus. On this occasion happened what Josephus relates of this prince’s journey to Jerusalem. Aftera victory which he had obtained over Scopas, near the springs of Jordan, he became master of the strong places in Celo-Syria and Sama- ria; and the Jews submitted freely to him, re- ceived him into their city and furnished his army plentifully with provisions. In reward for their affection, Antiochus granted them, according to Josephus, twenty thousand pieces of silver, to Bure beasts for sacrifice, one thousand four hundred and sixty measures of meal, and three hundred and seventy-five mea- sures of salt to be offered with the sacrifices, and timber to rebuild the porches of the Lord’s house. He exempted the senators, scribes, and singing men of the temple, from the capitation tax; and he permitted the Jews to live accord- ing to their own laws in every part of his do- minions. He also remitted the third part of their tribute, to indemnify them for their losses in the war; he forbade the Heathens to enter the temple without being purified, and to bring 6 65 ANT into the city the flesh of mules, asses, and horses to sell, under a severe penalty. In the year of the world 3815, Antiochus was overcome by the Romans, and obliged to cede all his possessions beyond Mount Taurus, to give twenty hostages, among whom was his own son Antiochus, afterward surnamed Epi- fe and to pay a tribute of twelve thousand uboic talents, each fourteen Roman pounds in weight. To defray these charges, he re- solved to seize the treasures of the temple of Belus, at Elymais ; but the people of that coun- try, informed of his design, surprised and de- stroyed him, with all his army, in the year of the world 3817, and before Jesus Christ 187. He left two sons, Seleucus Philopator, and Antiochus Epiphanes, who succeeded him. 4. Antiocuus Epreuanes, the son of Antio- chus the Great, having continued a hostage at Rome fourteen years, his brother Seleucus re- solved to procure his return to Syria, and sent his own son Demetrius to Rome in the place of Antiochus. Whilst Antiochus was on his journey to Syria, Seleucus died, in the year of the world 3829. When, therefore, Antiochus landed, the people received him as some pro- Pitious deity come to assume the government, and to oppose the enterprises of Ptolemy, king of Egypt, who threatened to invade Syria. For this reason Antiochus obtained the surname of Epiphanes, the illustrious, or of one appearing like a god. Antiochus quickly turned his attention to the possession of Egypt, which was then en- joyed by Ptolemy Philometor, his nephew, son to his sister Cleopatra, whom Antiochus the Great had married to Ptolemy Epiphanes, king of Egypt. He sent Apollonius, one of his officers, into Egypt, apparently to honour Pto- lemy’s coronation, but in reality to obtain intelligence whether the great men of the king- dom were inclined to place the government of Egypt in his hands during the minority of the king his nephew, 2 Mac. iv, 21, &c. Apollo- nius, however, found them not disposed to favour his master; and this obliged Antiochus to make war against Philometor. He came to Jerusalem in 3831, and was received there by Jason, to whom he had sold the high priest- hood. He designed to attack Egypt, but re- turned without effecting any thing. The am- bition of those Jews who sought the high priesthood, and bought it of Antiochus, was the beginning of those calamities which over- whelmed their nation under this prince. Jason procured himself to be constituted in this dig- nity in the stead of Onias III; but Menelaus offering a greater price, Jason was deprived, and TMenetens appointed in his place. These usurpers of the high priesthood, to gratify the Syrians, assumed the manners of the Greeks, their games and exercises, and neglected the worship of the Lord, and the temple service. War broke out between Antiochus Epiphanes and Ptolemy Philometor. Antiochus entered Egypt in the year of the world 3833, and re- duced almost the whole of it to his obedience, 2 Mac. v, 3-5. The next year he returned; and whilst he was engaged in the siege of ANT Alexandria, a false report was spread of his death. The inhabitants of Jerusalem testifying their joy at this news, Antiochus, when re- turning from Egypt, entered this city by force, treated the Jews as rebels, and commanded his troops to slay all they met. Eighty thousand were killed, made captives, or sold ,on this oceasion. Antiochus, conducted by the cor- rupt fugh priest Menelaus, entered into the noly of holies, whence he took and carried off the most precious vessels of that holy place, to the value of one thousand eight hundred talents. In the year 3835, Antiochus made a third expedition against Egypt, which he en- tirely subdued. The year following, he sent Apollonius into Judea, with an army of twenty- two thousand men, and commanded him to kill all the Jews who were of full age, and to sell the women and young men, 2 Mace. v, 24, 25. These orders were too punctually executed. It was on this occasion that Judas Maccabeus retired into the wilderness with his father and his brethren, 2 Mac. v, 29. These misfortunes were only preludes of what they were to suffer ; for Antiochus, apprehending that the Jews would never be constant in their obedience to him, unless he obliged them to change their religion, and to embrace that of the Greeks, issued an edict, enjoining them to conform to the laws of other nations, and forbidding their usual sacrifices in the temple, their festivals, and their Sabbath. The statue of Jupiter Olympus was placed upon the altar of the tem- ple, and thus the abomination of desolation was seen in the temple of God. Many corrupt Jews complied with these orders; but others resisted them. Mattathias and his sons retired to the mountains. Old Eleazar, and the seven brethren, suffered death with great courage at Antioch, 2 Mac. vii. Mattathias being dead, Judas Maccabeus headed those Jews who con- tinued faithful, and opposed with success the enerals whom king Antiochus sent into Judea. he king, informed of the valour and resist- ance of Tudes, sent new forces; and, finding his treasures exhausted, he resolved to go into Persia to levy tributes, and to collect large sums which he had agreed to pay to the Ro- mans, 1 Mac. iii, 5-31; 2 Mac ix, 1, &c; 1 Mae. vi, 1, &c. Knowing that very great riches were lodged in the temple of Tignes, he determined to carry it off; but the inhabit- ants of the country made so vigorous a resist- ance, that he was forced to retreat toward Babylonia. When he was come to Ecbatana, ‘he was informed of the defeat of Nicanor and Timotheus, and that Judas Maccabeus had retaken the temple of Jerusalem, and restored the worship of the Lord, and the usual sacrifi- ces. On receiving this intelligence, the king was transported with indignation; and, threat- ening to make Jerusalem a grave for the Jews, commanded the driver of his chariot to urge the horses forward, and to hasten his journey. However, divine vengeance soon overtook him: he fell from his chariot, and bruised all his limbs. He was also tormented with such pains in his bowels, as allowed him no rest; and his disease was aggravated by grief and 66 ANT vexation. In this condition he wrote to the Jews very humbly, promised them many things, and engaged even to turn Jew, if God would restore him to health. He earnestly recom- mended to them his son Antiochus, who was to succeed him, and entreated them to favour the young prince, and to continue faithful to him. He died, overwhelmed with pain and grief, in the mountains of Paratacene, in the little town of Tabes, in the year of the world 3840, and before Jesus Christ 164. 5. Antiochus Evpator, son of Antiochus Epiphanes, was only nine years old when his father died and left him the kingdom of Syria, Lysias, who governed the kingdom in the name of the young prince, led against Judea an army of one hundred thousand foot, twenty thousand horse, and thirty elephants, 1 Mac. vi; 2 Mac, xiii. He besieged and took the fortress of Bethsura, and thence marched against Jerusa- lem. The city was ready to fall inte his hands when Lysias received the news that Philip, whom Antiochus Epiphanes had entrusted with the regency of the kingdom, had come to Antioch to take the government, according to the disposition of the late king. He therefore proposed an accommodation with the Jews, that he might return speedily to Antioch and oppose Philip. After concluding a peace, he immediately returned into Syria, with the young king and his army. In the meantime, Demetrius Soter, son of Seleucus Philopator, and nephew to Antiochus Epiphanes, to whom by right the kingdom belonged, having escaped from Rome, came into Syria. Finding the people disposed for revolt, Demetrius headed an army, and marched directly to Antioch, against Antiochus and Lysias. However, the inhabitants did not wait till he besieged the city; but opened the gates, and delivered to him Lysias and the young king Antiochus Eupator, whom Demetrius caused to be put to death, without suffering them to appear in his presence. Antiochus Eupator reigned only two years, and died in the year of the world 3842, and before Jesus Christ 162. 6. Antrocnus TuEos, or the Divine, the son of Alexander Balas, king of Syria, was brought up by the Arabian prince Elmachuel, or, as he is called in the Greek, Simalcue, 1 Mac. xi, 39, 40, &c. Demetrius Nicanor, king of Syria, having rendered himself odious to his troops, one Diodotus, otherwise called Tryphon, came to Zabdiel, a king in Arabia, and desired him to entrust him with young Antiochus, whom he promised to place on the throne of Syria, which was then possessed by Demetrius Nica- nor. After some hesitation, Zabdiel complied with the request ; and Tryphon carried Antio- chus into Syria, and put the crown on his head. aie dismissed by Demetrius, came and joined Tryphon, who, having formed a powerful army, defeated Demetrius, and forced him to retreat to Seleucia. Tryphon seized his elephants, and rendered himself master of Antioch, in the year of the world 3859, and before Jesus Christ 145. Antiochus Theos, to strengthen himself in his new acqui- sition, sent letters to Jonathan Maccabzus, ANT 67 high priest and prince of the Jews, confirming him in the high priesthood, and granting him four toparchies, or four considerable places, in Judea, He also received Jonathan into the number of his friends, sent him vessels of gold, permitted him to use a gold cup, to wear purple, and a golden buckle; and he gave his brother, Simon Maccabeus, the command of all his troops on the coast of the Mediterranean, from TyretoEgypt. Jonathan, engaged by so many favours, declared resolutely for Antiochus, or xther for Tryphon, who reigned under the name of this young prince; and on several occasions he attacked the generals of Deme- trius, who still possessed many places beyond Jordan and in Galilee, 1 Macc. x1, 63, &c; xii, 24,34. Tryphon, seeing young Antiochus in peaceable possession of the kingdom of Syria, resolved to usurp his crown. He thought it necessary, in the first place, to secure Jonathan Maccabeus, who was one of the most powerful supporters of Antiochus’s throne. e came, therefore, with troops into Judea, invited Jona- than to Ptolemais, and there, on frivolous pre- tences, made him prisoner. However, Simon, Jonathan’s brother, headed the troops of Judea, and opposed Tryphon, who intended to take Jerusalem. Tryphon, being disappointed, put Jonathan to death at Bassa or Bascama, and returned into Syria, where, without delay, he executed his design of killing Antiochus. He corrupted the royal physicians, who, havin, published that Antiochus was tormented wit the stone, murdered him, by cutting him with- out any necessity. Thus Tryphon was left master of Syria, in the year of the world 3861, and before Tests Christ 143. 7. ANTIOCHUS SIDETES, or Soter the Saviour, or Eusebes the pious, was the son of Demetrius Soter, and brother to Demetrius Nicanor. Try- phon, the usurper of the kingdom of Syria, having rendered himself odious to his troops, they deserted him, and offered their services to Cleopatra, the wife of Demetrius Nicanor. She lived in the city of Seleucia, shut up with her children, while her husband Demetrius was a prisoner in Persia, where he had married Rodeguna, the daughter of Arsaces, king of Persia. Cleopatra, therefore, sent to Antiochus Sidetes, her brother-in-law, and offered him the crown of Syria, if he would marry her; to which Antiochus consented. This prince was then at Cnidus, where his father, Demetrius Soter had placed him with one of his friends. He came into Syria, and wrote to Simon Mac- cabeus, to engage him against Tryphon, I Macc. xv, 1, 2, 3, &c. He confirmed the privileges which the king of Syria had granted to Simon, permitted him to coin money with his own stamp, declared Jerusalem and the temple exempt from royal jurisdiction, and promised other favours as soon as he should obtain ee possession of the kingdom which had elonged to his ancestors. Antiochus Sidetes having married his sister-in-law, Cleopatra, in the year of the world 3865, the troops of Try- phon resorted to him in crowds. Tryphon, thus abandoned, retired to Dora, in Phenicia, whither Antiochus pursued him with an army ANT of 120,000 foot, 800 horse, and a powerful fleet. Simon Maccabeus sent Antiochus two thousand chosen men, but the latter refused them, and revoked all his promises. He also sent Athenobius to Jerusalem to oblige Simon to restore to him Gazara and Joppa, with the citadel of Jerusalem; and to demand of him five hundred talents more, as reparation for injuries the king had suffered, and as tribute for his own cities. At the same time he threatened to make war upon him, if he did not comply. Simon showed Athenobius all the lustre of his wealth‘and power, told him he had in his pos- session no place which belonged to Antiochus, and said that the cities of Gazara and Joppa had greatly injured his people, and he would give the king for the property of them one hundred talents. Athenobius returned with great indignation to Antiochus, who was ex- tremely offended at Simon’s answer. In the meantime, Tryphon having escaped privately from Dora, embarked in a vessel and fled. An- tiochus pursued him, and sent Cendebeus with troops into the maritime parts of Palestine, and commanded_him to rebuild Cedron, and fight the Jews. John Hircanus, son of Simon Mac- cabeus, was then at Gaza, and gave notice to his father of the coming of Cendebeus. Simon furnished his sons, John Hircanus and Judas, with troops, and sent them against Cendebeus, whom they routed in the plain and pursued to Azotus. Antiochus followed Tryphon, till he forced him to kill himself, in the year of the world 3869. After this, Antiochus thought only of reducing to his obedience those cities which, in the beginning of his father’s reign, had shaken off their subjection. Simon Maccabzus, prince and high priest of the Jews, being treacherously murdered by Ptolemy, his son-in-law, in the castle of Docus, near Jericho, the murderer immediately sent to Antiochus Sidetes to de- mand troops, that he might recover for him the country and cities of the Jews. Antiochus came in person with an army, and besieged Jerusa- lem, which was bravely defended by John Hir- canus. The siege was long protracted; and the king divided his army into seven parts, and guarded all the avenues of the city. It being the time for celebrating the feast of taberna- cles, the Jews desired of Antiochus a truce for seven days. The king not only granted this request, but sent them bulls with gilded horns, and vessels of gold and silver filled with incense, to be offered in the temple. He also ordered such provisions as they wanted, to be given to the Jewish soldiers. This courtesy of the king so won the hearts of the Jews, that they sent ambassadors to treat of peace, and to desire that they might live according to their own laws. Antiochus required that they should surrender their arms, demolish the city walls, pay tribute for ee and the other cities they possessed out of Judea, and receive a garrison into Jerusalem. To these conditions, except the last, the Jews consented; for they could not be induced to see an army of strangers in their capital, and chose rather to give hostages’ and five hundred talents of silver. The king ANT 68 entered the city, beat down the breast work above the walls, and returned to Syria, in the year of the world 3870, and before Jesus Christ 134. Three years after, Antiochus marched against the Persians, or Parthians, and demand- ed the liberty of his brother Demetrius Nicanor, who had been made prisoner long before by Arsaces, and was detained for the purpose of being employed in exciting a war against Antio- chus. This war, therefore, Antiochus thought proper to prevent. With an army of eighty thousand, or, as Orosius says, of one hundred thousand men, he marched toward Persia, and no sooner appeared on the frontiers of that country, than several eastern princes, detesting the pride and avarice of the Persians, came and surrendered. Antiochus defeated his enemies in three engagements, and took Babylon. He ‘was accompanied in these expeditions by John Hircanus, high priest of the Jews, who, it is supposed, obtained the surname of Hircanus from some gallant action which he performed. As the army of Antiochus was too numerous to continue assembled in any one place, he was obliged to divide it, to put it into winter quar- ters. These troops behaved with so much in- solence, that they alienated the minds of all men. The cities in which they were, privately surrendered to the Persians; and all resolved to attack, in one day, the garrisons they contained, that the troops being separated might not assist each other. Antiochus at Babylon obtained intelligence of this design, and, with the few soldiers about him, endeavoured to succour his people. He was attacked in the way by Phraa- tes, king of Persia, whom he fought with great bravery; but being at length deserted by his own forces, according to the generality of his- torians, he was overpowered and killed by the Persians or Parthians. Appian, however, says that he killed himself, and A‘lian, that he threw himself headlong from a precipice. This event took place in the year of the world 3874, and before Jesus Christ 130. After the death of Sidetes, Demetrius Nicanor, or Nicetor, reas- cended the throne of Syria. ANTIPZDOBAPTISTS, a denomination iven to those who object to the baptism of in- ants. This word is derived from dyri, against, mais, matdds, @ child, Barriga, I baptize. See Baptism. ANTIPAS, Antipas-Herod, or Herod-Anti- pas, was the son of Herod the Great, and Cleo- atra of Jerusalem. Herod the Great, in his Fret will, declared him his successor in the king- dom; but he afterward named his son Arche- laus king of Judea, and gave to Antipas only the title of tetrarch of Galilee and Perea. Ar- chelaus going to Rome, to persuade the empe- ror to confirm his father’s will, Antipas also went thither. The emperor bestowed on Ar- chelaus one moiety of what had been assigned him by Herod, with the quality of ethnarch, and age to grant him the title of king when e had shown himself deserving of it by his virtues. To Antipas, ue gave Galilee and Perza; and to Philip, Herod’s other son, the Batanza, Trachonitis, and Auranitis, with some other places. ANT Antipas, returning to Judea, took great pams in adorning and fortifying the principal places of his dominions. He married the daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia, whom he divorced about A.D. 33, that he might marry his sister-in-law, Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip, who was still living. John the Baptist exclaiming against this incest, was seized by order of An- tipas, and imprisoned in the castle of Macherus. Josephus says, that Antipas caused John to be taken, because he drew too great a concourse after him; and zune was afraid he should use his influence over the people to induce them to revolt. But Josephus has reported the pretence for the true cause. The evangelists, who were better informed than Josephus, as being eye witnesses of what passed, and particularly ac- quainted with John and his disciples, assure us, that the true reason for imprisoning John was the aversion of Herod and Herodias against him, on account of his liberty in censuring their scandalous marriage, Matt. xiv, 3,4; Mark vi, 14, 17,18; Luke ui, 19,20. When the king was celebrating his birth day, with the princi. pal persons of his court, the daughter of He rodias danced before them, and pleased him so well that he swore to give her whatever she should ask. She consulted her mother, who advised her to ask the head of John the Bap- tist. Returning, therefore, to the hall, she ad- dressed herself to the king, and said, “ Give me here John Baptist’s head in a charger.” The king was afflicted at this request; but in con- sideration of his oath, and of the persons at table with him, he sent one of his guards, who beheaded John in prison. The head was brought in, and given to the young woman, who delivered it to her mother, Matt. xiv, 5, 6, &c. Aretas, king of Arabia, to revenge the affront which Herod had offered to his daugh- ter, declared war against him, and vanquished him in a very obstinate contest. Josephus tells us, that the Jews attributed the defeat of Herod to the death of John the Baptist. In the year of the Christian era 39, Herodias being jealous of the prosperity of her brother Agrippa, who from a private person had become king of Ju- dea, persuaded her husband, Herod-Antipas, to visit Rome, and desire the same dignity of the emperor Caius. She resolved to accompany him; and hoped that her presents and appear- ance would contribute to procure the emperor's favour. However, Agrippa obtaining intelli- gence of this design, wrote to the emperor and accused Antipas. The messenger of Agrippa arrived at Baie, where the emperor was, at the very time when Herod received his first audience, Caius, on the delivery of Agrippa’s letters, read them with great earnestness. In these letters, Agrippa accused Antipas of having been a par- ty in Sejanus’s conspiracy against Tubsrias, and said that he still carried on a correspondence with Artabanus, king of Parthia, against the Romans. Asa proof of this, he affirmed that Antipas had in his arsenals arms for seventy thousand men. Caius being angry, demanded hastily of Antipas, if it were true that he had such a quantity of arms? The king not daring to deny it, was instantly banished to Lyons in APE Gaul, The emperor offered to forgive Hero- dias, in consideration of her brother Agrippa, but she chose rather to follow her husband, and to share his fortune in banishment. This is that Antipas, who, being at Jerusalem at the time of our Saviour’s passion, ridiculed Jesus whom Pilate had sent to him, dressed him in worn-out royalty, and sent him back to Pilate as a mock king, whose ambition gave him no umbrage, Luke xxiii, 7,11. The year of the death of Antipas is unknown ; but it is certain that he, as well as Herodias, died in exile. Jo- sephus says, that he died in Spain, whither Caius, on his coming into Gaul the first year of his banishment, might order him to be sent. 2. Antipas, the faithful martyr or witness mentioned in the book of Revelation, ii, 13. He is said to have been one of our Saviour’s first disciples, and to have suffered martyrdom at Pergamus, of which he was bishop. His Acts relate that he was burnt in a brazen bull. Though ancient ecclesiastical history furnishes no account of this Antipas, yet it is certain that, according to all the rules of language, what is said concerning him by St. John must be understood literally, and not mystically, as some interpreters have done. ANTIPATRIS, Acts xxiii, 31, atownin Pa- lestine, anciently called Caphar-Saba, accord- ing to Josephus; but named Antipatris by He- rod the Great, in honour of his father Antipater. It was situated in a pleasant valley, near the mountains, in the way from Jerusalem to Cesa- rea, Josephus places it at about the distance of seventeen miles from Joppa. To this place St. Paul was brought in his way to the governor of Judea at Cesarea, Acts xxiii, 31. ANTITYPE, that which answers to a type or figure. A type is a model, mould, or pat- tern; that which is formed according to it is an antitype. See Type. ANTONIA, one of the towers of Jerusalem, called by Herod after M. Antony. The Romans generally kept a garrison in this tower; and from thence it was that the tribune ran with his soldiers to rescue St. Paul out of the hands of the Jews, who had seized him in the temple, and designed to have murdered him, Acts xxi, 31, 32. APE, 51p, «idos and xijros, cophus, 1 Kings x, 22; 2 Chron. ix, 21. This animal seems to be the same with the ceph of the Ethiopians, of which Pliny speaks, |. viii, c. 19: “ At the games given by Pompey the Great,” says he, “were shown cephs brought from Ethiopia, which had their fore feet like a human hand, their hind legs and feet also resembled those ofaman.” ‘The Scripture says that the fleet of Solomon brought apes, or rather monkeys, &c, from Ophir. The learned are not agreed re- specting the situation of that country; but Major Wilford says that the ancient name of the River Landi sindh in India was Cophes. May it not have been so called from the mp mhabiting its banks ? We now distinguish this tribe of creatures into 1. Monkeys, those with leng tails; 2. Apes, those with short tails; 3. Baboons, those with- out tails. ‘The ancient Egyptians are said to have worshipped apes; it is certain that they 69 APO are still adored in many places in India. Maf- feus describes a magnificent temple dedicated to the ape, with a portico for receiving the victims sacrificed, supported by seven hundred columns. av apes und mowboye are heauds Sina eee Figures of apes are also made and reverenced as idols, of which we have several in Moore’s ‘‘ Hindoo Pantheon ;” also in the avatars, given in Maurice’s “ History of India,” &c. In some parts of the country the apes are held sacred, though not resident in temples; and incautious English gentlemen, by attempting to shoot these apes, (rather, perhaps, monkeys,) have been exposed, not only to all manner of insults and vexations from the inhabitants of the vil- lages, &c, adjacent, but have even been in danger of their lives. APHARSACHITES, a people sent by tne kings of Assyria to inhabit the country of Sa- maria, in the room of those Israelites who had been removed beyond the Euphrates, Ezra v, 6. They, with the other Samaritans, opposed the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem, Ezra iv, 9. APIS, a symbolical deity worshipped by the Egyptians. It was an ox, having certain ex- terior marks, in which animal the soul of the great Osiris was supposed to subsist. The ox was probably made the symbol of Osiris be- cause he presided over agriculture. APOCALYPSE, "Aroxéduilas, signifies reve- lation. It is, however, particularly applied to the Revelations which St. John had in the isle of Patmos, whither he had been banished. The testimonies in favour of the book of the Reve- lation being a genuine work of St. John the Evangelist are very full and satisfactory. An- drew, bishop of Cesarea in Capadocia, in the fifth century, assures us that Papias acknow- ledged the Revelation to be inspired. But the earliest author now extant who mentions this book is Justin Martyr, who lived about sixty years after it was written, and he ascribes it to St. John. So does Iraneus, whose evidence is alone sufficient upon this point; for he was the disciple of Polycarp, who was the disciple of John himself ; and he expressly tells us that he had the explanation of a certain passage in this book from those who had conversed with St. John the author. These two fathers are followed by Clement of Alexandria, Theophi- lus of Antioch, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Lactantius, Jerome, Athanasius, and many other ecclesiastical writers, all of whom concur in considering the Apostle John as the author of the Revelation. Some few persons, how- ever, doubted the genuineness of this book in the third and fourth centuries; but since that time it has been very generally acknowledged to be canonical; and, indeed, as Mr. Lowman observes, “ hardly any one book has received more early, more authentic, and more satisfac- tory attestations.” The omission of this book in ‘some of the early catalogues of the Scrip tures, was probably not owing to any suspicion concerning its authenticity or genuineness, but because its obscurity and mysteriousness were thought to render it less fit to be read publicly and generally. It is called the Revelation of APO John the Divine; and this appellation was first given to St. John by Eusebius, not to dis- tinguish him from any other person of the same name, but as an honourable title, inti- mating that to him was more fully revealed the system of divine counsels than to any other prophet of the Christian dispensation. | St. John was banished to Patmos in the latter part of the reign of Domitian, and he returned to Ephesus immediately after the death of that emperor, which happened in the year 96; and as the Apostle states, that these visions appeared to him while he was in that island, we may consider this book as written in the year 95 or 96. In the first chapter, St. John asserts the divine authority of the predictions which he is about to deliver; addresses himself to the churches of the Proconsular Asia; and describes the first vision, in which he is commanded to write the things then revealed to him. The second and third chapters contain seven epis- tles to the seven churches in Asia; namely, of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamus, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelshes and Laodicea, which relate chiefly to their then respective circumstances and situation. At the fourth chapter the prophetic visions begin, and reach to the end of the book. They contain a prediction of all the most re- markable revolutions and events in the Chris- tian church from the time of the Apostle to the final consummation of all things. An attempt to explain these prophecies does not fall within the design of this work; and there- fore those who are disposed to study this sub- lime and mysterious book are referred to Mede, Daubuz, Sir Isaac Newton, Lowman, Bishop Newton, Bishop Hurd, and many other excel- lent commentators. These learned men agree in their general principles concerning the. in- terpretation of this book, although they differ in some particular points; and it is not to be expected that there should be a perfect coinci- dence of opinion in the explanation of those predictions which relate to still future times; for, as the incomparable Sir Isaac Newton ob- serves, ‘‘God gave these and the prophecies of the Old Testament, not to gratify men’s curiosity, by enabling them to foreknow things, but that after they were fulfilled they might be interpreted by the event, and his own pre- science, not that of the interpreters, be then manifested thereby tothe world.” ‘ To explain this book perfectly,” says Bishop Newton, “ is not the work of one man, or of one age; but probably it never will be clearly understood, till it is all fulfilled.” It is graciously designed, that the gradual accomplishment of these pre- dictions should afford, inevery succeeding period of time, additional testimony to the divine ori- gin of our holy religion. APOCRYPHA, books not admitted into the sacred canon, being either spurious, or at least not acknowledged to be divine. The word Apocrypha is of Greek origin, and is either derived from the words dd rijs xeirrijs, because the books in question were removed from the erypt, chest, ark, or other receptacle in which the sacred books were deposited whose authority 70 APO was never doubted, or more probably from the verb droxpirrw, to hide or conceal, because they were concealed from the generality of readers, their authority not being recognised by the church, and because they are books which are destitute of proper testimonials, their original being obscure, their authors unknown, and their character either heretical or suspected. The advocates of the church of Rome, indeed, affirm that some of these books are divinely inspired; but it is easy to account for this: the apocryphal writings serve to countenance some ofthe corrupt practices of thatchurch. The Pro- testant churches not only account those books to be apocryphal and merely human composi- tions which are esteemed such by the church of Rome, as the Prayer of Manasseh, the third and fourth books of Esdras, the addition at the end of Job, and the hundred and_fifty-first Psalm; but also the books of Tobit, Judith, the additions to the book of Esther, Wisdom, Ee- clesiasticus, Baruch the Prophet, with the Epistle of Jeremiah, the Song of the Three Children, the Story of Susanna, the Story of Bel and the Dragon, and the first and second books of Maccabees. The books here enume- rated are unanimously rejected by Protestants for the following reasons :— 1. They possess no authority whatever, either external or internal, to procure their admission into the sacred canon. None of them are extant in Hebrew; all of them are in the Greek language, except the fourth book of Esdras, which is only extant in Latin. They were written for the most part by Alexandrian Jews, subsequently to the cessation of the pro- phetic spirit, though before the promulgation of the Gospel. Not one of the writers in direct terms advances a claim to inspiration; nor were they ever received into the sacred canon by the Jewish church, and therefore they were not sanctioned by our Saviour. No part of the apocrypha is quoted, or even alluded to, by him or by any of his Apostles ; and both Philo and Josephus, who flourished in the first century of the Christian era, are totally silent concerning them. ¥ 2. The apocryphal books were not admitted into the canon of Scripture during the first four centuries of the Christian church. They are not mentioned in the catalogue of inspired writings made by Melito, bishop of Sardis, who flourished in the second century, nor in those of Origen in the third century, of Athanasius, Hilary, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Gre- gory Nazianzen, Amphilochius, Jerom, Rufi- nus, and others of the fourth century ; nor ir the catalogue of canonical books recognised by the council of Laodicea, held in the same cen- tury, whose canons were received by the catho- lic church; so that as Bishop Burnet well observes, we have the concurring sense of the whole church of God in this matter. To this decisive evidence against the canonical autho- rity of the apocryphal books, we may add that they were never read in the Christian church until the fourth century; when, as Jerom in- forms us, they were read “ for example of life, and instruction of manners; but were not APO applied to establish any doctrine.” And con- temporary writers state, that although they were not approved as canonical or inspired writings, yet some of them, particularly Judith, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus, were allowed to be perused by catechumens. As a proof that they were not regarded as canonical in the fifth century, Augustine relates, that when the book of Wisdom and other writings of the same class were publicly read in the church, they were given to the readers or inferior eccle- siastical officers, who read them in a lower place than those which were universally ac- knowledged to be canonical, which were read by the bishops and presbyters in a more emi- nent and conspicuous manner. To conclude: notwithstanding the veneration in which these books were held by the western church, it is evident that the same authority was never ascribed to them as to the Old and New Tes- tament until the last council of Trent, at its fourth session, presumed to place them all (except the Prayer of Manasseh and the third and fourth books of Esdras) in the same rank with the inspired writings of Moses and the Prophets. APOLLINARIANS, or Apollinarists, or, as they are called by Epiphanius, Dimarita, a sect who derive their principal name from Apolli- naris, bishop of Laodicea, in the fourth century. Apollinaris strenuously defended the divinity of Christ against the Arians; but by indulging too freely in philosophical distinctions and subtleties, he denied in some measure his hu- manity. He maintained that the body which Christ assumed was endowed with a sensitive, and not a rational, soul; and that the divine nature performed the functions of reason, and supplied the place of the intellectual principle in man. Hence it seemed to follow, that the divine nature in Christ was blended with the human, and suffered with it the pains of cruci- fixion and death. Apollinaris and his follow- ers have been charged with other errors by certain ancient writers; but it is not easy to determine how far their charge is worthy of credit. The doctrine of Apollinaris was first condemned by a council at Alexandria in 362, and afterward in a more formal manner by a council at Rome in 375, and by another council in 338, which deposed Apollinaris from his bish- opric. In short, it was attacked at the same time by the laws of the emperors, the decrees of councils, and the writings of the learn:d; and sunk by degrees under their united force. APOLLOS was a Jew of Alexandria, who came to Ephesus in the year of our Lord 54, during the absence of St. Paul, who had gone to Jerusalem, Acts xviii, 24. He was an elo- quent man, and mighty in the Scriptures; but he knew only the baptism of John, and was not fully informed of the higher branches of Gos- el doctrine. However, he acknowledged that esus Christ was the Messiah, and declared himself openly as his disciple. At Ephesus, therefore, he began to speak boldly in the synagogue, and demonstrated by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ. Aquila and Pris- cilla, having heard him there, took him with 7 APO them, and instructed him more fully in the ways of God. Sometime after, he was inclined to go into Achaia, and the brethren wrote to the disciples there, desiring them to receive him. He was very useful at Corinth, where he watered what St. Paul had planted, 1 Cor, ili, 6. It has been supposed, that the great admiration of his disciples for him tended to produce a schism. Sonte said, “I am of Paul;” some, “I am of Apollos;” and others, “I am of Cephas.” But this division, which St. Paul mentions and reproves in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, did not prevent Paul and Apollos, personally, from being closely united in the bonds of Christian charity and affection. Apollos, hearing that the Apostle was at Ephe- sus, went to meet him, and was there when St. Paul wrote the first Epistle to the Corin- thians ; in which he observes, that he had earn- estly entreated Apollos to return to Corinth: but though he had not prevailed with him, Apollos gave him room to hope that he would visit that. city at a favourable opportunity. Some have supposed, that the Apostle names Apollos and Cephas, not as the real persons in whose name parties had been formed in Cor- inth, but that, in order to avoid provoking a temper which he wished to subside, he trans- fers “by a figure” to Apollos and himself what was really meant of other parties, whom from prudence he declines to mention. However this might be, the reluctance of Apollos to return to Corinth seems to countenance the general opinion. St. Jerom says that Apollos was so dissatisfied with the division which had happened on his account at Corinth, that he retired into Crete with Zeno, a doctor of the law; but that the evil having been corrected by the letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians, Apollos returned to that city, of which he after- ward became bishop. The Greeks say that he was bishop of Duras ; some, that he was bishop of Iconium, in Phrygia; and others of Caesarea. APOLLYON. Sce Azappon. APOLOGIES, in ecclesiastical history, were defences (so the Greek word means) of Chris- tianity, presented to Heathen emperors, by the Christian fathers, who were therefore called Apologists. The first was presented to the emperor Adrian, by Quadratus, A. D. 126, a fragment of which is preserved by Eusebius ; but another, presented soon after to the same, by Aristides, a converted Athenian philosopher, is totally lost. Justin Martyr wrote two apolo- gies; the latter (to the Roman senate) is imper- fect at the beginning ; but the former, addressed to Antoninus Pius, 1s preserved entire, and was published in English, in 1709, by the Rev. W. Reeves, together with one by Tertullian, the Octavius (a dialogue) of Minucius Felix, and the Commentary of Vincentius Lirinensis, with notes and preliminary dissertations to each, in 2 vols. 8vo. The Apologies are cu- rious and valuable remains of antiquity, as showing what were the objections of the Hea- thens, and thé manner in which they were rebutted by the early Christians. APOSTASY, a deserting or abandoning of the true religion. The word is borrowed from APO the Latin apostatare, or apostare, to despise or violate any thing. Hence apostatare leges anciently signified to transgress the laws, The Latin apostatare, again, comes from dr, from, and torn, I stand. Among the Romanists, apostasy only signifies the forsaking of a re- ligious order, whereof a man had made pro- fession, without a lawful dispensation. The ancients distinguished three kinds of apostasy : the first, @ supererogatione, is committed by a priest, or religious, who abandons his profes- sion, and returns to his lay state; the second, a mandatis Dei, by a person of any condition, who abandons the commands of God, though he retains his faith; the third, @ fide, by him who not only abandons his works, but also the faith, There is this difference between an apostate and a heretic; that the latter only abandons a part of the faith, whereas the former renounces the whole. The primitive Christian church distinguished several kinds of apostasy. The first was that of those who relapsed from Christianity into Judaism; the second, that of those who blended Judaism and Chris- tianity together ; and the third was that of those who, after having been Christians, voluntarily relapsed into Paganism. APOSTLE, dazéorodos, one of the twelve dis- ciples of Jesus Christ, commissioned by him to preach his Gospel, and propagate it to all parts of the earth. The word originally signifies a person delegated or sent ; from dnocré\dw, mitto ; in which sense it occurs in Herodotus, and other profane authors. Hence, in the New Testament, the term is applied to divers sorts of delegates; and to the twelve disciples by way of eminence. They were limited to the number twelve, in allusion to the twelve tribes of Israel. See Matt. xix, 28; Luke xxii, 30; Rev. xxi, 12-14; and compare Exod. xxiv, 4; Deut. i, 23; and Josh. iv, 2, 3. Accord- ingly care was taken, on the death of Judas, to choose another, to make up the number, Acts i, 21,22, 26. Of the first selection and com- mission of the twelve Apostles, we have an account, Luke vi, 13, &c.; Matt. x, 1, &e. Having chosen and constituted twelve persons, under the name of Apostles, our blessed Lord determined that for some time they should be continually with him, not only to attend upon his public ministry, but to enjoy the benefit of his private conversation, that he might furnish them the better for the great work in which they were to be employed ; and that, at length, after suitable preparation, he might, with greater advantage, send them abroad to preach his Gospel, and thus make way for his own visits to some more distant parts, where he had not yet been; and to enable them more effec- tually to do this, he endowed them with the power of working miracles, of curing diseases, and casting out demons. About the com- mencement of the third year of his ministry, according to the common account of its dura- tion, he sent them out two by two, that they might be assistants to each other in their work; and commanded them to restrict their teaching and services to the people of Israel, and to avoid going to the Gentiles or to the Samari- 72 APO tans, to declare the approach of the kingdom of heaven, and the establishment of the Gos- pel dispensation; to exercise the miraculous powers with which they had been endowed gratuitously ; and to depend for their subsist- ence on the providence of God, and on the donations of those to whom they ministered, Their names were, Simon Peter; Andrew, his brother ; James the greater, the son of Zebedee; and John his brother, who was the beloved disciple; Philip of Bethsaida; Bartholomew ; Thomas, called Didymus, as having a twin brother; Matthew or Levi, who had been a publican; James, the son of Alpheus, called James the less; Lebbeus, surnamed Thaddeus, and who was also called Judas or Jude, the brother of James; Simon, the Canaanite, so called, as some have thought, because he was a native of Cana, or, as Dr. Hammond thinks, from the Hebrew nap, signifying the same with Zelotes, or the Zelot, a name given to him on account of his having before professed a dis- tinguishing zeal for the law ; and Judas Isca- riot, or a man of Carioth, Josh. xv, 25, who afterward betrayed him, and then laid violent hands on himself. Of these, Simon, Andrew, James the greater, and John, were fishermen; Matthew, and James the son of Alpheus, were publicans; and the other six were probably fishermen, though their occupation is not dis- tinctly specified. After the resurrection of our Saviour, and not long before his ascension, the place of Ju- das the traitor was supplied by Matthias, sup- posed by some to have been Nathaniel of Galilee, to whom our Lord had given the dis- tinguishing character of an “Israelite indeed, in whom there was no guile;” and the twelve Apostles, whose number was now completed, received a new commission, of a more extensive nature than the first, to preach the Gospel to all nations, and to be witnesses of Christ, not only in Jerusalem, in all Judea, and in Sama- ria, but unto the uttermost parts of the earth; and they were qualified for the execution of their office by a plenteous effusion of miracu- lous powers and spiritual gifts, and particu- larly the gift of tongues. In consequence of this commission, they preached first to the Jews, then to the Samaritans, and afterward to the idolatrous Gentiles. Their signal suc- cess at Jerusalem, where they opened their com- mission, alarmed the Jewish sanhedrim, before which Peter and John were summoned, and from which they received a strict charge never more to teach, publicly or privately, in the name of Jesus of Nazareth. The noble reply and subsequent conduct of the Apostles are well known. This court of the Jews was so awed and incensed, as to plot the death of the twelve Aposiles, as the only effectual mea- sure for preventing the farther spread of Chris” tianity. Gamaliel interposed, by his prudent and moderate counsel; and his speech had se good an effect upon the sanhedrim, that, in- stead of putting Peter and John to death, they scourged them, renewed their charge and threats, and then dismissed them. The Apos- tles, however, were not discouraged nor re- APO strained; they counted it an honour to suffer such indignities, in token of their affection to their Master, and zeal in his cause; and they persisted in preaching daily in the courts of the temple, and in other places, that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised and long expected Messiah. Their doctrine spread, and the num- ber of converts in Jerusalem still increased. During the violent persecution that raged at Jerusalem, soon after the martyrdom of St. Stephen, several of the leading men among the Christians were dispersed; some of them travelled through the regions of Judea and Samaria, and others to Damascus, Phenicia, the Island of Cyprus, and various parts of Syria; but the twelve Apostles remained, with undaunted firmness, at Jerusalem, avowing their attachment to the persecuted interest of Christ, and consulting how they might best provide for the emergencies of the church, in its infant and oppressed state. When the Apostles, during their abode at Jerusalem, heard that many of the Samaritans had embraced the Gospel, Peter and John were deputed to confer upon them the gift of the Holy Spirit; for to the Apostles belonged the prerogative of conferring upon others spiritual gifts and miraculous powers. In their return to Jerusalem, from the city of Samaria, they ro the Gospel in many Samaritan vil- ages. The manner of its being sent to Ethiopia, by the conversion of the eunuch who was chief treasurer to Candace, queen of the country, is related in Acts viii, 26, &c. After the Chris- tian religion had been planted in Jerusalem, Jadea, and Samaria, and sent into Ethiopia, one of the uttermost parts of the earth, Acts i, 8; and after it had been preached about eight years to the Jews only, God, in his wise and merciful providence, disposed things for the preaching of it among the Gentiles. Czesarea was the scene in which the Apostle Peter was to open his commission for this purpose; and Cornelius, one of the devout Gentiles, and a man distinguished by his piety and charity, was the first proselyte to Christianity. After Peter had laid the foundation of a Christian church among the devout Gentiles, others imi- tated his example, and a great number of per- sons of this description embraced the Christian faith, more especially at Autioch, where the disciples, whom their enemies had hitherto called Galileans, Nazarenes, and other names of reproach, and who, among themselves, had been called “disciples,” “believers,” “the church,” “the saints,” and “brethren,” were denominated, probably not without a divine direction, Christians. When Christianity had been preached for about eight years among the Jews only, and for about three years more among the Jews and devout Gentiles, the next stage of its progress was to the idolatrous Gentiles, in the year of Christ 44, and the fourth year of the emperor Claudius. Barnabas and Saul were selected for this purpose, and constituted in an extra- prdinary manner Apostles of the Gentiles, or uncircumcision. Barnabas was probably an elder of the first rank; he had seen Christ in 73 APO the flesh, had been an eye witness of his being alive again after his crucifixion, and had re- ceived the Holy Spirit on the day of Peniecost, as being one of the hundred and twenty. Saul also, since his conversion had preached as a superior prophet, about seven years to the Jews only, and about two years more to the Jews and devout Gentiles. They had both been born in Gentile countries; and therefore may be supposed to have had more respect and affec- tion for the Gentiles than most of the Jews, who were natives of Judea. Saul had been converted, and had hitherto preached chiefl on Gentile ground; and he had joined swith Barnabas in teaching devout Gentiles for a whole year, at Antioch in Syria; by all which previous steps they were regularly conducted to the last gradation, or the conversion of the idolatrous Gentiles. But it was necessary, in order to the being an Apostle, to have seen our Lord Jesus Christ alive after his crucifixion, for the Apostles were in a peculiar manner the witnesses of his resurrection. Some have sup- posed that Saul saw the person of Jesus, when he was converted, near the city of Damascus; but others, who conceive from the history of this event, that this could not have been the case, as he was instantly struck blind, are of opinion that the season, when his Apostolic qualification and commission were completed, was that mentioned by himself, Acts xxii, 17, when he returned to Jerusalem the second time after his conversion, saw the Lord Jesus Christ in person, and received the command to go quick- ly out of Jerusalem, that he might be sent unto the Gentiles. See also Acts xxvi, 16-20, where he gives an account of the object of his com- mission. He also received a variety of gifts and powers, which, superadded to his own genius and learning, as well as fortitude and patience, eminently qualified him for the office of an Apostle, and for that particular exercise of it which was assigned to him. St. Paul is frequently called the Apostle, by way of emi- nence; and the Apostle of the Gentiles, because his ministry was chiefly employed for the con- version of the Gentiles, as that of St. Peter was for Jews, who is therefore styled the Apostle of the circumcision. The Apostles having continued at Jerusalem twelve years after the ascension of Christ, as tradition reports, according to his command, determined to disperse themselves in different parts of the world. But what were the par- ticular provinces assigned to each, does not certainly appear from any authentic history. Socrates says, that Thomas took Parthia for his lot; Matthew, Ethiopia, and Bartholomew, India. Eusebius gives the following account ; “Thomas, as we learn by tradition, had Parthia for his lot; Andrew, Scythia; John, Asia, who having lived there a long time, died at Ephe- sus. Peter, as it seems, preached to the dis- persed Jews in Pontus and Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia; at length, coming to Rome, he was crucified with his head down- ward, as he had desired. "What need I to speak of St. Paul, who fully preached the Gospel of Christ, from Jerusalem to Ilyricum, and at last APO died a martyr at Rome, in the time of Nero?” From this passage we may conclude, that at the beginning of the fourth century, there were not any certain and well attested accounts of the places out of Judea, in which several of the Apostles of Christ preached; for if there had, Eusebius must have been acquainted with them. The stories that are told concerning their arrival and exploits among the Gauls, the Eng- lish, the Spaniards, the Germans, the Americans, the Chinese, the Indians, and the Russians, are too romantic in their nature, and of too recent a date, to be received by an impartial inquirer after truth. These fables were for the most part forged after the time of Charlemagne, when most of the Christian churches contend- ed about the antiquity of their origin, with as much vehemence as the Arcadians, Egyptians, and Greeks disputed formerly about their se- niority and precedence. It appears, however, that all of the Apostles did not die by martyrdom. Heraclion, cited by Clemens Alexandrinus, reckons among the Apostles who did not suffer martyrdom, Mat- thew, Thomas, Philip, and Levi, probably meaning Lebbeus. To the Apostles belonged the peculiar and exclusive prerogative of writing doctrinal and preceptive books of authority in the Christian church; and it sufficiently appears that no epistles or other doctrinal writings of any per- son who was of a rank below that of an Apos- tle, were received by Christians as a part of their rule of faith. With respect to the writ- ings of Mark and Luke, they are reckoned historical, not doctrinal or dogmatical; and Augustine says, that Mark and Luke wrote at a time when their writings might be approved not only by the church, but by Apostles still living. The appellation of Apostles was also given to the ordinary travelling ministers of the church. Thus St. Paul, in the Epistle to the Romans, xvi, 7, says, ‘‘ Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and fellow prisoners, who are of note among the Apostles.” In this inferior sense the appellation is applied, by Clement of Alexandria, to Barnabas; who was not an Apostle in the highest sense of the word, so as the twelve and Paul were Apostles. Tertullian ealls all the seventy disciples Apostles; and Clement calls Barnabas Apostolical merely in another place, and says that he was one of the seventy, and fellow labourer of Paul. These, says Dr. Lardner, are the highest characters which he really intends to give to Barnabas, and what he means when he styles him Apos- tle; therefore he need not be supposed to ascribe to Barnabas that large measure of in- spiration and high authority, which was pecu- lar to the Apostles, strictly and properly so called. In a similar subordinate form, St. Clement of Rome is called Apostle. Timothy also is called by Salvian, Apostle, meaning merely Apostolical, or a companion and disci- ple of Apostles. Apostle was likewise a title given to those sent by the churches, to carry their alms to the poor of other churches. This usage they 14 APP borrowed from the synagogues, who called those whom they sent on this message, by the same name; and the function or office itself drooroAi, that is, mission. Thus St. Paul, writ- ing to the Philippians, tells them, that Epa- phroditus, their Apostle, had ministered to his wants, chap. ii, 25. It is applied in hke man- ner to those persons who first planted the Christian faith in any place. Apostle is also used among the Jews, for a kind of officer anciently sent into the several parts and provinces in their jurisdiction, by way of visiter, or commissary; to see that the laws were duly observed, and to receive the moneys collected for the reparation of the tem- ple, and the tribute payable to the Romans. These apostles were a degree below the officers of the synagogues, called patriarchs, and re- ceived their commissions from them. Some authors observe, that St. Paul had borne this office; and that it is this he alludes to in the beginning of the Epistle to the Galatians: as if he had said, Paul, no longer an apostle of the synagogue, nor sent by men to maintain the law of Moses, but now an Apostle and en- voy of Jesus Christ, &c. St. Jerom, though he does not believe that St. Paul had been an apostle of this kind, yet imagines that he al- ludes to it in the passage just cited. APOSTLES’ CREED. See Creep. APPELLATIO, an appeal. The Sempro- nian law secured this privilege to the Roman citizens, that they could not be capitally con- victed, but by the suffrage of the people; and in whatever provinces they happened io reside, if the governor showed a disposition to con- demn them to death, to scourge, or deprive them of their property, they had liberty to ap- peal from his jurisdiction to the judgment of the people. This law, which was enacted un- der the republican form of government, con- tinued in force under the emperors; so that if any freeman of Rome thought himself ill used and aggrieved by the presidents in any of the provinces, he could, by appeal, remove his cause to Rome, to the determination of the emperor. A number of persons, we are told, were delegated by Augustus, all of consular rank, to receive the appeals of the people in the provinces. These observations will explain the nature of St. Paul’s appeal in the Acts of the Apostles. APPII FORUM, a place about fifty miles from Rome, near the modern town of Piperno on the road to Naples. It probably had its name from the statue of Appius Claudius, a Roman consul, who paved the famous way from Rome to Capua, and whose statue was setuphere. Tothis place some Christians from Rome came to meet St. Paul, Acts xxviii, 15. _ APPLE TREE, mon, Prov. xxv, 11; Cant. ii, 3,5; viis 8; vili,5; Joel i, 12. As the best apples of Egypt, though ordinary, are brought thither by sea from Rhodes, and by land from Damascus, we may believe that Judea, an m- termediate country between Egypt and Da- mascus, has none that are of any value. Can it be imagined, then, that the apple trees of which the Prophet Joel speaks, i, 12, and APR which he mentions among the things that ave joy to the inhabitants of Judea, were those that we call by that name? Our trans- lators must surely have been mistaken here, since the apples which the inhabitants of Judea eat at this day are of foreign growth, and at the same time but very indifferent. There are five places, beside this in Joel, in which the word occurs; and from them we learn that it was thought the noblest of the trees of the wood, and that its fruit was very sweet or pleasant, Cant. ii, 3; of the colour of gold, Prov. xxv, 11; extremely fragrant, Cant. vii, 8; and proper for those to smell that were ready to faint, Cant. ii,5. Wemay besure that the taphuach was very early known in the holy land, as it is mentioned in the book of Joshua as having given name to a city of Manasseh and one of Judah. Several interpreters and critics render 77m yy “5, Lev. xxiii, 40, branches, or fruit, of the beautiful tree ; and understand it of the citron; and it is known that the Jews still make use of the fruit of this tree at their yearly feast of tabernacles. Citron trees are very noble, being large, their leaves beautiful, ever continuing on the trees, of an exquisite smell, and affording a most de- lightful shade. It might well, therefore, be said, “As the citron tree is among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons.” This is a delicate compliment, comparing the fine appearance of the prince, amid his escort, to the superior beauty with which the citron tree appears among the ordinary trees of the forest ; and the compliment is heightened by an allusion to the refreshing shade and the exhi- larating fruit. The exhilarating effects of the fruit are men- tioned Cant. ii, 5, ‘“‘Comfort me with citrons.” Egmont and Heyman tell us of an Arabian who was in a great measure brought to himself, when overcome with wine, by the help of citrons and coffee. _ To the manner of serving up these citrons in his court, Solomon seems to refer, when he says, “ A word fitly spoken is like golden citrons in silver baskets ;” whether, as Maimonides sup- poses, in baskets wrought with open work, or In salvers curiously chased, it nothing concerns us to determine; the meaning is, that an excel- lent saying, suitably expressed, is as the most acceptable gift in the fairest conveyance. So the rabbins say, that the tribute of the first ripe fruits was carried to the temple in silver baskets. APRIES, a king of Egypt, called in the sacred writings Pharaoh Hophrah, Jer. xliv, 30. Apries was the son of Psammis, and grandson of Necho, or Nechao, who waged war against Josiah, king of the Jews. He reigned twenty- five years, and was long considered as one of the happiest princes in the world; but having equipped a fleet for the reduction of the Cyre- Mians, he lost in this expedition almost the whole of his army. The Egyptians resolved to make him responsible for this ill success, re- belled, and pretended that he undertook the war only to get rid of his subjects, and that he might govern the remainder more absolutely. Apries deputed Amasis, one of his officers, to 75 AQU suppress the rebellion, and induce the people to return to their allegiance. But, while Amasis was haranguing them, one of the multitude placed a diadem about his helmet, and proclaim- ed him king. The rest applauded him; and Amasis having accepted their offer, continued with them, and confirmed them in their rebel- lion. Amasis put himself at the head of the rebels, and marched against Apries, whom he defeated and took prisoner. Amasis treated him with kindness; but the people were not satisfied till they had taken him from Amasis and strangled him. Such was the end of Apries, according to Herodotus. Jeremiah threatened this prince with being delivered into the hands of his enemies, as he had delivered Zedekiah, king of Judah, into the hands of Nebuchadnez- zar, king of Babylon. Apries had made a league with Zedekiah, and promised him assistance, Ezek. xvii, 15. Zede- kiah, therefore, relying on his forces, revolted from Nebuchadnezzar, in the year of the world 3414, and before Jesus Christ 590. Early in the year following, Nebuchadnezzar marched against Hezekiah; but as other nations of Sy- ria had shaken off their obedience, he first re- duced them to their duty, and toward the end of the year besieged Jerusalem, 2 Kings xxv, 5; 2 Chron. xxxvi, 17; Jer. xxxix, 1; lii, 4. Zede- kiah defended himself in Jerusalem, long and obstinately, that he might give time to Pharaoh Hophrah, or Apries, to come to his assistance. Apries advanced with a powerful army ; and the king of Babylon raised the siege, and marched tomeet him. But Apries not daring to hazard a battle against the Chaldeans, retreated into Egypt, and abandoned Zedekiah. Ezekiel re- proaches Egypt severely with this baseness, and says that it had been a staff of reed to the house of Israel, and an occasion of falling; for when they took hold of it by the hand, it broke and rent all their shoulder. He therefore prophe- sies that Egypt should be reduced to a solitude, and that God would send against it the sword, which would destroy in it man and beast, Ezek. xxix. This was afterward accomplished, first, in the time of Apries; and secondly, in the conquest of Eeyp. by the Persians. AQUILA. ‘This person wasa native of Pon- tus in Asia Minor, and was converted by St. Paul, together with his wife Priscilla, to the Christian religion. As Aquila was by tradea tentmaker, Acts xviii, 2, 3, as St. Paul was, the Apostle lodged and wrought with him at Co- rinth. Aquila came thither, not long before, from Italy, being obliged to leave Rome upon the edict which the ear Claudius had pub- lished, banishing the Jews from that city. St. Paul afterward quitted Aquila’s house, and abode with Justus, near the Jewish synagogue at Co- rinth; probably, as Calmet thinks, because Aquila was a converted Jew, and Justus was a convert from Paganism, that in this case the Gentiles might come and hear him with more liberty. When the Apostle left Corinth, Aquila and Priscilla accompanied him as far as Ephe- sus, where he left them with that church while he pursued his journey to Jerusalem. They rendered him great service in that city, so far ARA as to expose their own lives to preserve his. They had returned to Rome when St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans, xvi, 4, where- in he salutes them with great kindness. Lastly, they were come back to Ephesus again, when St. Paul wrote his Second Epistle to Timothy, iv, 19, wherein he desires him to salute them in hisname. What became of them after this time is not known. AR, the capital city of the Moabites, situat- ed in the hills on the south of the river Arnon. This city was likewise called Rabbah or Rab- bath Moab, to distinguish it from the Ammon- ite Rabbah. It was afterward called by the Greeks Areopolis; and is at present termed El- Rabba. See Moas. ARABIA. A vast country of Asia, extend- ig one thousand five hundred miles from north to south, and one thousand two hundred from east to west; containing a surface equal to four times that of France. The near approach of the Euphrates to the Mediterranean constitutes it a peninsula, the largest in the world. It is called Jezirat-el-Arab by the Arabs; and by the Persians and Turks, Arebistan. This is one of the most interesting countries on the face of the earth. It has, in agreement with prophecy, never been subdued; and its inhabitants, at once pastoral, commercial, and warlike, are the same wild, wandering people as the immediate descendants of their great ancestor Ishmael are represented to have been. Arabia, or at least the eastern and northern parts of it, were first peopled by some of the numerous families of Cush, who appear to have extended themselves, or to have given their name as the land of Cush, or Asiatic Ethiopia, to all the country from the Indus on the east, to the borders of Egypt on the west, and from Armenia on the north to Arabia Deserta on the south. By these Cushites, whose first plan- tations were on both sides of the Euphrates and Gulf of Persia, and who were the first that traversed the desert of Arabia, the earliest com- mercial communications were established be- tween the east and the west. But of their Arabian territory, and of the occupation de- pendent on it, they were deprived by the sons of Abraham, Ishmael, and Midian by whom they were obliterated in this country as a dis- tinct race, either by superiority of numbers after mingling wit’. them, or by obliging them to re- cede altogetner to their more eastern posses- sions, or over the Gulf of Arabia into Africa. From this time, that is, about five hundred and fifty years after the flood, we read only of Ish- maelites and Midianites as the shepherds and carriers of the deserts; who also appear to have been intermingled, and to have shared both the territory and the traffic, as the traders who bought Joseph are called by both names, and the same are probably referred to by Jeremiah, xxv, as “the mingled people that dwell in the desert.” But Ishmael maintained the superi- ority, and succeeded in giving his name to the whole people. Arabia, it is well known, is divided by geo- oe into three separate regions, called Kea ia Petra, Arabia Deserta, and Arabia Felix. 76 | Egypt; ARA The first, or Arabia Petrza, is the north- western division, and is bounded on the north by Palestine and the Dead Sea, on the east by Arabia Deserta, on the south by Arabia Felix, and on the west by the Heroopolitan branch of the Red Sea and the Isthmus of Suez. The greater part of this division was more exclu- sively the possession of the Midianites, or land of Midian; where Moses, having fled from Egypt, married the daughter of Jethro, and spent forty years keeping the flocks of his far ther-in-law: no humiliating occupation in those days, and particularly in Midian, which wasa land of shepherds; the whole people having no other way of life than that of rearing and tend- ing their flocks, or in carrying the goods they received from the east and south into Phenicia and Egypt. The word flock, used here, must not convey the idea naturally entertained in-our own country of sheep only, but, together with these or goats, horned cattle and camels, the most indispensable of animals to the Midian- ite. It was a mixed flock of this kind which was the sole care of Moses, during a third part of his long life; in which he must have had abundance of leisure, by night and by day, to reflect on the unhappy condition of his own people, still enduring all the rigours of slavery in Egypt. It was a similar flock also which the daughters of Jethro were watering when first encountered by Moses; a trifling event in itself, but important in the history of the future leader of the Jews; and showing, at the same time, the simple life of the people among whom he was newly come, as wellas the scanty supply of water in their country, and the strifes frequently occasioned in See share of it. Through a considerable part of this region, the Israelites wandered after they had escaped from and in it were situated the mountains oreb and Sinai. Beside the tribes of Midian, which gradually became blended with those of Ishmael, this was the country of the Edomites, the Amalekites, and the Nabathzi, the only tribe of pure Ishmaelites within its precincts. But all those families have long since been con- founded under the general name of Arabs. The greater part of this district consists of naked rocks and sandy and flinty plains; but it con- tained also some fertile spots, particularly in the peninsula of Mount Sinai, and through the long range of Mount Seir. The second region, or Arabia Deserta, is bounded on the north and north-east by the Euphrates, on the east by a ridge of mountains which separates it from Chaldea, on the south by Arabia Felix, and on the west by Syria, Ju- dea, and Arabia Petrea. This was more par- ticularly the country first of the Cushites, and afterward of the Ishmaelites; as it is still of their descendants, the modern Bedouins, who maintain the same predatory and wandering habits. It consists almost entirely of one vast and lonesome wilderness, a boundless level of sand, whose dry and burning surface denies existence to all but the Arab and his camel. Yet, widely scattered over this dreary waste, some spots of comparative fertility are to be found, where, spread around a feeble spring of Z Narbecthus NB Hezgopolis GOnerHliopais gy ~./s 0 nw 43 rs So auf 2 pga WHER NE, & Jalpaae bind e.0, Dp "SHunrgns 4 FIRZITES . ean anil font Ae of the JOURIWEN — s@aze Map ) FROM a — \ TOTES of the ome ae 4YES a , Ee “ii REYPT to CANAAN, | a es ee | \ Soren ee Re x == oe __ _Tongitnde East ; - _ 3jO SIL 35\2 315 3 Nthodist Book-Foom ; 200 Mulbeny Street . vm Steel by CBIing ARA brackish water, a stunted verdure, or a few palm trees, fix the principal settlement of a tribe, and afford stages of refreshment in these otherwise impassable deserts. Here, with a few dates, the milk of his faithful camel, and perhaps a little corn, brought by painful jour- neys from distant regions, or plundered from a passing caravan, the Arab supports a hard ex- istence, until the failure of his resources impels him to seek another oasis, or the scanty herb- age furnished on a patch of soil by transient rains; or else, which is frequently the case, to resort, by more distant migration, to the banks of the Euphrates; or, by hostile inroads on the neighbouring countries, to supply those wants which the recesses of the desert have denied. The numbers leading this wandering and pre- carious mode of life are incredible. From these deserts Zerah drew his army of a million of men; and the same deserts, fifteen hundred years after, poured forth the countless swarms, which, under Mohammed and his successors, devastated half of the then known world. The third region, or Arabia Felix, so de- nominated from the happier condition of its soil and climate, occupies the southern part of the Arabian peninsula. It is bounded on the north by the two other divisions of the country; on the south and south-east by the Indian Ocean; onthe east by part of the same ocean and the Persian Gulf; and on the west by the Red Sea. This division is subdivided into the kingdoms or provinces of Yemen, at the south- ern extremity of the peninsula; Hejaz, on the north of the former, and toward the Red Sea; Nejed, in the central region; and Hadramant and Oran, on the shores of the Indian Ocean. The four latter subdivisions partake of much of the character of the other greater divisions of the country, though of a more varied surface, and with a larger portion capable of cultivation. But Yemen seems to belong to another county and climate. It is very mountainous, is well watered with rains and springs, and is blessed with an abundant produce in corn and fruits, and especially in coffee, of which vast quanti- ties are exported. In this division were the ancient cities of Nysa, Musa or Moosa, and Aden. This is also supposed to have been the country of the queen of Sheba. In Hejaz are the celebrated cities of Mecca and Medina. Arabia Felix is inhabited by a people who claim Joktan for their father, and so trace their descent direct from Shem, instead of Abraham and Ham. They are indeed a totally different people from those inhabiting the other quarters, and pride themselves on being the only pure and unmixed Arabs. Instead of being shep- herds and robbers, they are fixed in towns and cities; and live by agriculture and commerce, chiefly maritime. Here were the people who were found by the Greeks of Egypt enjoying an entire monopoly of the trade with the east, and possessing a high degree of wealth and consequent refinement. It was here, in the ports of Sabza, that the spices, muslins, and precious stones of India, were for many ages obtained by the Greek traders of Egypt, before thev had acquired skill or courage sufficient to 71 ARA ass the straits of the Red Sea; which were ong considered by the nations of Europe to be the produce of Arabia itself. These articles, before the invention of shipping, or the esta- blishment of a maritime intercourse, were con- veyed across the deserts by the Cushite, Ish- maelite, and Midianite carriers. It was the produce partly of India, and partly of Arabia, which the travelling merchants, to whom Jo- se was sold, were carrying into Egypt. The balm and myrrh were probably Arabian, as they are still the produce of the same country; but the spicery was undoubtedly brought farther from the east. These circumstances are ad- verted to, to show how extensive was the com- munication, in which the Arabians formed the principal link: and that in the earliest ages of which we have any account, in those of Joseph, of Moses, of Isaiah, and of Ezekiel, “ the mingled people” inhabiting the vast Arabian deserts, the Cushites, Ishmaelites, and Midian- ites, were the chief agents in that commercial intercourse which has, from the most remote period of antiquity, subsisted between the ex- treme east and west. And although the cur- rent of trade is now turned, caravans of mer- chants, the descendants of these people, may still be found traversing the same deserts, con- veying the same articles, and in the same man- ner as described by Moses! The singular and important fact that Arabia has never been conquered, has already been cursorily adverted to. But Mr. Gibbon, un- willing to pass by an opportunity of cavilling at revelation, says, ‘‘ The perpetual independ- ence of the Arabs has been the theme of praise among strangers and natives; and the arts of controversy transform this singular event into a pee and a miracle in favour of the pos- terity of Ishmael. Some exceptions, that can neither be dissembled nor eluded, render this mode of reasoning as indiscreet as it is super- fluous. The kingdom of Yemen has been successively subdued by the Abyssinians, the Persians, the Sultans of Egypt, and the Turks; the holy cities of Mecca and Medina have re- peatedly bowed under a Scythian tyrant; and the Roman province of Arabia embraced the peculiar wilderness in which Ishmael and his sons ntust have pitched their tents in the face of their brethren.” But this learned writer has, with a peculiar infelicity, annulled his own ar- gument; and we have only to follow on the above passage, to obtain a complete refutation of the unworthy position with which it begins: “Yet these exceptions,” says Mr. Gibbon, “ are temporary or local; the body of the nation has escaped the yoke of the most powerful mo- narchies : the arms of Sesostris and Cyrus, of Pompey, and Trajan, could never achieve the conquest of Arabia; the present sovereign of the Turks may exercise a shadow of jurisdic- tion, but his pride is reduced to solicit the friendship of a people whom it is dangerous to provoke, and fruitless to attack. The obvious causes of their freedom are inscribed on the character and country ofthe Arabs. Many ages before Mohammed, their intrepid valour had been severely felt by their neighbours, in offen- ARA sive and defensive war. The patient and ac- tive virtues of a soldier are ee nursed in the habits and discipline of a pastoral life. The care of the sheep and camels is abandoned to the women of the tribe; but the martial youth, under the banner of the emir, is ever on horse- back and in the field, to practise the exercise of the bow, the javelin, and the scimitar. The long memory of their independence is the firmest pledge of its perpetuity; and succeed- ing generations are animated to prove their descent, and to maintain their inheritance. Their domestic feuds are suspended on the ap- po of acommon enemy; and in their last ostilities against the Turks, the caravan of Mecca was attacked and pillaged by four score thousand of the confederates. When they ad- vance to battle, the hope of victory is in the front, in the rear the assurance of a retreat. Their horses and camels, who in eight or ten days can perform a march of four or five hun- dred miles, disappear before the conqueror ; the secret waters of the desert elude his search; and his victorious troops are consumed with thirst, hunger, and fatigue, in the pursuit of an invisible foe, who scorns his efforts, and safely reposes in the heart of the burning soli- tude. he arms and deserts of the Bedouins are not only the safeguards of their own free- dom, but the barriers also of the happy Arabia, whose inhabitants, remote from war, are ener- vated by the luxury of the soil and climate. The legions of Augustus melted away in dis- ease and lassitude; and it is only by a naval power that the reduction of Yemen has been successfully attempted. When Mohammed erected his holy standard, that kingdom was a province of the Persian empire; yet seven princes of the Homerites still reigned in the mountains; and the vicegerent of Chosroes was tempted to forget his distant country and his unfortunate master.” Yemen was the only Arabian province which had the appearance of submitting to a foreign yoke; but even here, as Mr. Gibbon himself acknowledges, seven of the native princes re- mained unsubdued: and even admitting its subjugation to have been complete, the per- petual independence of the Ishmaelites remains unimpeached. For this is not their country. Petra, the capital of the Stony Arabia, and the principal settlement of the Nabathzei, it is true, was long in the hands of the Persians and Ro- mans; but this never made them masters of the country. Hovering troops of Arabs con- fined the intruders within their walls, and cut off their supplies; and the possession of this fortress gave as little reason to the Romans to exult as the conquerors of Arabia Petrea, as that of Gibraltar does to us to boast of the con- quest of Spain. The Arabian tribes were confounded by the Greeks and Romans under the indiscriminate appellation of Saracens; a name whose ety- mology has been variously, but never satisfac- terily, explained. This was their general name when Mohammed appeared in the beginning of the seventh century. Their religion at this time was Sabianism, or the worship of the sun, 78 ARA moon, &c; variously transformed ky the dif= ferent tribes, and intermingled with some Jew- ish and Christian maxims and traditions. The tribes themselves were generally at variance, from some hereditary and implacable animosi- ties; and their only warfare consisted in de- sultory skirmishes arising out of these feuds, and in their predatory excursions, where supe- riority of numbers rendered courage of less value than activity and vigilance. Yet of such materials Mohammed constructed a mighty em pire; converted the relapsed Ishmaelites into good Musselmen; united the jarring tribes un- der one banner; supplied what was wanting in personal courage by the ardour of religious zeal; and out of a banditti, little known and little feared beyond their own deserts, raised an armed multitude, which proved the scourge of the world. Mohammed was born in the year 569, of the noble tribe of the Koreish, and descended, ac- cording to eastern historians, in a direct line from Ishmael. His person is represented as beautiful, his manners engaging, and his elo- quence powerful; but he was illiterate, like the rest of his countrymen, and indebted to a Jew- ish or Christian scribe for penning his Koran. Whatever the views of Mohammed might have been in the earlier part of his life, it was not till the fortieth year of his age that he avowed his mission as the Apostle of God: when so little credit did he gain for his pretensions, that in the first three years he could only number fourteen converts; and even at the end of ten years his labours and his friends were alike ‘confined within the walls of Mecca, when the designs of his enemies compelled him to fly to Medina, where he was favourably received by a party of the most considerable inhabitants, who had recently imbibed his doctrines at Mec- ca. This flight, or Hegira, was made the Mo- hammedan era, from which time is computed, and corresponds with the 16th of July, 622, of the Christian ezra. Mohammed now found himself sufficiently powerful to throw aside all reserve; declared that he was commanded to compel unbelievers by the sword to receive the faith of one God, and his prophet Mohammed ; and confirming his credulous followers by the threats of eternal pain on the one hand, and the allurements of a sensual paradise on the other, he had, before his death, which happened in the fet 632, gained over the whole of Ara- bia to his imposture. His death threw a tem- porary gloom over his cause, and the disunion of his followers threatened its extinction. Any other empire placed in the same circum- stances would have crumbled to pieces; but the Arabs felt their power; they revered their founder as the chosen prophet of God; and their ardent temperament, animated by a re- ligious enthusiasm, gave an earnest of future success, and encouraged the zeal or the ambi- tion of their leaders. The succession, after some bloodshed, was settled, and unnumbered hordes of barbarians were ready to carry into execution the sanguinary dictates of their pro- phet; and, with “the Koran, tribute, or death,” as their motto, to invade the countries of the ae eS a ee ee eS ee ee a veeee: ee eee 2 a ee! ee ae ee ee ARA 79 infidels. During the whole of the succeeding century, their rapid career was unchecked; the disciplined armies of the Greeks and Romans were unable to stand against them; the Chris- tian churches of Asia and Africa were annihi- lated; and from India to the Atlantic, through Persia, Arabia, Syria, Palestine, Asia Minor, Egypt, with the whole of northern Africa, Spain, and part of France, the impostor was acknowledged. Constantinople was besieged; Rome itself was plundered; and nothing less than the subjection of the whole Christian world was meditated on the one hand, and tremblingly expected on the other. All this was wonderful; but the avenging justice of an incensed Deity, and the sure word of prophecy, relieve our astonishment. It was to punish an apostate race, that the Saracen locusts were let loose upon the earth; and the countries which they were permitted to ravage were those in which the pure light of revela- tion had been most abused. The eastern church was sunk in gross idolatry ; vice, and wicked- ness prevailed in their worst forms; and those who still called themselves Christians trusted more to images, relics, altars, austerities, and pilemmages than to a crucified Saviour. bout a hundred and eighty years from the foundation of Bagdad, during which period the power of the Saracens had gradually declined, a dreadful reaction took place in the conquered countries. The Persians on the east, and the Greeks on the west, were simultaneously roused from their long thraldom, and, assisted by the Turks, who, issuing from the plains of Tar- tary, now for the first time made their appear- ance in the east, extinguished the power of the caliphate, and virtually put an end to the Ara- bian monarchy in the year 936. A succession of nominal caliphs continued to the year 1258: but the provinces were lost; their power was confined to the walls of their capital; and they were in real subjection to the Turks and the Persians until the above year, when Mostacem, the last of the Abbassides, was dethroned and murdered by Holagou, or Hulaku, the Tartar, the grandson of Zingis. This event, although it terminated the foreign dominion of the Ara- bians, left their native independence untouched. They were no longer, indeed, the masters of the finest parts of the three great divisions of the ancient world: their work was finished ; and returning to the state in which Moham- med found them three centuries before, with the exception of the change in their religion, they remained, and still remain, the unconquer- ed rovers of the desert. , It is not the least singular circumstance in the history of this extraordinary people, that those who, in the enthusiasm of their first suc- cesses, were the sworn foes of literature, should become for several ages its exclusive pone Almansor, the founder of Bagdad, has the merit of first exciting this spirit, which was encou- raged in a still greater degree by his grandson Almamon. This caliph employed his agents in Armenia, Syria, Egypt, and at Constantin- ople, in collecting the most celebrated works on Grecian science, and had them translated ARA into the Arabic language. Philosophy, astro- nomy, geometry, and medicine, were thus in- troduced and taught; public schools were established; and learning, which had altogether fled from Europe, found an asylum on the banks of the Tigris. Nor was this spirit con- fined to the capital: native works began to appear; and by the hands of copyists were mul- tiplied out of number, for the information of the studious, or the pride of the wealthy. The rage for literature extended to Egypt and to Spain. In the former country, the Fatimites collected a library of a hundred thousand manu- scripts, beautifully transcribed, and very ele- gantly bound ; and in the latter, the Ommiades formed another of six hundred thousand vo- fumes; forty-four of which were employed in the catalogue. Their capital, Cordova, with the towns of Malaga, Almeria, and Murcia, produced three hundred writers; and seventy public libraries were established in the cities of Andalusia. What a change since the days of Omar, when the splendid library of the Ptole- mies was wantonly destroyed by the same peo- ple! A retribution, though a slight one, was thus made for their former devastations; and many Grecian works, lost in the original, have been recovered in their Arabic dress. Neither was this learning confined to mere parade, though much of it must undoubtedly have been so. Their proficiency in astronomy and geo- metry is attested by their astronomical tables, and by the accuracy with which, in the plain of Chaldea, a degree of the great circle of the earth was measured. But it was in medicine that, in this dark age, the Arabians shone most: the works of Hippocrates and Galen had been translated and commented on; their physicians were sought after by the princes of Asia and Europe; and the names of Rhazis, Albucasis, and Avicenna are still revered by the members of the healing art. So little, indeed, did the physicians of Europe in that age know of the history of their own science, that they were astonished, on the revival of learning, to find in the ancient Greek authors those systems for which they thought themselves indebted to the Arabians! The last remnant of Arabian science was found in Spain; from whence it was expelled in the beginning of the seventeenth century, by the intemperate bigots of that country, who have never had any thing of their own with which to supply its place. The Arabians are the only people who have preserved their de- scent, their independence, their language, and their manners and customs, from the earliest ages to the present times; and it is among them that we are to look for examples of pa- triarchal life andmanners. A very lively sketch of this mode of life is given by Sir R. K. Por- ter, in the person and tribe of an Arab sheik, whom he encountered in the neighbourhood of the Euphrates. “TI had met this warrior,” says Sir R. K. P., “at the house of the British re- sident at Bagdad; and came, according to his repeated wish, to see him in a place more con- sonant with his habits, the tented field; and, as he expressed it, ‘at the heed of his children. ARA As soon.as we arrived in sight of his camp, we were met by crowds of its inhabitants, who, with a wild and hurrying delight, led us toward the tent of their chief. The venerable old man came forth to the door, attended by his subjects of all sizes and descriptions, and greet- ed us with a countenance beaming kindness ; while his words, which our interpreter explain- ed, were demonstrative of patriarchal welcome. One of my Hindoo troopers spoke Arabic; hence the substance of our succeeding discourse was not lost on each other. Having entered, Tsat down by my host; and the whole of the persons present, to far beyond the boundaries of the tent, (the sides of which were open,) seated themselves also, without any regard to those more civilized ceremonies of subjection, the crouching of slaves, or the standing of vassalage. ‘These persons, in rows beyond rows, appeared just as he had described, the offspring of his house, the descendants of his fathers, from age to age; and like brethren, whether holding the highest or the lowest rank, they seemed to gather round their common parent. But perhaps their sense of perfect equality in the mind of their chief could not be more forcibly shown, than in the share they took in the objects which appeared to interest his feelings; and as I looked from the elders or leaders of the people, seated immediately around him, to the circles beyond circles of brilliant faces, bending eagerly toward him and his guest, (all, from the most respectably clad to those with hardly a garment covering their active limbs, earnest to evince some at- tention to the stranger he bade welcome,) I thought I had never before seen so complete an assemblage of fine and animated countenances, both old and young: nor could I suppose a better specimen of the still existing state of the true Arab; nor a more lively picture of the scene which must have presented itself, ages ago, in the fields of Haran, when Terah sat in his tent door, surrounded by his sons, and his sons’ sons, and the people born in his house. The venerable Arabian sheik was also seated on the ground with a piece of carpet spread under him ; and, like his ancient Chaldean an- cestor, turned to the one side and the other, graciously answering or questioning the groups around him, with an interest in them all which clearly showed the abiding simplicity of his government, and their obedience. On_ the smallest computation, such must have been the manners of these people for more than three thousand years; thus, in all things, veri- fying the prediction given of Ishmael at his birth, that he, in his posterity, should ‘ be a wild man,’ and always continue to be so, though ‘he shall dwell for ever in the presence of his brethren.’ And that an acute and active peo- ple, surrounded for ages by polished and luxu- rious nations, should from their earliest to their latest times, be still found @ wild people, dwell- ing in the presence of all their brethren, (as we may call these nations,) unsubdued and un- changeable, is, indeed, a standing miracle: one of those mysterious facts which establish the truth of prophecy.” But although the 80 ARA manners of the Arabians have remained un- altered through so many ages, and will proba- bly so continue, their religion, as we have seen, has sustained an important change; and must again, in the fulness of time, give place toe faith more worthy of the people. St. Paul first preached the Gospel in Arabia, Gal. i, 17. Christian churches were subse- quently founded, and many of their tribes em- braced Christianity prior to the fifth century; most of which appear to have been tinctured with the Nestorian heresy. At this time, how- ever, it does not appear that the Arabians had any version of the Scriptures in their own language, to which some writers attribute the ease with which they were drawn into the Mo- hammedan delusion; while the “ Greeks, Sy- rians, Armenians, Abyssinians, Copts, and others,” who enjoyed that privilege, were able to resist it. ARAM, the fifth son of Shem, Gen. x, 22. He was the father of the Syrians, who from him were called Aramzans, or Aramites. ARARAT, a mountain of Asia, in Armenia, on which the ark of Noah rested after the ces- sation of the deluge. Concerning the etymo- logy of the name, Dr. Bryant observes, that it is a compound of Ar-Arat, and signifies “ the mountain of descent,” being equivalent to awn, of the Hebrews. Of the precise situation of this mountain, different accounts have been given. Some have supposed that it was one of the mountains which divide Armenia on the south from Mesopotamia, and that part of As- syria inhabited by the Curds, from whom those mountains took the name of Curdue, or Cardu; by the Greeks denominated Gordyai. It is called by the Arabs Al-Judi, and also Thama- nin. In confirmation of this opinion, it is alleged that the remains of the ark were to be seen on these mountains; and it is said, that Berosus and Abydenus both declare, that such a report existed in their time. Epiphanius pretends, if we may credit his assertion, that the relics of the ark were to be seen in his day; and we are further told, that the emperor Heraclius went from the town of Thamanin, up the mountain Al-Judi, and saw the place of the ark. Others maintain, that mount Ararat was situated toward the middle of Armenia, near the river Araxes, or Aras, about twelve miles from it, according to Tournefort, above two hundred and eighty miles distant from Al-Judi, to the north-east. Ararat seems to be a part of that vast chain of mountains call- ed Caucasus and Taurus; and upon these mountains, and in the adjacent country, were preserved more authentic accounts of the ark than in almost any other part of the world. The region about Ararat, called Araratia, was es- teemed among the ancients as nearly a central part of the earth; and it is certainly as well calculated as any other for the accommodation of its first inhabitants, and for the migration of colonies, upon the increase of mankind. The soil of the country was very fruitful, and espe- cially of that part where the patriarch made his first descent. The country also was very high, though it had fine plains and valleys ARA 81 between the mountains. Such a country, there- fore, must, after the flood, have been the soon- est exsiccated, and, consequently, the soonest habitable. The mountain which has still the name of Ararat, has retained it through allages. Tour- nefort has particularly described it, and from his account it seems to consist chiefly of free- stone, or calcareous sandstone. It is a de- tached mountain in form of a sugar loaf, in the midst .of a very extensive plain, consisting of two summits; the lesser, more sharp and point- ed; the higher, which is that of the ark, lies north-west of it, and raises its head far above the neighbouring mountains, and is covered with perpetual snow. When the air is clear, it does not appear to be above two leagues from Erivan, and may be seen at the distance of four or five days’ journey. Its being visible at such a distance, however, is ascribed not so much to its height, as to its lonely situation, in a large plain, and upon the most elevated part of the country. he ascent is difficult and fatiguing. Tournefort attempted it; and, after a whole day’s toil, he was obliged, by the snow and intense cold, to return without ac- complishing his design, though in the middle of summer. On the side of the mountain that looks toward Erivan, is a prodigious precipice, very deep, with perpendicular sides, and of a rough, black appearance, as if tinged with smoke, The summit of Ararat has never been reach- ed, though several attempts have been made; and if the ark rested on the summit, it is certain that those who have spoken of its fragments being seen there in different ages, must have been imposed upon. It is, however, not neces- sary to suppose that the ark rested upon either of itstops; and that spot would certainly be chosen which would afford the greatest facility of de- scent. Sir Robert Ker Porter is among the modern travellers who have given us an ac- count of this celebrated mountain :—‘ As the vale opened beneath us in our descent, my whole attention became absorbed in the view before me. A vast plain, peopled with count- less villages; the towers and spires of the churches of Eitch-mai-adzen, arising from amidst them; the glittering waters of the Arax- es, flowing through the fresh green of the vale; and the subordinate range of mountains, skirt- ing the base of the awful monument of the antediluvian world. It seemed to stand a stu- pendous link in the history of man, uniting the iwo races of men before and after the flood. But it was not until we had arrived upon the flat plain, that I beheld Ararat in all its ampli- tude of grandeur. From the spot on which I stood, it appeared as if the hugest mountains of the world had been piled upon each other, to form this one sublime immensity of earth, and rock, and snow. The icy peaks of its double heads rose majestically into the clear and cloudless heavens; the sun blazed bright upon them; and the reflection sent forth a dazzling radiance, equal to other suns. This point of the view united the utmost grandeur of plain and height. a the feelings I expe- ARC rienced while looking on the mountain, are hardly to be described. My eye, not able to rest for any length of time upon the blinding glory of its summits, wandered down the appa- rently interminable sides, till I could no longer trace their vast lines in the mists of the hori- zon; when an inexpressible impulse, immedi- ately carrying my eye upward again, refixed my gaze upon the awful glare of Ararat; and this bewildered sensibility of sight being an- swered by a similar feeling in the mind, for some moments I was lost in a strange suspen- sion of the powers of thought.” The separate peaks are called Great and Little Ararat, and the space between them is about seven miles. ‘‘ These inaccessible sum- mits,” continues Sir R. K. Porter, “have never been trodden by the foot of man since the days of Noah, if even then; for my idea is, that the ark rested in the space between these heads, and not on the top of either. Various attempts have been made in different ages to ascend these tremendous mountain pyramids, but in vain: their form, snows, and glaciers, are in- surmountable obstacles: the distance being so great from the commencement of the icy region to the highest points, cold alone would be the destruction of any person who should have the hardihood to persevere. On viewing mount Ararat from the northern side of the plain, its two heads are separated by a wide cleft, or rather glen, in the body of the mountain. ‘The rocky side of the greater head runs almost perpendicularly down to the north-east, while the lesser head rises from the sloping bottom of the cleft, in a perfectly conical shape. Both heads are covered with snow. The form of the greater is similar to the less, only broader and rounder at the top; and shows to the north- west a broken and abrupt front, opening, about half way down, into a stupendous chasm, deep, rocky, and peculiarly black. At that part of the mountain, the hollow of the chasm receives an interruption from the projection of minor mountains, which start from the sides of Ara- rat like branches from the root of a tree, and run along, in undulating progression, till lost in the distant vapours of the plain.” Dr. Shuck- ford argues that the true Ararat lies among the mountains of the north of India; but Mr. Faber has answered his reasoning, and proved by a comparison of geographical notices incidentally mentioned in the Old Testament, that the Ara- rat of Armenia is the true Ararat. ARCHANGEL, according to some, means an angel occupying the eighth rank in the celestial order or hierarchy ; but others reckon it a title only applicable to our Saviour; Jude 9; Dan. xii, 1; 1 Thess. iv, 16. On this point Bishop Horsley has the following observa- tions :— It has been for a long time a fashion in the church to speak very frequently and familiarly of archangels as beings of an order with which we are perfectly well acquainted. Some say there are seven of them. Upon what solid ground that assertion stands, I know not; but this I know, the word ‘archangel’ is not to be found in any one passage of the Old Testa- ment: in the New Testament it occurs twice,. ARC and only twice. One of the two passages is in the First Epistle to the Thessalonians; where the Apostle, among the circumstances of the pone of our Lord’s descent from heaven to the nal judgment, mentions ‘ the voice of the arch- angel ;’ the other passage is in the Epistle of St. Jude, where the title of archangel is coupled with the name of ‘Michael the archangel.’ This passage is so remarkably obscure that I shall not attempt to draw any conclusion from it but this, which manifestly follows, be the par- ticular sense of the passage what it may: since this is one of the two texts in which alone the word ‘archangel’ is found in the whole Bible ; since in this one text only the title of archan- gel is coupled with any name; and since the name with which it is here coupled is Michael; it follows undeniably that the archangel Mi- chael is the only archangel of whom we know any thing from holy writ. It cannot be prov- ed from holy writ, and, if not from holy writ, it cannot be proved at all, that any archangel exists but the one archangel Michael, and this ‘one archangel Michael is unquestionably the Michael of the book of Daniel. “T must observe by the way, with respect to -the import of the title of archangel, that the word, by etymology, clearly implies a supe- riority of rank and authority in the person to whom it is applied. It implies a command over angels; and this is all that the word of necessity implies. But it follows not, by any sound rule of argument, that, because no other superiority than that of rank and authority is implied in the title, no other belongs to the person distinguished by the title, and that he is in all other respects a mere angel. Since we admit various orders of intelligent beings, it is evident that a being highly above the an- gelic order may command angels. “To ascertain, if we can, to what order of beings the archangel Michael may belong, let us see how he is described by the Prophet Daniel, who never mentions him by that title ; and what action is attributed to him in the book of Daniel and in another book, in which he bears a principal part. “Now Baxiel calls him ‘one of the chief princes,’ or ‘one of the capital princes,’ or ‘one of the princes that are at the head of all:’ for this I maintain to be the full and not more than the full import of the Hebrew words. Now we are clearly got above the earth, into the order of celestials, who are the princes that are first, or at the head of all? Are they any other than the three persons in the Godhead ? Michael, therefore, is one of them; but which of them? This is not left in doubt. Gabriel, speaking of him to Daniel, calls him ‘ Michael your prince,’ and ‘the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people;’ that is, not for the nation of the Jews in particular, but for the children, the spiritual children, of that holy seed the elect people of God; a de- scription which applies particularly to the Son of God, and to no one else; and in perfect consistence with this description of Michael inthe book of Daniel, is the action assigned ‘to him in the Apocalypse, in which we find 82 ARC him fighting with the old serpent, the deceiver of the world, and victorious in the combat. That combat who was to maintain? in that combat who was to be victorious, but the seed of the woman? From all this it is evident, that Michael is a name for our Lord himself, in his particular character of the champion of his faithful people, against the violence of the apostate faction and the wiles of the devil.” o this opinion there is nothing irreconcilable in the “voice of the archangel” mentioned in 1 Thess. iv, 16: since the “shout,” the “ voice,” the “trump of God,” may all be the majestic summons of the Judge himself. At the same time we must feel that the reasoning of Bishop Horsley, though ingenious, is far from being conclusive against the existence of one or more archangels. ARCHBISHOP, a bishop of the first class, who superintends the conduct of other bishops. Archbishops were not known in the east till about the year 320; and though there were some soon after this, who had the title, yet it was only a personal honour, by which the bishops of considerable cities were distinguish- ed. It was not till of late that archbishops became metropolitans, and had suffragans un- der them. Athanasius appears to have been the first who used the title archbishop, which he gave occasionally to his predecessor. Gre- gory Nazianzen, in like manner, gave it to Athanasius; not that either of them was en- titled to any jurjsdiction, or even any prece- dency, in virtue of this title. Among the La- tins, Isidore Hispalensis is the first who speaks of archbishops. ARCHELAUS, son of Herod the Great, and Maltace, his fifth wife. Herod having put to death his sons Alexander, Aristobulus, and Antipater, and expunged out of his will Herod Antipas, whom he had declared king, he sub- stituted Archelaus, and gave Antipas the title of tetrarch only. After the death of Herod, Archelaus ordered that king’s will to be read, wherein he, Archelaus, was declared king, on condition that Augustus consented. Hereupon the assembly cried, “Long live king Arche- laus!” and the soldiers promised the same fidelity to him as they had shown to his father. Archelaus buried his father magnificently, came to Jerusalem, and there mourned seven days, according to custom. He then gave a splendid entertainment to the people, went to the temple, harangued the multitude, promised them good treatment, and declared he would not assume the title of king till the emperor had confirmed it, A.M. 4001; B.C. 3. The people, notwithstanding, tumultuously demand- ed the execution of those who advised Herod to slay certain zealots, who had pulled down a olden eagle from one of the temple gates. hey also required Archelaus to divest Joazar of the high priesthood; and they vehemently reproached the memory of the late king. Ar- chelaus sent oe to suppress the mutineers, and killed near three thousand of them about the temple. After this he embarked at Cesa- rea for Rome, to_procure from Augustus the confirmation of Herod’s will. Antipas, hia ARC brother, went to Rome likewise, to dispute his title, pretending that Herod’s first will should be preferred to his last, which he alleged to have been made by him when his understand- ing was not sound. he two brothers, Archelaus and Antipas, procured able orators to display their preten- sions before the emperor; and when they had done speaking, Archelaus threw himself at Augustus’s feet. Augustus gently raised him, said he would do nothing contrary to Herod’s intention or his interest, but refused to decide the affair at that time. Some time afterward, the Jews sent a solemn embassy to Rome, to desire Augustus would permit them to live ac- cording to their own laws, and on the footing of a Roman province, without being subject to kings of Herod’s family, but only to the go- vernors of Syria. Augustus heard them, and likewise heard Archelaus in reply; then broke up the assembly without declaring himself. After some days, he sent for Archelaus, gave him the title, not of king, but of ethnarch, with one moiety of the territories which his father Herod had enjoyed ; promising him the crown likewise, if his good conduct deserved it. Ar- chelaus returned to Judea, and, under pretence that he had countenanced the seditions against him, he deprived Joazar of the high priesthood, and gave that dignity to his brother Eleazar. He governed Judea with so much violence, that, after seven years, the chiefs of the Sama- ritans and Jews accused him before Augustus. The emperor immediately sent for his agent at Rome, and without condescending to write to Archelaus he commanded the agent to depart instantly for Judea, and order Archelaus to Rome, to give an account of his conduct. On his arrival at Rome, the emperor called for his accusers, and permitted him to defend himself; which he did so insufficiently, that Augustus banished him to Vienne, in Gaul, where he continued in exile to the end of his life. See ANTIPAS. ARCHI-SYNAGOGUS, the ruler of a syna- gogue. See Synacocur. ARCHITRICLINUS, dowirpikdtvos, general- ly translated steward, signifies rather the mas- ter or superintendent of the feast; “one,” says Gaudentius, ‘‘ who is the husband’s friend, and commissioned to conduct the order and econo- my of the feast.” THe gave directions to the servants, superintended every thing, command- ed the tables to be covered, or to be cleared of the dishes, as he thought proper: whence his name, as regulator of the triclinium, or festive board. He.also tasted the wine, and distribut- ed it to the guests. The author of Ecclesias- ticus thus describes this office, xxxii, 1, 2: “If thou be made the master of a feast, lift not thyself up, but be among them as one of the rest: take diligent care of them, and so sit down. And when thou hast done all thy office, take thy place, that thou mayest be merry with them, and receive a crown for the well order- ing of the feast.” This office is mentioned, Joba ii, 8, 9, upon which Theophylact re- marks: “That no one might suspect that their taste was vitiated by having drurk to excess, 83 ARI so as not to know water from wine, our Sa- viour orders it to be first carried to the govern- or of the feast, who certainly was sober; for those who on such occasions are intrusted with this office, observe the strictest sobriety, that they may be able properly to regulate the whole.” AREOPAGUS, the high court at Athens, famed for the justice of its decisions; and so called, because it sat on a hill of the same name, or in the suburbs of the city, dedicated to Mars, the god of war, as the city was to Minerva, his sister. St. Paul, Acts xvii, 19, &c, having preached at Athens, was carried before the Areopagites, as “a setter forth of strange gods.” On this occasion he delivered that fae sermon which is in substance record- ed in Acts xvii. Dionysius, one of the judges, was converted; and the Apostle was dismissed without any farther trouble. ARGOB, a canton lying beyond Jordan, in the half tribe of Manasseh, and in the country of Bashan, one of the most fruitful on the other side of Jordan. In the region of Argob there were sixty cities, called Bashan-havoth- Jair, which had very high walls and strong gates, without reckoning many villages and hamlets, which were not inclosed, Deut. iii, 4-]4; 1 Kings iv, 13. But Argob was more peculiarly the name of the capital city of the region of Argob, which Eusebius says was fift teen miles west of Gerara. ARIANS, this ancient sect, was unquestion- ably so called from Arius, a presbyter of Alex- andria, in the early part of the fourth century. It is said that he aspired to episcopal honours ; and after the death of Achilles, in A. D. 313, felt not a little chagrined that Alexander should be preferred before him. Whether this circumstance had any influence on his opinions, it is impossible to say; but one day, when his rival (Alexander) had been addressing the clergy in favour of the orthodox doctrine, and maintaining, in strong and pointed language, “that the Son of God was co-eternal, co-essen- tial, and co-equal with the Father,” Arius con- sidered this as a species of Sabellianism, and ventured to say, that it was inconsistent and impossible, since the Father, who begat, must be before the Son, who was begotten: the lat ter, therefore, could not be absolutely eternal. Alexander at first admonished Arius, and en- deavoured to convince him of his error; but without effect, except that he became the more bold in contradiction. Some of the clergy thought their bishop too forbearing, and it 1s possible he felt his inferiority of talent; for Arius was a man of accomplished learning, and commanding eloquence; venerable in per- son, and fascinating in address. At length Alexander was roused, and attempted to silence Arius by his authority; but this not succeed- ing, as the latter was bold and pertinacious, Alexander, about the year 320, called a coun- cil of his clergy, by whom the reputed heretic was deposed and excommunicated. Arius now retired into Palestine, where his talents and address soon made a number of converts; and among the rest, the celebrated Eusebius, bishop ARI of Nicomedia, and other bishops and clergy of those parts, who assembled in council, and re- ceived the excommunicated presbyter into their communion. Eusebius also, having great interest with Constantia, the sister of Constan- tine, and wife of Licinius, recommended Arius to her protection and patronage; through which, and by his own eloquent letters to the clergy in various parts, his system spread with great rapidity, and to a vast extent. The em- peror Constantine, who had no great skill in these matters, was grieved to see the Christian church (but just escaped from the red dragon of persecution) thus torn by intestine animosi- ty and dissensions; he therefore determined to summon a general council of the clergy, which met at Nice, A. D. 325, and contained more than 300 bishops. Constantine attended in person, and strongly recommended peace and unanimity. Athanasius was the chief oppo- nent of the Arians. Both parties were willing to subscribe to the language of the Scriptures, but each insisted on interpreting for them- selves. ‘Did the Trinitarians,” says Mr. Milner, “assert that Christ was God? The Arians allowed it, but in the same sense as holy men and angels are styled gods in Scrip- ture. Did they affirm that he was truly God ? The others allowed that he was made so by God. Did they affirm that the Son was natu- rally of God? It was granted: Even we, said they, are of God, ‘of whom are all things.’ ” At length the Athanasians collected a number of texts, which they conceived amounted to full proof of the Son being of one and the same substance with the Father; the Arians admit- ted he was of like substance, the difference in the Greek phrases being only in a single let- ter,—bpootcr0s, homoousios, and dpo.otcr0s, homot- ousios. At length the former was decreed to be the orthodox faith, and the Nicene creed was framed as it remains at this day so far as concerns the person of the Son of God, who is said to be “ begotten of his Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, of one sub- stance with the Father, by whom all things were made,” &c. Arius was now excommunicated. The sen- tence of the council pronounced against him and his associates was followed by another of the emperor, whereby the excommunicated per- sons were condemned to banishment, that they might be debarred the society of their country- men whom the church had judged unworthy to remain in her communion. Soon after which, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Theognis of Nice, peing found to continue their countenance and protection tothe Arian cause, to communicate with those whom they had anathematized, and to concur in those sentiments which they had condemned by their subscriptions; they were both subjected to the same penalty of exile by the emperor, and were actually deposed, (as we learn from Athanasius,) and had successors or- dained to their sees, though history is silent as to the council by which this was done. But such was the good nature and credulity of Con- stantine, that these men, by their usual artifices, 84 ARI easily imposed upon him, and brought him to such a full persuasion of their agreement with the Nicene faith, that in about three years’ time they were not only recalled from banishment, but restored to their sees, and to a considerable degree of interest at court. Their thorough attachment to the cause of Arius, and their hatred of Athanasius, who had so vigorously withstood them in the council, and was now advanced to the see of Alexandria, made them watchful of every opportunity to defeat the de- cisions of the council. In the meantime one who wished well to their designs, and whom Constantia had upon her death bed recommended to the emperor, did so far prevail upon the easy credulity of Con- stantine, by complaining that Arius had been misrepresented, and differed nothing in his sen- timents from the Nicene fathers, that the indul- gent emperor recalled him from his banishment, and required him to exhibit in writing, a con- fession of his faith. He did this in such terms as, though they admitted of a latent reservation, yet bore the appearance of being entirely catho- lic; and therefore not only gave satisfaction to the emperor, but even offended some of his own followers, who from that time forth separated from him. The discerning Athanasius was not so easily imposed upon as Constantine; but, well assured of the heretic’s prevarication, was resolute in refusing to admit him to commu- nion, whom the Nicene council had so openly condemned. Upon this the emperor sent for Arius to Constantinople, and insisted upon his being received into communion, by Alexander, bishop of that city. However, on the day be. fore this was to have taken place, Arius died sud- denly from a complaint in his bowels. Some attributed this to poison; others to the judg- ment of God. The emperor did not long sur- vive; and Constantius, his successor, became warmly attached to the Arian cause, as were all the court party. Successive emperors took different sides, and thus was the peace of the church agitated for many years, and practical religion sacrificed alternately to the dogmas or the interests of one party or the other; and each was in turn excommunicated, fined, imprisoned, or banished. Constantius supported Aeanien triumphantly. Julian laughed at both parties, but persecuted neither. Jovian supported the Nicene doctrine. Valentinian, and his brother Valens, took contrary sides; the former sup- porting Athanasianism in the west, and the latter Arianism in the east; so that what was orthodoxy at Rome was heresy at Constantino- ple, and vice versa. The Arians themselves were not unanimous, but divided into various shades of sentiment, under their respective leaders; as Eusebians, Eudoxians, Acasians, Aétians, &; but the more general distinction was into Ari- ans and Semi-Arians; the former sinking the character of the Son of God into that of a mere creature, while the latter admitted every thing but the Aomoousian doctrine, or his absolute equality with the Father. After this period we hear little of Arianism, till it was revived in England in the beginning of the last century by the eccentric Mr. Whiston, by Mr. Emlyn, and ARK Dr. Samuel Clarke. The latter was what may be called a high or Semi-Arian, who came with- in a shade of orthodoxy; the two former were low Arians, reducing the rank of our Saviour to the scale of angelic beings—a creature “ made out of nothing.” Since this time, however, both Arians and Socinians are sunk into the com- mon appellation of Unitarians, or rather Hu- manitarians, who believe our Saviour (as Dr. Priestley expresses it) to be “a man like them- selves.” The last advocates of the pure Arian doctrine, of any celebrity, were Mr. Henry Tay- lor, (under the signature of Ben Mordecai,) and Dr. Richard Price, in his ‘“ Sermons on the Christian Doctrine.” It may be proper to ob- serve, that the Arians, though they denied the absolute elernity of the Son, strongly contended for his preéxistence, as the Logos, or the Word of God, “ by whom the worlds were made ;” and admitted, more or less explicitly, the sacrifice which he offered for sin upon the cross. ARIEL, the capital city of Moab, frequently mentioned in Scripture, Ezra villi, 16. See Moas. ARIMATHEA, or RAMAH, now called Ramlé, or Ramla, a pleasant town, beautifully situated on the borders of a fertile and exten- sive plain, abounding in gardens, vineyards, olive and date trees. It stands about thirty miles north-west of Jerusalem, on the high road to Jaffa. At this Rama, which was likewise called Ramathaim Zophim, as lying in the dis- trict of Zuph, or Zoph, Samuel was born, 1Sam.i. This was likewise the native place of Joseph, called Joseph of Arimathea, who begged and obtained the body of Jesus from Pilate, Matt. xxvi, 57. There was another Ramah, about six miles north of Jerusalem, in a pass which separated the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, which Baasha, king of Israel, took and began to fortify; but he was obliged to re- linquish it, in consequence of the alliance form- ed between Asa, king of Judah, and Benhadad, king of Syria, 1 Kings xv. This is the Ramah, supposed to be alluded to in the lamentation of Rachel for her children. ARISTARCHUS, spoken of by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Colossians, iv, 10, and often mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. He was a Macedonian, and a native of Thessalo- nica. He accompanied St. Paul to Ephesus, and there continued with him during the two years of his abode in that place, sharing with him in all the dangers and labours of the minis- try, Acts xix, 29; xx,4; xxvii,2. Hewasnear losing his life in a tumult raised by the Ephe- sian silversmiths, He left Ephesus with the Apostle, and went with him intoGreece. From thence he attended him into Asia; from Asia into Judea, and from Judea to Rome. ARK, arca, denotes a kind of floating vessel ouilt by Noah, for the preservation of himself and family, with several species of animals during the deluge. The Hebrew word by which the ark is expressed, is nan or nan, the con- structive form of n2n, which is evidently the Greek 6(8n; and so the LX X render the word in Exod. ii, 3, where only it again occurs. They also render it x:Gwrév ; Josephus, dapvéca ; and the Vulgate, arcam; signifying an ark, coffer, 85 ARK or chest. Although the ark of Noah answered, in some respects, the purpose of a ship, it is not so certain that it was of the same form and shape. It has been inconclusively argued by Michaelis and some others, that if its form had not been like that of a ship, it could not have resisted the force of the waves; because it was not intended to be conducted, like a ship, from one place to another, but merely “to float on the surface of the waters,” Gen. vii, 17. It appears to have had neither helm, nor mast, nor oars; but was merely a bulky capacious vessel, light enough to be raised aloft with all its contents, by the gradual rise of the deluge. Its shape, therefore, was of little importance; more especially as it seems to have been the purpose of Providence, in this whole transac- tion, to signify to those who were saved, as well as to their latest posterity, that their preservation was not in any degree effected by human con- trivance. The ark in which Moses was expos- ed bears the same name; and some have thought that both were of the same materials. With respect to the etymology of the Hebrew word, the most rational seems to be that of Clodius, who derives it from the Arabic word ann, “ he collected,” from which is formed nan, or nan, denoting a place in which things are collected. Foster deduces it from two Egyptian words, thoi, “ a ship,” and daz, “ a palm tree branch ;” and such ships are still to be seen not only in Egypt, but in India and other countries; par- ticularly in some isles of the Pacific Ocean. To the insufficiency of the ark to contain all the creatures said to have been brought into it, objections have, at different times, been made. Bishop Wilkins and others have learnedly dis- cussed this subject, and afforded the most satis- factory answers. Dr. Hales proves the ark to have been of the burden of forty-two thousand four hundred and thirteen tons; and asks, “ Can we doubt of its being sufficient to contain eight persons, and about two hundred or two hundred and fifty pair of four-footed animals, (a number to which, according to M. Buffon, all the various distinct species may be reduced,) together with all the subsistence necessary for a twelvemonth, with the fowls of the air, and such reptiles and insects as cannot live under water?” All these various animals were con- trolled by the power of God, whose special agen- cy is supposed in the whole transaction, and “the lion was made to lie down with the kid.” Whether Noah was commanded to bring with him, into the ark, a pair of aid living creatures, zoologically and numerically considered, has been doubted. During the long period between the creation and the flood, animals must have spread themselves over a great part of the an- tediluvian earth, and certain animals would, as now, probably become indigenous to certain climates. The pairs saved must therefore, if all the kinds were included, have travelled from immense distances. But of such marches no intimation is given in the history; and this seems to render it probable that the animals. which Noah was “‘to bring with him” into the ark, were the animals clean and unclean of the country in which he dwelt, and which, from ARK the capacity of the ark, must have been in great variety and number. The terms used, it is true, are universal; and it is satisfactory to know, that if taken in the largest sense there was ample accommodation in the ark. Neverthe- less, universal terms in Scripture are not always to be taken mathematically, and in the vision of Peter, the phrase wévra ra rerpaéroda ris yijs,— all the founfeated beasts of the earth, must be understood of varii generis quadrupedes, as Schleusner paraphrases it. Thus we may easily account for the exuvic of animals, whose spe- cies no longer exist, which have been discover- ed in various places. The number of such extinct species probably has been greatly over- rated by Cuvier; but of the fact, to a consider- able extent, there can be no doubt. It is also to be observed that the presumptive evidence of the truth of the fact of the preparation of such a vessel, and of the supernatural circum- stances which attended it, is exceedingly strong. It is, in truth, the only solution of a difficulty which has no other explanation; for as a uni- versal deluge is confirmed by the general his- tory of the world, and by a variety of existing facts and monuments, such a structure as the ark, for the preservation and sustenance of various animals, seems to have been absolutely necessary ; for as we can trace up the first im- perfect rudiments of the art of ship building among the Greeks, there could be no ships be- fore the flood; and, consequently, no animals could have been saved. Nay, it is highly im- probable that even men and domestic animals could be saved, not to mention wild beasts, serpents, &c, though we should admit that the antediluvians had shipping, unless we should suppose, also, that they had a divine intimation respecting the flood, such as Moses relates; but this would be to give up the cause of infidelity. Mr. Bryant has collected a variety of ancient historical relations, which show that some re- cords concerning the ark had been preserved among most nations of the world, and in the general systera of Gentile mythology. Abyde- nus, with whom all the eastern writers concur, informs us that the place of descent from the ark was Armenia; and that its remains had been preserved for a longtime. Plutarch men- tions the Noachic dove, and its being sent out ofthe ark. Lucian speaks of Deucalion’s going forth from the ark, and raising an altar to God. The priests of Ammonia had a custom, at par- ticular seasons, of carrying in procession a boat, in which was an oracular shrine, held in great veneration: and this custom of carrying the deity in an ark or boat was in use also among the Egyptians. Bishop Pococke has preserved three specimens of ancient sculpture, in which this ceremony is displayed. ‘They were very ancient, and found by him in Upper Egypt. The ship of Isis referred to the ark, and its name, “ Baris,” was that of the mount- ain corresponding to Ararat in Armenia. Bry- ant finds reference to the ark in the temples of the serpent worship, called Dracontia ; and also in that of Sesostris, fashioned after the model of the ark, in commemoration of which it was built; and consecrated to Osiris at Theba; and 86 ARK he conjectures that the city, said to be one of the most ancient in Egypt, as well as the pro- vince, was denominated from it, Theba being the a Hee of the ark. In other countries, as well as in Egypt, an ark, or ship, was intro- duced in their mysteries, and often carried about in the seasons of their festivals. He finds, also, in the story of the Argonauts several particulars, that are thought to refer to the ark of Noah, As many cities, not in Egypt only and Beotia, but in Cilicia, Ionia, Attica, Phthiotis, Cata- onia, Syria, and Italy, were called Theba; so likewise the city Apamea was denominated Cibotus, from «Boros, in memory of the ark, and of the history connected with it. The ark, ac- cording to the traditions of the Gentile world, was prophetic; and was regarded as a kind of temple or residence of the deity. It compre- hended all mankind, within the circle of ann persons, who were thought to be so highly favoured of Heaven that they at last were re- puted to be deities. Hence in the ancient my- thology of Egypt, there were precisely eight gods; and the ark was esteemed an emblem of the system of the heavens. The principal terms by which the ancients distinguished the ark were Theba, Baris, Arguz, Aren, Arene, Arni, Laris, Boutas, Beotus, and Cibotus; and out of these they formed different personages. See DeLucz. ARK OF THE COVENANT, a small chest or coffer, three feet nine inches in length, two feet three inches in breadth, and two feet three inches in height; in which were contained the golden pot that had manna, Aaron’s rod, and the tables of the covenant, Num. xvii, 10; Heb. ix, 4. This coffer was made of shittim wood, and was covered with a lid, called the mercy seat, Exod. xxv, 17-22, &c, which was of solid gold, at the two ends whereof were two figures, called cherubim, looking toward -each other with expanded wings, which, embracing the whole circumference of the mercy seat, met in the middle. The whole, according to the rab- bins, was made out of the same mass, without any of the parts being joined by solder. Over this it was that the Shechinah, or visible dis- play of the divine presence in a luminous cloud rested, both in the tabernacle and in the tem- ple, Lev. xvi, 2; and from hence the divine oracles were given forth by an audible voice, as often as God was consulted in behalf of his people. Hence it is that God is said in Scrip- ture to dwell between the cherubim, on the mercy seat, because there was the seat or throne of the visible appearance of his glory among them, 2 Kings xix, 15; 1 Chron. xiii, 6; Psalm Ixxx, 1, &c; and for this reason the high priest appeared before the mercy seat once every year, on the great day of expiation, at which time he was to make his nearest ap- proach to the divine presence, to mediate and make atonement for the whole people of Israel. On the two sides of the ark there were four rings of gold, two on each side, through which staves, overlaid with gold, were put, by means whereof they carried it as they marched through the wilderness, &c, on the shoulders of the Levites, Exod. xxv, 18,14; xxvii, 5. After the passage of the Jordan, the ark continued for ARK some time at Gilgal, from whence it was re- moved to Shiloh. From this place the Israel- ites carried it to their camp, where, in an engagement with the Philistines, it fell into their hands. The Philistines, having gotten pos- session of the ark, carried it in triumph to one of their principal cities, named Ashdod, and placed it in the temple of Dagon, whose image fell to the ground and was broken. The Phi- listines also were so afflicted with emerods, that they afterward returned the ark with various presents; and it was lodged at Kirjath-Jearim, and afterward at Nob. David conveyed it to the house of Obededom, and from thence to his palace at Zion; and lastly, Solomon brought in into the temple which he had built at Jeru- salem. It remained in the temple till the times of the last kings of Judah, who gave themselves up to idolatry, and even dared to place their idols in the holy temple itself. The priests, being unable to bear this profanation, took the ark and carried it from place to place, to pre- serve it from the hands of those impious princes. Josiah commanded them to bring it back to the sanctuary, and it was accordingly replaced, 2 Chron. xxxv, 3. What became of the ark at the destruction of the temple by Nebuchad-. nezzar, is a dispute among the rabbins. Had it been carried to Babylon with the other ves- sels of the temple, it would, in all probability, have been brought back with them at the close of the captivity. But that this was not the case, is agreed on all hands; whence it is pro- bable that it was destroyed with the temple. The ark of the covenant was, as it were, the centre of worship to all those of the Hebrew nation who served God according to the Le- vitical law ; and not only in the temple, when they came thither to worship, but every where else in their dispersions through the whole world; whenever they prayed, they turned their faces toward the place where the ark stood, and directed all their devotions that way, Dan. vi, 10. Whence the author of the book of Cosri, justly says, that the ark, with the mercy seat and cherubim, were the foundation, root, heart, and marrow of the whole temple, and all the Levitical worship performed therein ; and, therefore, had there been nothing else wanting in the second temple but the ark only, this alone would have been a sufficient reason for the old men to have wept when they re- membered the first temple in which it stood ; and for the saying of Haggai, ii, 3, that the second temple was as nothing compared with the first; so great a share had the ark of the covenant in the glory of Solomon’s temple. However, the defect was supplied as to the out- ward form, for in the second temple there was also an ark of the same dimensions with the first, and put in the same place; but it wanted the tables of the law, Aaron’s rod, and the pot of manna; nor was there any appearance of the divine glory over it; nor any oracles de- livered from it. The only use that was made of it was to be a representation of the former on the great a of expiation, and to be a re- pository of the Holy Scriptures, that is, of the original copy of that collection of them made 87 ARM by Ezra after the captivity; in imitation of which the Jews, in al their synagogues, have a like ark or coffer in which they keep their Scriptures. For the temple of Solomon a new ark was not made; but he constructed cherubim in the most holy place, which were designed to give additional state to this most sacred symbol of God’s grace and mercy. These cherubim were fifteen feet high, and were placed at equal dis- tance from the centre of the ark and from each side of the wall, so that their wings being ex- panded, the two wings which were extended behind touched the wall, and the other two met over the ark and so overshadowed it. When these magnificent cherubim were finished, the ark was brought in and placed under their wings, 2 Chron. v, 7-10. The ark was called the ark of the covenant, because it was a symbol of the covenant be- tween God and his people. It was, also named the ark of the testimony, because the two tables which were deposited in it were witnesses against every transgression. ARM. As it is by this member of the body that we chiefly exert our strength, it is there- fore used in Scripture for an emblem of power. Thus God is said to have delivered his people from Egyptian bondage “with a stretched-out arm,” Beat v, 15; and he thus threatens Eli the high priest, ‘I will cut off thine arm, and the arm of thy father’s house,” 1 Sam. ii, 31, that is, I will deprive thee and thy family of power and authority. ARMAGEDDON, a place spoken of, Rev. xvi, 16, which literally signifies “ the mountain of Mageddon,” or “ Megiddo,” acity situated in the great plain at the foot of Mount Carmel, where the good prince Josiah received his mor- tal wound, in the battle against Necho, king of Egypt. At Armageddon, the three unclean spirits coming out of the dragon’s mouth shall gather together the kings of the earth, to the battle of the great day of God Almighty, Rev. xvi, 13, 14; where the word Armageddon, ac- cording to Mr. Pool, does not signify any par- ticular place, but is used in allusion to Megiddo, mentioned Judges v, 19, where Barak overcame Sisera with his great army, and where Josiah was slain, 2 Kings xxiii, 30. Ifso, the term must have been a proverbial one for a place of destruction and mourning. ; ARMENIA, a considerable country of Asia, having Colchis and Iberia on the north, Media on the east, Mesopotamia on the south, Pontus and Cappadocia on the west, and the Euphrates and Syria on the south-west. Armenia is often confounded with Aramea, the land of Aram or Syria; but they are totally different. Ar- menia, which is separated from Aram by Mount Taurus, was so denominated from Ar-Men, the mountainous country of Meni or Minni, the people of which country are mentioned under: this name by Jeremiah, when summoning the- nations against Babylon. The people of this country have in all ages maintained a great similarity of character, partly commercial and partly pastoral. The have, in fact, in the northern parts of the As ARM atic continent, been what the Cushites and Ishmaelites were in the south, tenders of cat- tle, living on the produce of their flocks and herds, and carriers of merchandize between the neighbouring nations; a part living at home with their flocks, and a part travelling as mer- chants and dealers into distant countries. In the flourishing times of Tyre, the Armenians, according to eee xxvii, 14, brought horses and mules to the markets of that city; and, ac- cording to Herodotus, they had a considerable trade in wine, which they sent down the Eu- phrates to Babylon, &c. At the present day, the Armenians are the principal traders of the east; and are to be found in the capacity of merchants or commercial agents all over Asia, a patient, frugal, industrious, and honest peo- ple, whose known character for these virtues has withstood the tyranny and extortions of the wretched governments under which they chiefly live. The religion of the Armenians is a corrupt Christianity of the sect of Eutyches; that is, they own but one nature in Jesus Christ. Their rites partake of those of the Greek and Latin churches, but they reject the idolatries of both. It is indeed a remarkable instance of the firmness of this people, that while the sur- rounding nations submitted to the religion as well as the arms of the Turks, they have pre- served the purity of their ancient faith, such as it is, to the present day. It cannot be supposed but that the Turks used every effort to impose on the conquered Armenians the doctrines of the Koran. More tolerant, indeed, than the Saracens, liberty of conscience was still not to be purchased of them but by great sacrifices, which for three centuries the Armenians have eee endured, and exhibit to the world an onourable and solitary instance of a success- ful national opposition of Christianity to Mo- hammedanismn. ARMENIAN CHURCH, a branch, origin- ally, of the Greek church, residing in Armenia. They probably received Christianity in the fourth century. Mr. Yeates gives the most recent account of them :— “Their whole ecclesiastical establishment is under the government of four patriarchs; the Grst has his residence in Echmiadzin, or Eg- aviathin. near Irivan; the second, at Sis, in the lesser Armenia; the third, in Georgia; and the fourth, in Achtamar, or Altamar, on the Lake of Van; but the power of the two last is bounded within their own diocesses, while the others have more extensive authority, and the patriarch of Egmiathan has, or had, wnder him righteen bishops, beside those who are priors of monasteries. The Armenians every where perform divine service in their own tongue, in which their liturgy and offices are written, in the dialect of the fourth or fifth centuries. They have the whole Bible translated from the Septuagint, as they say, so early as the time of Chrysostom. The Armenian confes- sion is similar to that of the Jacobite Chris- tians, both being Monophysites, acknowledg- ing but one nature in the person of Christ; out this, according to Mr. Simon, is little more 88 ARM than a dispute about terms ; few of them being able to enter into the subtilties of polemics. “In the year 1664, an Armerian bishop, named Uscan, visited Europe for the purpose of getting printed the Armenian Bible, and communicated the above particulars to Mr, Simon. In 1667, a certain patriarch of the lesser Armenia visited Rome, and made a pro- fession of faith which was considered ortho- dox, and procured him a cordial reception, with the hope of reconciling the Armenian Christians to the Roman church; but before he got out of Italy, it was found he had pre- varicated, and still persisted in the errors of his church. About this time, Clement IX, wrote to the king of Persia, in favour of some Catholic converts in Armenia, and receiveda favourable answer; but the Armenian church could never be persuaded to acknowledge the authority of Rome. “They have among them a number of mo- nasteries and convents, in which is maintained a severe discipline; marriage is discounte- nanced, though not absolutely prohibited; a married priest cannot obtain promotion, and the higher clergy are not allowed to marry. They worship in the eastern manner, by prostration ; they are very superstitious, and their ceremonies much resemble those of the Greek church. Once in their lives they gene- rally perform a pilgrimage to Jerusalem; and in 1819, the number of Armenian pilgrims was thirteen hundred, nearly as many as the Greeks. Dr. Buchanan, however, says, ‘Of all the Christians in central Asia, they have preserved themselves most free from Mohammedan and Papal corruptions.” ARMIES. In the reign of David, the He- brews acquired such skill in the military art, together with such strength, as gave them a decided superiority over their competitors on the field of battle. David increased the stand- ing army, which Saul had introduced. Solo- mon introduced cavalry into the military force of the nation, also chariots. Both cavalry and chariots were retained in the subsequent age; an age, in which military arms were improved in their construction, the science of fortifica- tion made advances, and large armies were mustered. From this period, till the time when the Hebrews became subject to the Assyrians and Chaldeans, but little improve- ment was made in the arts of war. The Maccabees, after the return of the Hebrews from the captivity, gave a new existence to the military art among them. But their de scendants were under the necessity of submit- ting to the superior power of the Romans. _ Whenever there was an immediate prospect of war, a levy was made by the genealogists, Deut. xx, 5-9. In the time of the kings, there was a head or ruler of the persons, that made the levy, denominated -wr7, who kept an ac- count of the number of the soldiers, but who is, nevertheless, to be distinguished from the generalissimo, 150m, 2 Chron. xxvi, 11. Com- pare 2 Sam. viii, 17; xx, 25; 1 Chron. xviii, 16 After the levy was fully made out, the geneal- ogists gave public notice, that the following ARM pereons pal be excused, from military service, eut. xx, 5-8: 1. Those who had built a house, and had not yet inhabited it. 2. Those who had planted a ons, that is, an olive or vine gar- den, and had not as yet tasted the fruit of it; an exemption, consequently, which extended through the first five years after such planting. 3. Those who had bargained for a spouse, but had not celebrated the nuptials; also those who nad not as yet lived with their wife, for a year. 4. The faint-hearted, who would be likely to discourage others, and who, if they had gone into battle, where, in those early times, every thing depended on personal prowess, would only have fallen victims. t the head of each rank or file of fifty, was the captain of fifty. The other divisions con- sisted of a hundred, a thousand, and ten thou- sand men, each one of which was headed by its appropriate commander. These divisions ranked in respect to each other according to their families, and were subject to the authority of the heads of those families, 2 Chron. xxv, 5; xxvi, 12, 13. The centurions, and chiliarchs or captains of thousands, were admitted into the councils of war, 1 Chron. xiii, 1-3; 1 Sam. xviii, 13. The leader of the whole army was denominated xasmuw-bx, the captain of the host. The genealogists, (in the English version, offi- cers,) according to a law in Deut. xx, 9, had the right of appointing the persons who were to act as officers in the army; and they, un- doubtedly, made it a point, in their selections, to choose those who are called heads of fami- lies. The practice of thus selecting military officers ceased under the kings. Some of them were then chosen by the king, and in other in- stances the office became permanent and _he- reditary in the heads of families. Both kings and generals had armour bearers, m9 nw. They were chosen from the bravest of the saldiery, and not only bore the arms of their masters, but were employed to give his com- mands to the subordinate captains, and were present at his side in the hour of peril, 1 Sam. xiv, 6; xvii, 7. The infantry, the cavalry, and the chariots of war were so arranged, as to make separate divisions of an army, Exod. xiv, 6,7. The infantry were divided likewise into light-armed troops, oa, and into spearmen, Genesis xlix, 19; 1 Samuel xxx, 8, 15, 23; 2 Sam. iii, 22; iv, 2; xxii, 30; Psalm xviii, 30; 2 Kings v, 2; Hosea vii, 1. The light-armed infantry were furnished with a sling and jave- lin, with a bow, arrows, and quiver, and also, at least in latter times, with a buckler. They fought the enemy at a distance. The spear- men, on the contrary, who were armed with spears, swords, and shields, fought hand to hand, 1 Chron. xii, 24, 54; 2 Chron. xiv, 8; xvii, 17. The light-armed troops were com- monly taken from the tribes of Ephraim and Benjamin, 2 Chron. xiv, 8; xvii, 17. Compare Gen. xlix, 27; Psalm Ixxviii, 9. The art of laying out an encampment ap- pears to have been well understood in Egypt, long before the departure of the Hebrews from that country. It was there that Moses became acquainted with that mode of encamping, 89 ARM which, in the second chapter of Numbers, is prescribed to the Hebrews. In the encamp- ment of the Israelites, it appears that the holy tabernacle occupied the centre, In reference to this circumstance, it may be remarked, that it is the common practice in the east, for the prince or leader of a tribe to have his tent pitched in the centre of the others; and it ought not to be forgotten, that God, whose tent or palace was the holy tabernacle, was the prince, the leader of the Hebrews. The tents nearest to the tabernacle were those of the Levites, whose business it was to watch it, in the manner of a Pretorian guard. The family of Gershom pitched to the west, that of Kehath to the south, that of Merari tothe north. The priests occupied a position to the east, op- posite to the entrance of the tabernacle, Num. 1, 53; iii, 21-38. At some distance to the east, were the tribes of Judah, Issachar, and Zebu- lon; on the south were those of Reuben, Si- meon, and Gad; to the west were Ephraim, Manasseh, and Benjamin; to the north, Dan. Asher, and Naphtali. The people were thus divided into four bodies, three tribes to a divi- sion; each of which divisions had its separate standard, bo. Each of the large family asso- ciations likewise, of which the different tribes were composed, had a separate standard, termed, in contradistinction from the other, mw; and every Hebrew was obliged to number himself with his particular division, and follow his ap- propriate standard. Of military standards, there were,—l. The standard, denominated 531; one of which pertained to each of the four general divisions. The four standards of this name were large, and ornamented with colours in white, purple, crimson, and dark blue. The Jewish Rabbins assert, (founding their statement on Genesis xlix, 3, 9, 17, 22, which in this case is very doubtful authority,) that the first of these standards, namely, that of Judah, bore a lion; the second, or that of Reuben, bore a man; that of Ephraim, which was the third, displayed the figure of a bull; while that of Dan, which was the fourth, ex- hibited the representation of cherubim. They were wrought into the standards with embroid- ered work. 2. The standard, called mx. The ensign of this name belonged to the separate classes of families. 3. The standard, called >. This standard was not, like the others, borne from place to place. It appears from Num. xxi, 8, 9, that it was a long pole, fixed into the earth. A flag was fastened to its top, which was agitated by the wind, and seen at a great distance, Jer. iv, 6, 21; li, 2, 12, 27; Ezek. xxvii, 7. In order to render it visible, as far as possible, it was erected on lofty mountains, and was in this way used as a signal, to assemble soldiers. It no sooner made its appearance on such an elevated position, than the war-cry was uttered, and the trumpets were blown, Isaiah v, 26; xiii, 2; xviii, 3; xxx, 17; xlix, 22; Ixii, 10-13. Before battle the various kinds of arms were put into the best order; the shields were anointed, and the soldiers refreshed themselves by taking food, lest they should become weary ARM 90 and faint under the pressure of their labours, Jer. xlvi, 3, 4; Isaiah xxi, 5. The soldiers, more especially the generals and king, except when they wished to remain unknown, | Kings xxii, 30-34, were clothed in splendid habili- ments, which are denominated, wip-n, the sacred dress, Psalm ex, 3. It was the duty of the priests, before the commencement of the battle, to exhort the Hebrews to exhibit that courage which was required by the exigency of the occasion. The words which they used were as follows:—‘“ Hear, O Israel; ye ap- proach this day unto battle against your ene- mies; let not your hearts faint; fear not, and do not tremble; neither be ye terrified, because of them. For the Lord your God is he that goeth with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you,” Deut. xx, 2, &c. The last ceremony, previous to an engagement, was the sounding of the sacred trumpets by the priests, Num. x, 9,10; 2 Chron. xiii, 12-14; 1 Mace. iii, 54. ARMINIANISM, strictly speaking, is that system of religious doctrine which was taught by Arminius, professor of divinity in the uni- versity of Leyden. If therefore we would learn precisely what Arminianism is, we must have recourse to those writings in which that divine himself has stated and expounded his peculiar tenets. This, however, will by no means give us an accurate idea of that which, since his time, has been usually denominated Arminian- ism. On examination, it will be found, that in many important particulars, those who have called themselves Arminians, or have been accounted such by others, differ as widely from the nominal head and founder of their sect, as he himself did from Calvin, and other doctors of Geneva. There are, indeed, certain points with regard to which he has been strictly and uniformly followed by almost all his pretended adherents; but there are others of equal or of greater importance, dogmatically insisted on by them, to which he unquestionably never gave his sanction, and even appears to have been decidedly hostile. Such a distinction, obvious as it must be to every attentive reader, has yet been generally so far overlooked, that the memory of Arminius is frequently loaded with imputations the most unreasonable and unjust. He is accused, by the ignorant and the prejudiced, of introducing corruptions into the Christian church, which he probably never thought of, and which certainly have no place in his works. And all the odium which his followers have from time to time incurred by their varied and increasing heterodoxy, has been absurdly reflected upon him, as if he could be responsible for every error that may be sent abroad under the sanction of his name. Whatever be the number or the spe- cies of these errors, and in whatever way they may be associated with his principles, it is fair to the character of Arminius, and useful to the interests of religious truth, to revert to his own writings as the only source from which we ought to derive information concerning the Arminian scheme; and by doing so, it may be discovered, that genuine unadulterated Armi- ARM nianism is not that great and dangerous heres which among a certain class of Christians it is too often represented to be. . Arminianism, in its proper sense, is to be considered as a separation from Calvinism, with regard to the doctrines of unconditional elec- tion, particular redemption, and_ other points necessarily resulting from these. The Calvinists held that God had elected a certain portion of the human race to eternal life, passing by the rest, or rather dooming them to everlasting destruc- tion ; that God’s election proceeded upon no pre- science of the moral principles and character of those whom he had thus predestinated, but originated solely in the motions of his free and sovereion mercy; that Christ died for the elect only, and therefore that the merits of his death can avail for the salvation of none but them; and that they are constrained by the irresisti- ble power of divine grace to accept of him as their Saviour. To this doctrine, that of Armi- nius and his legitimate followers stands op- posed. They do not deny an election; but they deny that it is absolute and unconditional. They argue, that an election of this kind is inconsistent with the character of God, that it destroys the liberty of the human will, that it contradicts the language of Scripture, and that it tends to encourage a careless and licentious practice in those by whom it is believed. They maintain that God has elected those only who, according, not to his decree, but to his fore- knowledge, and in the exercisé of their natural powers of self-determination, acting under the influence of his grace, would possess that faith and holiness to which salvation is annexed in . the Gospel scheme. And those who are not elected are allowed to perish, not because they were not elected, but merely and solely in con- sequence of their infidelity and disobedience; on account, indeed, of which infidelity and disobedience being foreseen by God, their elec- tion did not take place. They hold, that Christ died for al/ men in the literal and unrestricted sense of that phrase; that his atonement is able, both from its own merit, and from the intention of him who appointed it, to expiate the guilt of every individual; that every indi- vidual is invited to partake of the benefits which it has procured; that the grace of God is offered to make the will comply with this invitation, but that this grace may be resisted and rendered ineffectual by the sinner’s per- versity. Whether true believers necessarily persevered, or whether they might fall from their faith, and forfeit their state of grace, was a question which Arminius left in a great mea- sure unresolved, but which was soon deter- mined by his followers in this additional pro- position, that saints may fall from the state of grace, in which they are placed by the opera- tion of the Holy Spirit. "This, indeed, seems to follow as a corollary, from what Arminius maintained respecting the natural freedom and corruption of the will, and the resistibility of divine grace. It may now be proper to mention some ten- ets with regard to which Arminianism has been much misrepresented. If a man hold that ARM good works are necessary to justification; if he maintain that faith includes good works in its own nature; if he reject the doctrine of original sin; if he deny that divine grace is requisite for the whole work of sanctification; if he speak of human virtue as meritorious in the sight of God; it is very generally concluded, that he is an Arminian. But the truth is, that a man of such sentiments is properly a disciple of the Pelagian and Socinian schools. To such sentiments pure Arminianism is as diametri- cally opposite as Calvinism itself. The genu- ine Arminians admit the corruption of human nature in its full extent. They admit, that we are justified by faith only. They admit, that our justification originates solely in the grace of God. They admit, that the procuring and meri- torious cause of our justification is the right- eousness of Christ. Propter quam, says Armini- us, Deus credentibus peccatum condonat, eosque pro gustis reputat non aliter atque si legem per- fecté implevissent. [For the sake of which God pardons believers, and accounts them as right- eous precisely as if they had perfectly obeyed the law.] They admit in this way, that justifi- cation implies not merely forgiveness of sin, but acceptance to everlasting happiness. Junctam habet adoptionem in filios, et collationem juris in hereditatem vite eterne. [It has connected with it adoption to sonship, and the grant of a right to the inheritance of eternal life.] They admit, in fine, that the work of sanctification, from its very commencement to its perfection in glory, is carried on by the operation of the Holy Spirit, which is the gift of God by Jesus Christ. So sound, indeed, are the Arminians with respect to the doctrine of justification, a doctrine so important and essential in the opinion of Luther, that he scrupled not to call it, articulus ecclesie siantis vel cadentis ; [the article with which the church stands or falls ;] that those who look into the writings of Armi- nius may be disposed to suspect him of having even exceeded Calvin in orthodoxy. It is certain, at least, that he declares his willing- ness to subscribe to every thing that Calvin has written on that leading subject of Chris- tianity, in the third book of his Institutes; and with this declaration the tenor of his writings invariably corresponds. The system of Arminius, then, appears to have been the same with that which was gene- rally maintained in the reformed churches at that time; except in so far as the doctrine of the divine decrees was concerned. But the most eminent of those who became Arminians, or ranked among his professed followers, by embracing and avowing his peculiar tenets with respect to election and redemption, soon began to depart widely from the other tenets of his theological creed. They adopted views of the corruption of man, of justification, of the righteousness of Christ, of the nature of faith, of the province of good works, of the Necessity and operations of grace, that are quite contrary to those which he had enter- tained and published. Many of them, in pro- cess of time, differed more or less from one another, on some or all of these points, And 91 ARM so diversified are the forms which Arminian- ism, as it is called, has assumed in the course of its progress, that to describe precisely what it has been since the synod of Dort, or what it is at the present day, would be a most difficult, if not an impossible, task. Even the confes- sion of faith, which was drawn out for the Arminians by Episcopius, and is to be found in the second volume of his works, cannot be referred to as a standard. It was composed merely to counteract the reproach of their being a society without any common principles. It is expressed chiefly in the words and phrases of Scripture, to which, of course, every one would annex his own meaning. Beside, no person, not even a pastor, was obliged, by any form, to adhere strictly to it; but every one was left entirely at liberty to interpret its lan- guage in the manner that was most agreeable to his own private sentiments. Accordingly, so various and inconsistent are their opinions, that could Arminius peruse the unnumbered volumes which have been written as exposi- tions and illustrations of Arminian doctrine, he would be at a loss to discover his own sim- ple system, amidst that heterogeneous mass of error with which it has been rudely mixed ; and would be astonished to find, that the con- troversy which he had conscientiously intro- duced, had wandered far from the point to which he had confined it, and that with his name dogmas were associated, the unscriptural and dangerous nature of which he had pointed out and condemned. The same temper of mind which led him to renounce the peculiarities of Calvinism, in- duced him also to adopt more enlarged and liberal views of church communion than those which had hitherto prevailed. While he main- tained that the mercy of God is not confined to a chosen few, he conceived it to be quite inconsistent with the genius of Christianity, that men of that religion should keep at a dis- tance from each other, and constitute separate churches, merely because they differed in their opinions as to some of its doctrinal articles. e thought that Christians of all denomina- tions should form one great community, united and upheld by the bonds of charity and brother-. ly love; with the exception, however, of Ro- man Catholics, who, on account of their idola- trous worship and persecuting spirit, must be unfit members of such a society. That this was not only agreeable to the wishes of Ar- minius, but one chief object of his labours, is evident from a passage in his last will, which he made a little before his death :—Ea proposua et docui que ad propagationem amplificationem- que veritatis religionis Christiane, vert Det cul- tus, communis pretatis, et sancte inter homines convers[atlionis, denique ad convenientem Chris- tiano nomuni tranguillitatem et pacem juxta verbum Dei possent conferre, excludens ex its papatum, cum quo nulla wnaitas fider, nullum pietatis aut Christiane pacis vinculum servare potest. [I have advanced and, taught those things which might contribute to the propaga- tion and spread of the truth of Christianity, the worship of the true God, general piety, and ARM a holy fellowship among men;—in fine, to a tranquillity and peace according to God’s word and becoming the Christian name, excluding the Papacy, with which no unity of faith, no bond of piety, or of Christian peace can be mamtained.] Mosheim has stated this circumstance in a note to his history of the Arminian church; but his statement, or rather the conclusion which he deduces from it, is evidently unfair and incorrect. He alleges, that Arminius had actually laid the plan of that theological sys- tem which was afterward embraced by his fol- lowers; that he had inculcated the main and leading principles of it on the minds of his dis- ciples; and that Episcopius and others, who rejected Calvinism in more points than in that which related to the divine decrees, only pro- pagated, with greater courage and perspicuity, the doctrines which Arminianism, as taught by its founder, already contained. These alle- gations, it is clear, have no sort of connection with the passage from which they are drawn as inferences; and they are wholly inconsist- ent with the assertions, and reasonings, and declarations of Arminius, when he is discuss- ing the merits of the question that was agitated between him and the Geneva school. Armi- nius, in addition to the scheme of doctrine which he taught, was anxious to establish this maxim, and to reduce it to practice, that, with the ex- ception above mentioned, no difference of opinions should prevent Christians from re- maining in one church or religious body. He did not mean to insinuate, that a difference of opinion was of no consequence at all; that they who thought one way were just as right as they who thought a contrary way ; or that men have no occasion to be solicitous about the religious tenets which they hold. He did not mean to give up his own system as equally true, or equally false, with that of Calvin; and as little could he be supposed to sanction those sentiments of his followers which were in di- rect opposition to the sentiments which he himself had maintained. But he endeavoured, in the first place, to assert liberty of conscience, and of worship; and then, upon that funda- ‘mental principle, to persuade all Christians, however divided in opinion, to lay aside the distinctions of sect and party, and in one united body to consult that tranquillity and peace which is so agreeable to the Christian name. This we conceive to have been the object of Ar- minius; an object so indicative of an enlight- ened mind, so congenial to that charity which hopeth all things, and thinketh no evil, and so conducive to the interests of religion and the ee of the world, as to reflect the highest onour on him by whom it was first pursued, and to constitute the true glory of Arminianism. The controversy to which Arminianism had given rise, was carried on after the death of its founder, with the greatest eagerness, and produced the most bitter and deplorable dis- sensions. The Arminians requested nothing more than a bare toleration. This moderate demand, at all times reasonable and just, was particularly so in Holland, which had thrown 92 ARM off the yoke of civil and spiritual despotism, and where the received confession of faith had not determined the questions under debate. It was strongly urged by Grotius, Hoogerbeets, Olden Barnevelt, and other persons of respect- ability and influence. And Maurice, prince of Orange, and his mother the princess dowager, giving countenance to the claim, there was some prospect of the Calvinists being persuad- ed to enter into pacific measures, and to treat their dissenting brethren with forbearance. Accordingly, in the year 1611, a conference between the contending parties was held at the Hague, on which occasion, it is commonly asserted, the toleration required was offered to the Arminians, provided they would renounce the errors of Socinianism,—though the papers which passed between the parties at that con- ference, as authenticated by each of them, contain no proviso of that description. An- other conference was held at Delft, in 1613. And in 1614, the States of Holland promul- gated an edict, exhorting the disputants to the exercise of mutual charity. ut these and other expedients employed for the same pur- pose, had not the desired effect. The Calvin- ists expressed great indignation at the magis- trates, for endeavouring, by their authority, to promote a union with such adversaries. The conduct of the States was ably and eloquently defended by Grotius, in two treatises, entitled, “ De Jure Summarum Potestatum circa sacra,” and “ Ordinum Hollandie, ac West-Frisie Pietas a multorum calumniis vindicata.” The hope of success which the Arminians entertained from the indulgent manner in which they were treated by the civil authori- ties, were soon blasted by a misunderstanding which had secretly subsisted for some time be- tween the stadtholder and the principal magis- trates, and at last broke forth into an open rupture. Maurice, being suspected of aiming at sovereign power, was firmly opposed by the leading persons in the government, who had been the friends and patrons of the Arminians, and to whom, therefore, these adhered at this difficult crisis. On the other hand, the Go- marists, or Calvinists, attached themselves to Maurice, and inflamed the resentment which he had already, for various reasons, conceived against the Arminians. The prince was re- solved, at once to ruin the ministers who haa ventured to oppose his schemes of usurpation, and to crush the Arminians, by whom those statesmen had been warmly supported. For this purpose he got the leading men cast into prison. Barnevelt, whose long and faithful services deserved a better fate, died on the scaffold: and Grotius and Hoogerbeets, under pretexts more plausible than solid, were un- justly condemned to perpetual imprisonment, from which, however, the former afterward escaped, and fled into France. The alleged crime of the Arminians being of an ecclesias- tical nature, it was thought proper to brin their cause before a national assembly of di- vines by which their religious opinions might be regularly and finally condemned. Under the auspices of Maurice, therefore, ARM and by the authority of the states general, a synod was convoked at Dort, in the year 1618. Before this meeting, which consisted of depu- ties from the United Provinces, from England, Scotland, Switzerland, and other places, the Arminians appeared, with Episcopius at their head, to answer to the accusations brought against them, of departing from the establish- ed religion. For a full account of the pro- ceedings of this synod, the reader may consult the second and third volumes of Brandt’s His- tory of the Reformation, and the Remains of Mr. John Hales of Eaton, who was present at the meeting, and gives a simple narrative of what he saw and heard. The conduct of the synod has been applauded by some, and con- demned by others. On the one hand, it has been placed above every other synod since the Apostolic age, for its temper, moderation, and sanctity; on the other, it has been charged with injustice and cruelty, and burlesqued in such lines as these :— Dordrechti synodus nodus ; chorus integer, eger ; Conventus, ventus ; sessio, stramen, Amen. [The point of this doggrel, which consists chiefly in the gingle of the Latin words, is lost in a translation. The following is a literal version :— The synod of Dort, a knot ; the whole assembly, sick ; The convention, wind; the session, straw, Amen.] Neal remarks, that it behaved as well as most assemblies of a similar kind have done, “ who have pretended to establish articles for other men’s faith, with penal sanctions.” This says very little for the synod of Dort; though, per- haps, it is even more than can be said with truth. Martinius of Bremen seems to have spoken much more correctly, when he told his friends, ‘I believe now what Gregory Nazian- zen says, that he had never seen any council attended with good effects, but that it always increased the evil rather than removed it. I declare as well as that father, that I will never set my foot in any synod again. O Dort! Dort! would to God that I had never seen | thee!” The Arminians, it is contended, asked more indulgence than they had reason to ex- pect; however, it is certain that the treatment which they received from the synod, was arbi- trary, faithless, and oppressive. ‘They were at length found guilty of heresy, and of hostility to their country and its religion. And the measures adopted against them, in consequence of this sentence, were of the most severe and rigorous kind. They were excommunicated ; they were driven from all their offices, civil and ecclesiastical; their ministers were pro- hibited from preaching; and their congrega- tions were suppressed. Refusing to submit to the two last of these hard decrees, they were subjected to fines, imprisonments, and various other punishments. To avoid this tyrannical treatment, many of them retired to Antwerp, others to France, and a considerable number into Holstein, where they were kindly received by Frederick the duke, and where, in the form of a colony, they built for themselves a hand- some town, naming it Frederickstadt, in com- pliment to their friend and protector. The 93 ARM history of this colony may be found in a work entitled Epistole Prestantium et Eruditorwm Virorum Ecclesvastica et Theologica, and pub- lished by Limborch and Hartsoeker. The tenets of the Arminians may be com- prised in the following five articles relating to predestination, universal redemption, the cor- ruption of men, conversion, and perseverance, viz. 1. That God, from all eternity, determin- ed to bestow salvation on those whom he fore- saw would persevere unto the end in their faith in Christ Jesus: and to inflict everlasting punishment on those who should continue in their unbelief, and resist unto the end his di- vine succours; so that election was conditional, and reprobation in like manner the result of foreseen infidelity and persevering wickedness. 2. That Jesus Christ, by his sufferings and death, made an atonement for the sins of all mankind in general, and of every individual in particular; that, however, none but those who believe in him can be partakers of the divine benefits. 3. That true faith cannot proceed from the exercise of our natural faculties and powers, nor from the force and operation of free will; since man, in consequence of his natural corruption, is incapable either of think- ing or doing any good thing; and that, there- fore, it is necessary, in order to his salvation, that he be regenerated and renewed by the operation of the Holy Ghost, which is the gift of God through Jesus Christ. 4. That this divine grace or energy of the Holy Ghost begins and perfects every thing that can be called good in man, and consequently all good works are to be attributed to God alone; that, nevertheless, this grace is offered to all, and does not force men to act against their inclina- tions, but may be resisted and rendered inef- fectual by the perverse wills of impenitent sin- ners. 5. That God gives to the truly faithful, who are regenerated by his grace, the means of preserving themselves in this state; and though the first Arminians made some doubt with respect to the closing part of this article, their followers uniformly maintain, that the regenerate may lose true justifying faith, forfeit their state of grace, and die in their sins. The Arminians are also called Remonstrants, from an humble petition entitled their Iemonstrance, which, in the year 1610, they addressed to the States of Holland. Their principal writers are, Arminius, Episcopius, Vitenbogart, Grotius, Curcelleus, Limborch, Le Clerc, Wetstein, Goodwin, Whitby, Wesley, Fletcher, Tomline, gc. The works of Arminius, with a copious account of his life and times, have been recent- ly translated into English, by Mr. James Nichols; and have not only served to dissipate many misconceptions respecting the sentiments of this celebrated divine, which had prevailed in England, where the Pelagianism of some eminent divines, generally called Arminian, had been unjustly charged upon him; but have added a most valuable collection of treatises to our theological literature. ARMS. The Hebrews do not appear to have had any peculiar military habit. As the flow- ing dress which they ordinarily wore would ARM have impeded their movements, they gurt it closely around them when preparing for battle, and loosened it on their return, 2 Sam. xx, 8; 1 Kings xx, 11. They used the same arms as the neighbouring nations, both defensive and offensive; and these were made either of iron or of brass, principally of the latter metal. Of the defensive arms of the Hebrews, the follow- ing were the most remarkable; namely, 1. The helmet, ya, for covering and de- fending the head. This was a part of the military provision made by Uzziah for his vast army, 2 Chron. xxvi, 14; and long before the time of that king, the helmets of Saul and of the Philistine champion were of the same metal, 1 Sam. xvii, 38. This military cap was also worn by the Persians, Ethiopians, and Libyans, Ezek. xxxviii, 5, and by the troops which An- pedius sent against Judas Maccabeus, 1 Mac. vi, 35. 2. The breastplate or corslet, pw, was an- other piece of defensive armour. Goliath, and the soldiers of Antiochus, 1 Sam. xvii,5; 1 Mac. vi, 35, were accoutred with this defence; which, in our authorized translation, is variously ren- dered habergeon, coat of mail, and brigandine, 1Sam. xvu, 38; 2 Chron. xxvi, 14; Isa. lix, 17; Jer. xlvi, 4. Between the joints of this harness, as it is termed in 1 Kings xxii, 4, the profligate Ahab was mortally wounded by an arrow, shot at a venture. From these various renderings of the original word, it should seem that this piece of armour covered both the back and breast, but principally the latter. The corslets were made of various materials: some- times they were made of flax or cotton, woven very thick, or of a kind of woollen felt: others again were made of iron or brazen scales, or laminz, laid one over another, like the scales of a fish; others were properly what we call coats of mail; and others were composed of two ieces of iron or brass, which protected the Pack and breast. All these kinds of corslets are mentioned in the Scriptures. Goliath’s coat of mail, 1 Sam. xvii, 5, was literally a corslet of scales, that is, composed of numerous lamine of brass, crossing each other. It was called by Virgil, and other Latin writers, sgua- ma lorica. Similar corslets were worn by the Persians and other nations. The breastplate worn by the unhappy Saul, when he perished in battle, is supposed to have been of flax, or cotton, woven very close and thick, 2 Sam. i, 9, marginal rendering. 3. The shield defended the whole body dur- ing the battle. It was of various forms, and made of wood covered with tough hides, or of brass, and sometimes was evel with gold, 1 Kings x, 16, 17; xiv, 26,27. Two sorts are mentioned in the Scriptures; namely, the mos, great shield or buckler, and the }:9, or smaller shield. It was much used by the Jews, Baby- lonians, Chaldeans, Assyrians, and Egyptians. David, who was a great warrior, often men- tions a shield and buckler in his divine poems, to signify that defence and protection of Heaven which he expected and experienced, and in which he reposed all his trust, Psalm v, 12; and when he says, “ God will with favour com- 94 ARM pass the righteous as with a shield,” he seems to allude to the use of the great shield tsinnah, (which is the word he uses,) with which they covered and defended their whole bodies. King Solomon caused two different sorts of shields to be made; namely, the tsinnah, (which answers to clypeus among the Latins,) such a large shield as the infantry wore, and the ma- ginnim, or scuta, which were used by the horse- men, and were of a much less size, 2 Chron. ix, 15, 16. The former of these are translated targets, and are double in weight to the other. The Philistines came into the field with this weapon: so we find their formidable champion was appointed, 1 Sam. xvii, 7. One bearing a shield went before him, whose proper duty it was to carry this and some other weapons, with which to furnish his master upon occasion. The loss of the shield in fight was excessively resented by the Jewish warriors, as well as la- mented by them; for it was a signal aggrava- tion of the public mourning, that ‘“ the shield of the mighty was vilely cast away,” 2 Sam. i, 21. David, a man of arms, who composed this beautiful elegy on the death of Saul, felt how disgraceful a thing it was for soldiers to quit their shields in the field. These honourable sentiments were not con- fined to the Jews. We find them prevailing among most other ancient nations, who con- sidered it.infamous to cast away or lose their shield. With the Greeks it was a capital crime, and punished with death. The Lacedemonian women, it is well known, in order to excite the courage of their sons, used to deliver to them their fathers’ shields, with this short address: “This shield thy father always preserved: do thou preserve it also, or perish.” Alluding per- haps to these sentiments, St. Paul, when ex- horting the Hebrew Christians to steadfastness in the faith of the Gospel, urges them not to cast away their confidence, which “hath great recompense of reward,” Heb. x, 35. 4, Another defensive provision in war was the military girdle, which was for a double pur- pose: first, in order to hold the sword, which hung, as it does this day, at the soldier’s girdle or belt, 1 Sam. xvii, 39: secondly, it was ne- cessary to gird the clothes and the armour to- gether. To gird and to arm are synonymous words in Scripture; for those who are said to be able to put on_armour are, according to the Hebrew and the Septuagint, girt with a girdle; and hence comes ile expression of “ girding to the battle,” 1 Kings xx, 11; Isa. viii, 9; 2 Sam. xxii, 40; 1 Sam. xvili, 4. There is ex: ress mention of this military girdle, where it is recorded that Jonathan, to assure David of his entire love and friendship by some visible pledges, stripped himself not only of his usual garments, but of his military habiliments, his sword, bow, and girdle, and gave them to David. 5. Boots or greaves were part of the ancient defensive harness, because it was the custom to cast certain eumodca, impediments, (so called, because they entangled the feet,) in the way before the enemy. The military boot or shoe was therefore necessary to guard the legs and feet from the iron stakes placed in the way to ARM gall and wound them; and thus we are enabled to account for Goliath’s greaves of brass which were upon his legs. The offensive weapons were of two sorts; namely, such as were employed when they came to a close engagement, and those with which they annoyed the enemy at a distance. Of tle former description were the sword and the battle-axe. 1. The sword is the most ancient weapon of offence mentioned in the Bible. With it Ja- cob’s sons treacherously assassinated the She- chemites, Gen. xxxiv, 2. It was worn on the thigh, Psalm xlv, 4; Exod xxxii, 27; and, it should seem, on the left thigh; for it is par- ticularly mentioned that Ehud puta dagger or short sword under his garments on his right thigh, Judges ii, 16. There appear to have been two kinds of swords in use, a larger one with one edge, which is called in Hebrew the mouth of the sword, Joshua vi, 21; and a shorter one with two edges, like that of Ehud. The modern Arabs, it is well known, wear a sabre on one side, and a cangiar or dagger in their girdles. 2. Of the battle-axe we have no description in.the sacred volume: it seems to have been a most powerful weapon in the hands of cavalry, from the allusion made to it by Jeremiah: “ Thou art my battle-axe and weapons of war; for with thee will I break in pieces the nations, and with thee will I destroy kingdoms: and with thee will I break in pieces the horse and his rider, and with thee will I break in pieces the chariot and his rider,” Jer. li, 20, 21. 3. The spear and javelin (as the words nnn and msn are variously rendered in Num. xxv, 7; I Sam. xiii, 19, and Jer. xlvi, 4) were of differ- ent kinds, according to their length or make. Some of them might be thrown or darted, 1 Sam. xviii, 11; others were a kind of long swords, Num. xxv, 8; and it appears from 2 Sam. ii, 23, that some of them were pointed at both ends. When armies were encamped, the spear of the general or commander-in-chief was stuck into the ground at his head. : 4. Slings are enumerated among the military stores callectert by Uzziah, 2 Chron. xxvi, 14. In the use of the sling David eminently ex- celled, and he slew Goliath with a stone from one. The Benjaminites were celebrated in battle because they had attained to great skill and accuracy in handling this weapon; “ they could sling stones to a hair’s breadth, and not miss,” Judges xx, 16; and where it is said that they were left-handed, it should rather be ren- dered ambidexters ; for we are told they could use “both the right hand and the left,” 1 Chron. xii, 2; that is, they did not constantly use the right hand as others did, when they shot arrows or slung stones; but they were so expert in their military exercises, that they could perform them with their left hand as well as with their right. 5. Bows and arrows are of great antiquity; indeed, no weapon is mentioned so early. Thus Isaac said to Esau, “ Take thy weapons, thy quiver and thy bow,” Gen. xxvii, 3; though, it is true, these are not spoken of as used in war, but in hunting; and so they are supposed and implied before this, where it is said of 95 ART Ishmael that he became an archer, he used bows and arrows in shooting of wild beasts, Gen. xxi, 20. This afterward became so use- ful a weapon, that care was taken to train up the Hebrew youth to it betimes. When David had, ina solemn manner, lamented the death of King Saul, he gave orders for teaching the young men the use of the bow, 1 Sam. 1, 18, that they might be as expert as the Philistines, by whose bows and arrows Saul and his army were slain. These were part of the military ammunition; for in those times bows were used instead of guns, and arrows supplied the place of powder and ball. From the book of Job, xx, 24, it may be collected, that the military bow was made of steel, and consequently was very stiff and hard to bend, on which account they used their foot in bending their bows ; and therefore when the prophets speak of treading the bow and of bows trodden, they are to be understood of bows bent, as our trans- lators rightly render it, Jer. 1, 14; Isa. v, 28; xxi, 15; but the Hebrew word which is used in these places, signifies to tread upon. This weapon was thought so necessary in war, that it is there called, “the bow of war,” or the “ battle-bow,” Zech. ix, 10; x, 14. ARNON, a river or brook, mentioned Num. xxi, 24, and elsewhere. Its spring head is ir. the mountains of Gilead, or of the Moabites, and it discharges itself into the Dead Sea. ARROW. See Arms. Divination with ar- rows was a method of presaging future events, practised by the ancients. Ezekiel, xxi, 21, in- forms us, that Nebuchadnezzar, putting himself at the head of his armies, to march against Zedekiah, king of the Jews, and against the king of the Ammonites, stood at the parting of two ways, to mingle his arrows together in a quiver, in order to divine from thence which way he should march. Jerom, Theodoret, and the modern commentators after them, believe that this prince took several arrows, and upon each of them wrote the name of the king, town, or province, which he was to attack; for ex- ample, upon one, Jerusalem; upon another, Rabbah, the capital of the Ammonites; and upon another, Egypt, &c. After having put these into a quiver, he shook them together, and then drew them out; and the arrow which was drawn was thought to declare the will of the gods to attack first that city, province, or kingdom, with whose name it was inscribed. ARTAXERXES, or Anasuzgrus, a king of Persia, the husband of Esther, who, in the opinion of the learned Usher and Calmet, was the Dariusof profane authors. See AHnasuERvs. 2. Artaxerxes LoNnciManvs is supposed by Dr. Prideaux to be the Ahasuerus of Esther. He was the son of Xerxes, and grandson of Darius Hystaspes, and reigned in Persia from the year of the world 3531 to 3579. He per- mitted Ezra, with all those inclined to follow him, to return into Judea, in the year of the world 3537, Ezra vii, viii. Afterward, Nehe- miah also obtained leave to return, and to build the walls and gates of Jerusalem, in the year of the world 3550, Nehem. i, 11. From this year, chronologers reckon the beginning of ASA Daniel’s seventy weeks, Daniel xi, 29. These are weeks of years, and make four hundred and ninety years. Dr. Prideaux, who discourses very copiously, and with great learning, on this prophecy, maintains that the decree men- tioned in it for the restoring and rebuilding of Jerusalem, cannot be understood of that granted to Nehemiah, in the twentieth year of Artax- erxes; but of that granted to Ezra, by the same Artaxerxes, in the seventh year of his reign. From that time to the death of Christ, are exactly four hundred and ninety years, to a month: for in the month Nisan the decree was granted to Ezra; and in the middle of the same month Nisan, Christ suffered, just four hundred and ninety years afterward. The easterns think that the surname of Longimanus was given to Artaxerxes by rea- son of the extent of his dominions; as it is commonly said that princes have long hands: but the Greeks maintain that this prince had really longer hands or arms than usual; and that, when he stood upright, he could touch his knees. He is said to have been the hand- somest man of his time. The eastern people call him Bahaman, and give him the surname of Ardschir-diraz-dest, or the long-handed. He was the son of Asfendiar, sixth king of the second dynasty of the Persians. fter having extinguished the family of Rostam, which was formidable to him on account of the great men who composed it, he carried his arms into the western provinces, Meso- potamia and Syria, which formed part of his empire. He took Babylon from Belshazzar, son of Nebuchadnezzar; and he put in his place Kiresch, who by us is called Cyrus. Some Persian historians assert that the mother of Artaxerxes was a Jewess, of the tribe of Benjamin, and family of Saul; and that the most beloved of his wives was of the tribe of Judah, and race of Solomon, by Rehoboam, king of Judah. If this be true, we need not wonder that he should recommend to Cyrus to favour the Jewish nation. This Cyrus per- formed, by sending back the people into their own country, and permitting them to rebuild their temple. But the truth of this story is doubtful; and were it true, the interference of the special providence of God must still be acknowledged. Artaxerxes reigned forty-seven years, and died in the year of the world 3579, and before Jesus Christ 425. ARTEMAS, St. Paul’s disciple, who was sent by that Apostle into Crete, in the room of Titus, chap. ii, 12, while he continued with St. Paul at Nicopolis, where he passed the winter. We know nothing particular of the life or death of Artemas; but the employment to which he was appointed by the Apostle is a proof of his great merit. ASA, the son and successor of Abijam, king of Judah, began to reign in the year of the world 3049, and before Christ 955. He reigned forty-one years at Jerusalem, and did right in the sight of the Lord. He purged Jerusalem from the infamous practices attending the worship of idols; and he deprived his mother of her office and dignity of queen, because she 96 ASA erected an idol to Astarte, which he burnt in the valley of Hinnom, 1 Kings xv, 8, &c. The Scripture reproaches Asa with not de- stroying the high places, which, perhaps, he thought it politic to tolerate, to avoid the great- er evil of Foleny. He carried into the house of the Lord the gold and silver vessels which his father Abijam had vowed to consecxate. He fortified several cities, and repaired others, encouraging his people to this labour while the kingdom was at peace; and the Lord favoured them with his protection. After this he levied three hundred thousand men in Judah, armed with shields and pikes; and two hundred and eighty thousand men in Benjamin, armed with shields and bows, all men of courage and va- lour. About this time, Zerah, king of Ethi- opia, or rather of Cush, which is part of Arabia, marched against Asa with a million of foot, and three hundred chariots of war, and ad- vanced as far as Mareshah. This probably happened in the fifteenth year of Asa’s reign, and inthe year of the world 3064, 2 Chron. xv, 10. Asa advanced to meet Zerah, and en- camped in the plain of Zephathah, or rather Zephatah, near Mareshah, and having prayed to the Lord, God struck the forces of Zerah with such a panic that they began to flee. Asa and his army pursued them to Geran, and slew of them a great number. After this, Asa’s army returned to Jerusalem, laden with booty. The prophet Azariah met them, and_ said, ‘Hear ye me, Asa, and all Judah and Benja- min, The Lord is with you while ye be with him, and if ye seek him he will be found of you; but if ye forsake him, he will forsake eas ye strong, therefore, and let not your ands be weak: for your work shall be reward- ed,” 2 Chron. xv,2, 7. After this exhortation, Asa, being animated with new courage, de- stroyed the idols of Judah, Benjamin, and Mount Ephraim; repaired the altar of burnt- offerings ; and assembled Judah and Benjamin, with many from the tribes of Simeon, Ephraim, and Manasseh, and on the third day, in the fifteenth year of his reign, celebrated a solemn festival. Of the cattle taken from Zerah, they sacrificed seven hundred oxen, and seven thou- sand sheep ; they renewed the covenant with the Lord; and, with cymbals and trumpets sounding, they swore to the covenant, and de- clared that whoever should forsake the true worship of God, should be put to death. The Lord gave them peace; and, according to the Chronicles, the kingdom of Judah had rest til! the thirty-fifth year of Asa. Concerning this year, however, there are difficulties ; and some think that we should read the twenty-fifth, in- stead of the thirty-fifth; since Baasha, who made war on Asa, lived no longer than the twenty-sixth year of Asa, 1 Kings xvi, 8. In this year Baasha, king of Israel, began to fortify Ramah, on the frontiers of the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel, that he might prevent the Israelites from resorting to the kingdom of Judah, and the temple of the Lord at Jerusalem. When Asa was informed of this, he sent to Benhadad, king of Damascus, all the gold and silver of his palace, and of the ASC temple, to induce him to break his alliance with Baasha, and to assist him against the king of Israel. Benhadad accepted Asa’s presents, and invaded Baasha’s country, where he took several cities belonging to the tribe of Naph-- tali. This obliged Baasha to retire from Ra- mah, that he might defend his dominions nearer home. Asa immediately ordered his people to Ramah, carried off all the materials prepared by Baasha, and employed them in building Geba and Mizpah. This application to Ben- hadad for assistance was inexcusable. It im- plied, that Asa distrusted God’s power and poodnesss which he had so lately experienced. herefore the Prophet Hanani was sent to re- prove him for his conduct. Asa, however, was So exasperated at his rebukes that he put the Prophet in chains, and at the same time or- dered the execution of several persons in Judah. Toward the latter part of his life, he was in- comimoded with swellings in his feet, which, oe rising upwards, killed him. The cripture reproaches him with having had re- course to physicians, rather than to the Lord. He was buried in the sepulchre which he had provided for himself in the city of David; and after his death they placed on the bed great quantities of perfumes and spices, with which his body was burned. His bones and ashes were then collected, and put into his grave. ASAHEL, the son of Zeruiah, and brother of Joab. He was killed by Abner, in the bat- tle of Gibeon, 2 Sam. ii, 18, 19, while he ob- stinately persisted in the pursuit of that general. To revenge his death, his brother Joab, some years after, treacherously killed Abner, who had come to wait on David at Hebron, in order to procure him to be acknowledged king by all Israel, 2 Sam. iii, 26,27. See Asner. ASAPH, a celebrated musician in the time of David, was the son of Barachias of the tribe of Levi. Asaph, and also his descendants, presided over the musical band in the service of the temple. Several of the psalms, as the fiftieth, the seventy-third to the eighty-third, have the name of Asaph prefixed ; but it is not certain whether the words or the music were composed by him. With regard to some of them, which were written during the Babylon- ish captivity, they cannot in any respect be ascribed to him. Perhaps they were written or set to music by his descendants, who bore his name, or by some of that class of musicians of which thé family of Asaph was the head, 1 Chron. vi, 39; 2 Chron. xxix, 30; xxxv, 15; Neh. xii, 46. The psalms which bear the name of Asaph are doctrinal or preceptive: their style, though less sweet than that of David, is more vehement, and little inferior to the grandeur of Isaiah. ASCENSION OF CHRIST, his visible elevation to heaven. Our Saviour, having repeatedly conversed with his Apostles after his resurrection, and afforded them many infallible proofs of its reality, led them from Jerusalem to Bethany, and was raised up to heaven in their sight; there to continue till he shall de- scend at the last day to judge the quick and the dead. en evidences of this fact were 97 ASH numerous. The disciples saw him ascend, Acts i, 9, 10. Two angels testified that he did ascend, Acts i, 11. Stephen, Paul, and John saw him in his ascended state, Acts vii, 55, 56; ix; Rev. i. The ascension was de- monstrated by the descent of the Holy Ghost, John xvi, 7, 14; Acts ii, 33; and the terrible overthrow and dispersion of the Jewish nation is still a standing proof of it, John viii, 21; Matt. xxvi, 64. The time of Christ’s ascen- sion was forty days after his resurrection. He continued so many days upon earth, that he might are repeated proofs of his resurrection, Acts i, 3; instruct his Apostles in every thing of importance respecting their office and minis- try, Acts i, 3; and might open to them the Scriptures concerning himself, and renew their commission to preach the Gospel, Acts i, 5, 6; Mark xvi, 15. As to the manner of his ascen- sion, it was from mount Olivet to heaven, not in appearance only, but in reality, and that visibly and locally. It was a rob motion of his human nature; sudden, swift, glorious, and in a triumphant manner. He was parted from his disciples while he was solemnly blessing them; and multitudes of angels attended him with shouts of praise, Psalm Ixviii, 17; xlvii, 5, 6. The effects or ends of his ascension were, 1. To fulfil the types and prophecies concern- ing it; 2. To “appear” as a priest “in the presence of God for us;” 3. To take upon him more openly the exercise of his’ kingly office; 4. To receive gifts for men, both ordinary and extraordinary, Psalm lxviii, 18; 5. To open the way to heaven for his people, Heb. x, 19, 20; 6. To assure the saints of their ascension to heaven after their resurrection from the dead, John xiv, 1, 2. ASHDOD, Azorn, according to the Vul- gate, or Azotus, according to the Greek, a city which was assigned by Joshua to the tribe of Judah, but was possessed a long time by the Philistines, and rendered famous for the temple of their god Dagon, Joshua xv, 47. It hes upon the Mediterranean Sea, about nine or ten miles north of Gaza; and in the times when Christianity flourished in these parts was made an episcopal see, and continued a fair village till the days of St. Jerom. Here the ark of Jehovah triumphed over the Philistine idol Dagon, 1 Sam. v, 2. ASHER, tribe of. The province allotted to this tribe was a maritime one, stretching along the coast from Sidon on the north to Mount Carmel on the south; including the cities Ab- don, Achshaph, Accho, Achzib, Sarepta, Sidon, and Tyre. But of the northern half of this ter- ritory, that is, from Tyre northward, this tribe never became possessed, not having expelled the Phenician inhabitants, who are supposed not to have been pure Canaanites, but a mix- ture of this people with a Cuthite colony from Egypt. Asher was the most northerly of the tribes; and had that of Naphtali on the west, and Zebulun on the south. ASHES. Several religious ceremonies, and some symbolical ones, anciently depended upon the use of ashes To repent in sackcloth and: ASH ashes, or, as an external sign of self-affliction for sin, or of suffering under some misfortune, to sit in ashes, are expressions common in Scripture. “I am but dust_and ashes,” ex- claims Abraham before the Lord, Gen. xviii, 27; indicating a deep sense of his own mean- ness in comparison with God. God threatens to shower down dust and ashes on the lands instead of rain, Deut. xxviii, 24; thereby to make them barren instead of blessing them, to dry them up instead of wateringthem. Tamar, after the injury she had received from Amnon, covered her head with ashes, 2 Sam. xiii, 19. The Psalmist, in great sorrow, says poetically, he had “ eaten ashes as it were bread,” Psalm cii, 9; that is, he sat on ashes, he threw ashes on his head; and his food, his bread, was sprinkled with the ashes wherewith he was himself covered. So Jeremiah introduces Jeru- salem saying, “ The Lord hath covered me with ashes,” Lamentations iii, 16. Sitting on ashes, or lying down among ashes, was a token of extreme grief. We find it adopted by Job, ii, 8; by many Jews when in great fear, Es- ther iv, 3; and by the king of Nineveh, Jonah iii, 6. He arose from his throne, laid aside his robe, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. This token of affliction is illustrated by Homer’s description of old Laertes grieving for the absence of his son, “‘ Sleeping in the apartment where the slaves slept, in the ashes, near the fire.” Compare Jer. vi, 26, “ Daugh- ter of my people, wallow thyself in ashes.” There was a sort of ley and lustral water, made with the ashes of the heifer sacrificed on the great day of expiation ; these ashes were dis- tributed to the people, and used in purifications, by sprinkling, to such as had touched a dead body, or had been present at funerals, Num. xix, 17. ASHKENAZ, one of the sons of Gomer, and grandson of Japheth, who gave his name to the country first peopled by him in the north and north-western part of Asia Minor, answer- ing to Bithynia ; where were traces long after of his name, particularly in that of Ascanius, applied to a bay and city, as well as to some islands lying along the coast. It was also from this country, most probably, that the king Ascanius, mentioned by Homer, came to the aid of Priamus at thesiege of Troy. From the same source, likewise, the Pontus Euxinus, or Black Sea, derived its name. It may farther be remarked on the identity of these countries, that the Prophet Jeremiah, predicting the cap- ture of Babylon, and calling by name the countries which were to rise against it, ex- claims, “Call together against her the king- doms of Ararat, (or Armenia,) Minni, and Ashkenaz:” which was literally fulfilled; as Xenophon informs us that Cyrus, after taking Sardis, became master of Phrygia on the Hel- lespont, and took along with him many soldiers of that country. ASHTAROTH, or Asrarte, a goddess of the Zidonians. The word Ashtaroth properly signifies flocks of sheep, or goats; and some- times the grove, or woods, because she was goddess of woods, and groves were her temples. 98 ASM In groves consecrated to her, such lasciviousness was committed as rendered her worship infa- mous. She was also called the queen of heaven; and sometimes her worship is said to be that of “the host of heaven.” She was certainly repre- sented in the same manner as Isis, with cows’ horns on her head, to denote the increase and decrease of the moon. Cicero calls her the fourth Venus of the Syrians. She is almost always joined with Baal, and is called a god, the Scriptures having no particular word to express a goddess. It is believed that the moon was adored in this idol. Her temples generally accompanied those of the sun; and while bloody sacrifices of human victims were offered to Baal, bread, liquors, and perfumes were presented to Astarte. For her, tables were prepared upon the flat terrace roofs of houses, near gates, in porches, and at cross- ways, on the first day of every month; and this was called by the Greeks, Hecate’s supper Solomon, seduced by his foreign wives, in- troduced the worship of Ashtaroth into Israel; but Jezebel, daughter of the king of Tyre, and wife to Ahab, pe established her wor- ship. She caused altars to be erected to this idol in every part of Israel; and at one time four hundred priests attended the worship of Ashtaroth, 1 Kings xviii, 7. ASHUR, the son of Shem, who gave his name to Assyria. It is believed that Ashur originally dwelt in the land of Shinar and about Babylonia, but that he was compelled by the usurper Nimrod to depart from thence, and settle higher toward the springs of the Tigris, in the province of Assyria, so called from him, where some think he built the famous city of Nineveh, and those of Rehoboth, Calah, and Resen, Gen. x, 11, 12. ASIA, one of the four grand divisions of the earth. It is also used in‘a more restricted sense for Asia Minor, or Anatolia. In the New Testament it always signifies the Roman Proconsular Asia, in which the seven Apoca- lyptic churches were situated. ASKELON, a city in the land of the Phi- listines, situated between Azoth and Gaza, upon the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, about 520 furlongs from Jerusalem. The tribe of Judah, after the death of Joshua, took the city of Askelon, Judges i, 18, being one of the five governments belonging tothe Philistines. The place at present is in ruins. ASMON ALANS, a name given to the Mac- cabees, the descendants of Mattathias. After the death of Ezra and Nehemiah, the Jews were governed by their high priest, in subjec- tion, however, to the Persian kings, to whom they paid tribute; but with full enjoyment of their liberties, civil and religious. Nearly three centuries of prosperity ensued, until they were cruelly oppressed by Antiochus Epipha- nes, king of Syria, when they were compelled to take up arms in their own defence. Under the able conduct of Judas, surnamed Macca- beus, and his valiant brothers, the Jews main- tained a religious war for twenty-six years with five successive kings of Syria; and after de- stroying upwards of two hundred thousand of ASP their best troops, the Maccabees finally esta- blished the independence of their own country, and the aggrandisement of their family. This illustrious house, whose princes united the regal and pontifical dignity in their own per- sons, administered the affairs of the Jews during a period of a hundred and twenty-six years; until, veo arising between Hyrcanus II, and his brother Aristobulus, the latter was defeated by the Romans, who captured Jerusa- Jem, and reduced Judea to a military province, B.C. 59. SNAPPER, the king of Assyria, who sent the Cutheans into the country belonging to the ten tribes, Ezra iv, 10, Many take this prince to be Shalmaneser; but others, with more probability, think him to be Esar-haddon. SP, inp. Deut. xxxii, 33; Job xx, 14, 16; Psalm lviii, 4; xci, 13; Isaiah xi, 8. A very venomous serpent, whose poison is so subtle as to kill within a few hours with a universal gangrene. This may well refer to the dcten of the Arabians, which M. Forskal describes as spotted with black and white, about one foot in length, and nearly half an inch in thickness, oviparous, and whose bite is death. It is the aspic of the ancients, and is so called now by the literati of Cyprus, though the common people call it kufi, Caer) deaf. With the PE- THEN we may connect the python of the Greeks, which was, according to fable, a huge serpent that had an oracle at mount Parnassus, famous for predicting future events. Apollo is said to have slain this serpent, and hence he was call- ed “ Pythius.” Those possessed with a spirit of divination were also styled Ilvfwves. ‘The word occurs in Acts xvi, 16, as the character- istic of a young woman who had a pythonic spirit. Jt is well known that the serpent was particularly employed by the Heathens in their enchantments and divinations. See Serpent. Pethen, jna, is variously translated in our version; but interpreters generally consider it as referring to the asp. Zophar alludes to it | more than once in his description of a wicked man: “ Yet his meat in his bowels is turned, itis the gall ofasps within him. He shall suck the poison ofasps : the viper’s tongue shall slay him.” The venom of asps is the most subtle of all; it isincurable; and, if the wounded part be not instantly amputated, it speedily termi- nates the existence of the sufferer. T'o these circumstances, Moses evidently alludes in his character of the Heathen: “ Their wine is the oison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.” o tread upon the asp is attended with extreme danger ; therefore, to express in the strongest manner the safety which the godly man enjoys under the protection of his heavenly Father, it is promised, that he shall tread with impunity upon these venomous creatures. No person of his own accord approaches the hole of these deadly reptiles; for he who gives them the smallest disturbance is in extreme danger of aying the forfeit of his rashness with his life. ence, the Prophet Isaiah, predicting the con- version of the Gentiles to the faith of Christ, and the glorious reign of peace and truth in those regions which, prior to that period, were 99 ASS full of horrid cruelty, marvellously heightens the force of the whole description by declaring, ‘The sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.” ASS, won, Arabic, chamara and hamar. There are three words referred by translators to the ass: 1. wn, which is the usual appella- tion, and denotes the ordinary kind ; aunt as is employed in labour, carriage, and domestic ser- vices. 2. Nn», rendered onager, or “ wild ass.” 3. ynN, rendered ske ass. ‘To these we must add, xy, rendered wild asses, Dan. v, 21. The prevailing colour of this animal in the east is reddish; and the Arabic word, chamara. signifies to be red. ‘In his natural state he is fleet, fierce, formi- dable, and intractable; but when domesticated, the most gentle of all animals, and assumes a patience and submission even more humble than his situation. Le Clere observes, that the Israelites not being allowed to keep horses, the ass was not only made a beast of burden, but used on journeys; and that even the most ho- nourable of the nation were wont to be mounted on asses, which in the eastern countries were much larger and more beautiful than they are with us. Jair of Gilead had thirty sons who rode on as many asses, and commanded in thirty cities, Judges x, 4. Abdon’s sons and grand- sons rode also upon asses, Judges xii, 4. And Christ makes his solemn entry into Jerusalem riding upon an ass, Matt. xxi, 4; John xii, 14. To draw with an ox and ass together was pro- hibited in the Mosaic law, Deut. xxii, 10. This law is thought to have respect to some idola- trous custom of the Gentiles, who were taught to believe that their fields would be more fruit- ful if thus ploughed ; for it is not likely that men would have yoked together two creatures so different in their tempers and motions, had they not been led to it by some superstition. There might be, however, a physical reason for this injunction. Two beasts of a different spe- cies cannot well associate together; and on this account never pull pleasantly either in the cart or plough, and are not therefore “ true yoke fellows.” Le Clere considers this law as merely symbolical, importing that we are not to form improper alliances in civil and religious life; and he thinks his opinion confirmed by these words of St. Paul, 2 Cor. vi, 14: “ Be ye not unequally yoked with unbelievers ;” which are simply to be understood as prohibiting all intercourse between Christians and idolaters, in social, matrimonial, and religious life. Tc teach the Jews the propriety of this, a variety of precepts relative to improper and heteroge- neous mixtures were interspersed through their- law; so that in civil and domestic life they might have them ever before their eyes. The wild ass, called Para, is probably the onager of the ancients. It is taller and a much more dignified animal than the common or do- mestic ass; its legs are more elegantly shaped ; and it bears its head higher. It is peculiarly ASS 100 distinguished by a \usky woolly mane, long erect ears, and a forehead highly arched. The colour of the hair, in general, is of a silvery white. These animals associate in herds, under a leader, and are very shy. They inhabit the mountainous regions and desert parts of Tar- tary, Persia, &c. Anciently, they were like- wise found in Lycaonia, Phrygia, Mesopotamia, and Arabia Deserta. They are remarkably wild; and Job, xxxix, 5-8, describes the liberty they enjoy, the place of their retreat, their man- ners, and wild, impetuous, and untamable spi- rit. ‘Vain man would be wise, though he be born a wild ass’s colt,” Job xi, 12; xno vy, “ass colt,” not “ass’s colt ;” » being in apposition with x1», and not in government. The whole is a proverbial expression, denoting extreme perversity and ferocity, and repeatedly alluded to inthe Old Testament. Thus, Gen. xvi, 12, it is prophesied of Ishmael that he should be DW ND, a wild ass man; rough, untaught, and libertine as a wild ass. So Hosea, xiii, 15; “ He (Ephraim) hath run wild (literally assified himself) amidst the braying monsters.” So again, Hosea viii, 9, the very same character is given of Ephraim, who is called “a solitary wild ass by himself,” or perhaps a solitary wild ass of the desert ; for the original will bear to beso rendered. This proverbial expression has descended among the Arabians to the present day, who stillemploy, as Schultens has remark- ed, the expressions, “the ass of the desert,” or “the wild ass,” to describe an obstinate, indo- cile, and contumacious person. The Prophet Isaiah, xxxii, 14, describes great desolation by saying that “the wild asses shall rejoice where acity stood.” There is another kind of ass called, ;nx. Abraham had aronors, Gen. xii, 16; Balaam rode on an aton, Num. xxii, 23. We find from I Chron. xxvii, 30, that David had an officer expressly appointed to superin- tend his aronorH; not his ordinary asses, but those of a nobler race; which implies at least equal dignity in this officer to his colleagues mentioned with him. This notion of the aron gives also a spirit to the history of Saul, who, when his father’s ATONOTH were lost, was at no little pains to seek them; moreover, as beside being valuable, they were uncommon, he might the more readily hear of them if they had been noticed or taken up by any one; and this leads to the true interpretation of the servant’s pro- peed application to Samuel, verse 6, as though e said, “In his office of magistracy this ho- nourable man may have heard of these strayed rarities, and secured them; peradventure he can direct us.” Thus we find that these atonoth are men- tioned in Scripture, only in the possession of judges, patriarchs, and other great men; inso- much that where these are there is dignity, either expressed or implied. ‘They were also a present for a prince; for Jacob presented Esau with twenty, Gen. xxxii, 15. hat then shall we say of the wealth of Job, who possessed a thousand? Another word which 1s rendered “wild ass” by our translators, Job xxxix, 5, is oruD; which seems to be the same, that in the Chaldee of Daniel, v, 21, is called oredia, Mr. ASS Parkhurst supposes that this word denotes the brayer, and that paRA and oruD are only two names for the sarne animal. But these names may perhaps refer to different races, though of the same species: so that a description of the properties of one may apply to both, though not without some variation. Who sent out the para free? Or who hath loosed the bands of the orud? Whose dwelling I have made the wilderness, And the barren iand (salt deserts) his resort: The range of open mountains are his pasture, And he searcheth after every green thing. Gmelin observes that the onager is very fona of salt. Whether the “deserts” of the above text were salt marshes, or salt deserts, is of very little consequence; the circumstance shows the correctness of the Hebrew poet. In Daniel we read that Nebuchadnezzar dwelt with the org- pia. We need not suppose that he was banish- ed to the deserts, but was at most kept safely in an enclosure of his own park, where curious animals were kept for state and pleasure. If this be correct, then the ornuD was somewhat, at least, of a rarity at Babylon; and it might be of a kind different from the Para, as it is denoted by another name. May it not be the Gicquetei of Professor Pallas, the wild mule of Mongalia? which surpasses the onager in size, beauty, and perhaps in swiftness. ASSIDEANS, by some named Chasideans, from chasidim, “ merciful, pious.” They were a kind of religious society among the Jews, whose chief and distinguishing character was. to maintain the honour of the temple, and ob- serve punctually the traditions of the elders, They were therefore not only content to pay the usual tribute for the maintenance of the house of God, but charged themselves with far- ther expense upon that account ; for every day, except that of the great expiation, they sacri- ficed a lamb, in addition to the daily oblation, which was called the sin offering of the Assi- deans. They practised greater hardships and mortifications than others; and their common oath was, “ By the temple;” for which our Sa- viour reproves the Pharisees, who had learned that oath of them, Matt. xxiii, 16. From this sect the Pharisees sprung. The Assideans are represented as a numerous sect, distinguished by its valour, as well as by its zeal for the law, 1 Mac. ii, 42. A company of them resorted to Mattathias, to fight for the law of God, and the liberties of their country. This sect arose either during the captivity, or soon after the restora- tion of the Jews; and were probably in the commencement, and long afterward, a trul lous part of the nation; but they at iength ecame superstitious, ASSURANCE. The sense in which this term is used theologically is that of a firm per- suasion of our being in a state of salvation. The doctrine itself ‘has been matter of dispute among divines, and when considered as imply- ing not only that we are now accepted of God through Christ, but that we shall be finally saved, or when it is so taken as to deny a state- of salvation to those who are not so assured as to be free from all doubt, it is in manv views ASS questionable. Assurance of final salvation must stand or fall with the doctrine of personal un- conditional election, and is chiefly held by di- vines of the Calvinistic school; and that nothing is an evidence of a s.ate of present salvation but so entire a persuasion as amounts to assur- ance in the strongest sense, might be denied upon the ground that degrees of grace, of real saving grace, are undoubtedly mentioned in Scripture. Assurance, however, is spoken of in the New Testament, and stands prominent as one of the leading doctrines of religious ex- perience. We have “ full assurance of under- standing ;” that is, a perfect knowledge and en- tire persuasion of the truth of the doctrine of Christ. The “assurance of faith,” in Hebrews ix, 22, is an entire trust in the sacrifice and priestly office of Christ. The “assurance of hope,” mentioned in Hebrews vi, 11, relates to the heavenly inheritance, and must necessarily imply a full persuasion that we are “the chil- dren of God,” and therefore “heirs of his glo- ry;” and from this passage it must certainly be concluded that such an assurance is what every Christian ought to aim at, and that it is attainable. This, however, does not exclude occasional doubt and weakness of faith, from the earlier stages of his experience. A comforting and abiding persuasion of pre- sent acceptance by God, through Christ, we may therefore affirm, must in various degrees follow true faith. In support of this view, the following remarks may be offered :— If it is the doctrine of the inspired records, that man is by nature prone to evil, and that in practice he violates that law under which as a creature he is placed, and is thereby ex- posed to punishment ;—if also it is there stated, that an act of grace and pardon is promised on .the conditions of repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ ;—if that repent- ance implies consideration of our ways, a sense of the displeasure of Almighty God, contrition of heart, and consequently trouble and grief of mind, mixed, however, with a hope inspired by the promise of forgiveness, and which leads to earnest supplication for the actual pardon of sin so promised, it will follow from these pre- mises—either, 1. That forgiveness is not to be expected till after the termination of our course of probation, that is, in another life; and that, therefore, this trouble and apprehension of mind can only be assuaged by the hope we may have of a favourable final decision on our case ;—or, 2. That sin is, in the present life, forgiven as often as it is thus repented of, and as often as we exercise the required and spe- cific acts of trust in the merits of our Saviour; but that this forgiveness of our sins is not in any way made known unto us: so that we are left, as to our feelings, in precisely the same state as if sin were not forgiven till after death, namely, in grief and trouble of mind, relieved only by hope;—or, 3. The Scriptural view is, that when sin is forgiven by the mercy of God through Christ, we are, by some means, assured of it, and peace and satisfaction of mind take the place of anxiety and fear. he first of these conclusions is sufficiently 101 ASS disproved by the authority of Scripture, which exhibits justification as a blessing attainable in this life, and represents it as actually experi- enced by true believers. ‘“ Therefore being justified by faith.” “There is now no con- demnation to them who are in Christ Jesus.” “Whosoever believeth is justified from all things,” &c. The quotations might be multi- plied, but these are decisive. The notion that though an act of forgiveness may take place, we are unable to ascertain a fact so important to us, is also irreconcilable with many scrip- tures in which the writers of the New Testa- ment speak of an experience, not confined personally to themselves, or to those Christians who were endowed with spiritual gifts, but common to allChristians. ‘ Being justified by faith we have peace with God.” ‘“ We joy in God, by whom we have received the reconcilia- tion.” ‘ Being reconciled unto God by the death of his Son.” ‘We have not received the spirit of bondage again unto fear, but the spirit of adoption, by which we cry, Abba, Fa- ther.” To these may be added innumerable passages: which express the comfort, the confi dence, and the joy of Christians, their “ friend. ship” with God; their “access” to him; their entire union and delightful intercourse with him; and their absolute confidence in the suc- cess of their prayers. All such passages are perfectly consistent with deep humility, and self-diffidence; but they are irreconcilable with a state of hostility between the parties, and with an unascertained and only hoped-for restoration of friendship and favour. An assurance, therefore, that the sins which are felt to “be a burden intolerable” are for- given, and that the ground of that apprehension of future punishment which causes the peni- tent to “dewail his manifold sins,” is taken away by restoration to the favour of the offend- ed God, must be allowed, or nothing would be more incongruous and impossible than the com- fort, the peace, the rejoicing of spirit, which in the Scriptures are attributed to believers. Few Christians of evangelical views have, therefore, denied the possibility of our becom- ing assured of the favour of God in a sufficient degree to give substantial comfort to the mind. Their differences have rather respected the means by which the contrite become assured of that change in their relation to Almighty God, whom they have offended, which in Scrip- ture is expressed by the term justification. The question has been, (where the notion of an as- surance of eternal salvation has not been under discussion,) by what means the assurance of the divine favour is conveyed to the mind. Some have concluded that we obtain it by ade others by the direct testimony of the Holy Spirit to the mind. See Hory Srirrr. ASSYRIA, a kingdom of Asia, of the ex- tent, origin, and duration of which very dif- ferent accounts have been given by ancient writers. Ctesias and Diodorus Siculus affirm, that the Assyrian monarchy, under Ninus and Semiramis, comprehended the greater part of the known world: but, if this had been the case, it is not likely that Homer and Herodotus ASS would have omitted a fact so remarkable. The sacred records intimate that none of the ancient states or kingdoms were of considerable extent ; for neither Chedezlaomer, nor any of the neigh- bouring princes, were tributary or subject to Assyria; and “ we find nothing,” says Playfair, “of the greatness or power of this kingdom in the history of the judges and succeeding kings of Israel, though the latter kingdom was op- pressed and enslaved by many different powers in that period.” It is therefore highly probable that Assyria was originally of small extent. According to Ptolemy, this country was bound- ed on the north by part of Armenia and Mount Niphates; on the west by the Tigris; on the south by Susiana; and on the east by part of Media and the mountains Choatra and Zagros. Of the origin, revolutions, and termination of Assyria, properly so called, and distinguished from the grand monarchy which afterward bore this appellation, the following account is given by Mr. Playfair, as the most probable:—‘‘ The founder of it was Ashur, the second son of Shem, who departed from Shinar, upon the usurpation of Nimrod, at the head of a large body of adventurers, and laid the foundations of Nineveh, where he resided, and erected a new Kingdom, called Assyria, after his name, Gen. x, 11. These events happened not long after Nimrod had established the Chaldean monar- chy, and fixed his residence at Babylon; but it does not appear that Nimrod reigned in As- syria. The kingdoms of Assyria and Babylon were originally distinct and separate, Micah v, 6; and in this state they remained until Ninus conquered Babylon, and made it tribu- tary to the Assyrian empire. Ninus, the suc- cessor of Ashur, Gen. x, 11, seized on Chaldea after the death of Nimrod, and united the king- doms of Assyria and Babylon. This great rince is said to have subdued Asia, Persia, edia, Egypt, &c. If he did so, the effects of his conquests were of no long duration; for, in the days of Abraham, we do not find that any of the neighbouring kingdoms were sub- ject to Assyria.” Ninus was succeeded by Se- miramis, a princess hold, enterprising, and fortunate; of whose adventures and exploits many fabulous relations have been recorded. Playfair is of opinion that there were two princesses of this name, who flourished at dif- ferent periods; one, the consort of Ninus; and another, who lived five generations before Nitocris, queen of Nebuchadnezzar. Of the successors of Ninus and Semiramis nothing certain is recorded. The last of the ancient Assyrian kings was Sardanapalus, who was besieged in his capital by Arbaces, governor of Media, in concurrence with the Babylonians. These united forces defeated the Assyrian army, demolished the capital, and became masters of the empire, B. C. 821. “ After the death of Sardanapalus,” says Mr. Playfair, “the Assyrian empire was divided into three kingdoms; namely, the Median, Assyrian, and abylonian. rbaces retained the supreme authority, and nominated govern- ors in Assyria and Babylon, who were honoured with the title of kings, while they remained 102 ASS subject and tributary to the Persian monarchs Belesis,” he says, ‘a Chaldean priest, who as- sisted Arbaces in the conquest of Sardanapalus, received the government of Babylon as the reward of his services; and Phul was intrusted with that of Assyria. The Assyrian governor gradually enlarged the boundaries of his king- dom, and was succeeded by Tiglath-pileser, Salmanasar, and Sennacherib, who asserted and maintained their independence. After the death of Assar-haddon, the brother and succes- sor of Sennacherib, the kingdom of Assyria was split, and annexed to the kingdoms of Media and Babylon. Several tributary princes afterward reigned in Nineveh; but we hear no more of the kings of Assyria, but of those of Babylon. Cyaxares, king of Media, assisted Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, in the siege of Nineveh, which they took and destroyed, B. C. 606.” The history of Assyria, deduced from Scrip- ture, and acknowledged as the only authentic one by Sir Isaac Newton and many others, ascribes the foundation of the monarchy to Pul, or Phul, about the second year of Mena- hem, king of Israel, twenty-four years before the era of Nabonassar, 1579 years after the flood, and, according to Blair, 769, or, accord- ing to Newton, 790, years before Christ. Mena- hem, having taken forcible possession of the throne of Israel by the murder of Shallum, 2 Kings xv, 10, was attacked by Pul, but pre- vented the hostilities meditated against him by presenting the invader with a thousand talents of silver. Pul, thus gratified, took the king- dom of Israel under his protection, returned to his own country, after having received volun- tary homage from several nations in his march, as he had done from Israel, and became the founder of a great empire. As it was in the. days of Pul that the Assyrians began to afflict the inhabitants of Palestine, 2 Kings xi, 9; 1 Chron. v, 26, this was the time, according to Sir Isaac Newton, when the Assyrian empire arose. Thus he interprets the words, “ since the time of the kings of Assyria,” Nehem. ix, 32; that is, since the time of the kingdom of As- syria, or since the rise of that empire. But though this was the period in which the Assy- rians afflicted Israel, it is not so evident that the time of the kings of Assyria must neces- sarily be understood of the rise of the Assyrian empire. However, Newton thus reasons; and observes, that ‘‘Pul and his successors afflicted Israel, and conquered the nations round about them; and upon the ruin of many small anc ancient kingdoms erected their empire; con quering the Medes, as well as other nations.’ It is farther argued, that God, by the Prophel Amos, in the reign of Jeroboam, about ten 01 ales years before the reign of Pul, (see Amos vi, 13, 14,) threatened to raise up a nation against Israel; and that, as Pul reigned pre sently after the prophecy of Amos, and was the first upon record who began to fulfil it, he may be rey reckoned the first conqueror and founder of this empire. See 1 Chron. v, 26. Pul was succeeded on the throne of Assyria by his elder son Tiglath-pileser; and at the ASS same time he left Babylon to his younger son Nabonassar, B. C. 747. Of the conquests of this second king of Assyria against the kings of Israel and Syria, when he took Damascus, and subdued the Syrians, we have an account in 2 Kings xv, 29, 37; xvi, 5,9; 1 Chron. v, 26; by which the prophecy of Amos was fulfilled, and from which it appears that the empire of the Assyrians was now become great and powerful. Thenext king of Assyria was Shal- maneser, or Salmanassar, who succeeded Tig- lath-pileser, B. C.'729, and invaded Phenicia, took the city of Samaria, and, B. C. 721, car- ried the ten tribes into captivity, placing them in Chalach and Chabor, by the river Gazon, and in the cities of the Medes, 2 Kings xvii, 6. Shalmaneser was succeeded by Sennacherib, B. C. 719; and in the year B. C. 714, he was put to flight with great slaughter by the Ethio- pians and Egyptians. In the year B. C. 711 the Medes revolted from the Assyrians; Senna- cherib was slain, and he was succeeded by his son Esar-Haddon, Asserhaddon, Asordan, As- saradin, or Sarchedon, by which names he is called by different writers. He began his reign at Nineveh, in the year of Nabonassar 42; and in the year 68 extended it over Babylon. He then carried the remainder of the Samaritans into captivity, and peopled Samaria with cap- tives brought from several parts of his king- dom ; and in the year of Nabonassar 77 or 78 he seems to have put an end to the reign of the Ethiopians over Egypt. “ In the reign of Sen- nacherib and Asser-Hadon,” says Sir I. New- ton, ‘‘ the Assyrian empire seems arrived at its greatness; being united under one monarch, and containing Assyria, Media, Apolloniatis, Susiana, Chaldea, Mesopotamia, Cilicia, Syria, Phenicia, Egypt, Ethiopia, and part of Arabia ; and reaching eastward into Elymais, and Pa- retecene, a province of the Medes, and if Chalach and Chabor be Colchis and Iberia, as some think, and as may seem probable from the circumcision used by those nations till the days of Herodotus, we are also to add these two provinces, with the two Armenias, Pontus, and Cappadocia, as far as to the river Halys: for Herodotus tells us that the people of Cap- padocia, as far as to that river, were called Syrians by the Greeks, both before and after the days of Cyrus; and that the Assyrians were also called Syrians by the Greeks.” Asser- Hadon was succeeded in the year B. C. 668 by Saosduchinus. At this time Manasseh was allowed to return home, and fortify Jerusalem ; end the Egyptians also, after the Assyrians had harassed Egypt and Ethiopia three years, Isa. xx, 3, 4, were set at liberty. Saosduchinus, after a reign of twenty years, was succeeded at Babylon, and probably at Nineveh also, by Chyniladon, in the year B, C. 647. This Chyniladon is supposed by Newton to be the Nebuchadonosor mentioned in the book of Ju- dith, i, 1-15, who made war upon Arphaxad, king of the Medes; and, though deserted by his auxiliaries of Cilicia, Damascus, Syria, Phenicia, Moab, Ammon, and Esypts routed the army of the Medes, and slew haxad. This Arphaxad is supposed to be either Dejoces “103 ASS or his son Phraortes, mentioned by Herodotus. Soon after the death of Phraortes, in the year B. C. 635, the Scythians invaded the Mates and Persians; and in 625, Nabopolassar, the commander of the forces of Chyniladon in Chaldea, revolted from him, and became king of Babylon. Chyniladon was either then or soon after succeeded at Nineveh by the last king of Assyria, called Sarac by Polyhistor. The authors of the Universal History suppose Saosduchinus to have been the Nebuchadono- sor of Scripture, and Chyniladon or Chyaala- dan to have been the Sarac of Polyhistor. At length Nebuchadnezzar, the son of Nabopo- lassar, married Amyit, the daughter of Astya- ges, king of the Medes, and sister of Cyaxares and by this marriage the two families having contracted affinity, they conspired against the Assyrians. Nabopolassar being old, and As- tyages dead, their sons Nebuchadnezzar and Cyaxares led the armies of the two nations against Nineveh, slew Sarac, destroyed the city, and shared the kingdom of the Assyrians. This victory the Jews refer to the Chaldeans, the Greeks, tothe Medes; Tobit, xiv, 15, Poly- histor, and Ctesias, to both. With this victory commenced the great successes of Nebuchad- nezzar and Cyaxares, and it laid the foundation of the two collateral empires of the Babylonians and Medes, which were branches of the Assy- rian empire; and hence the time of the fall of the Assyrian empire is determined, the con- querors being then in their youth. In the reign of Josiah, when Zephaniah prophesied, Nineveh and the kingdom of Assyria were standing; and their fall was predicted by that Prophet, Zeph.i,3; ii,13. And in the end of his reign, Pharaoh-Necho, king of Egypt, the successo1 of Psammitichus, went up against the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates, to fight against Carchemish, or Circutium; and in his way thither slew Josiah, 2 Kings xxiii, 29; 2 Chron. xxxv, 20; and therefore the last king of As- syria was not yet slain. But in the third and fourth years of Jehoiakim, the successor of Josiah, the two conquerors having taken Nine- veh, and finished their war in Assyria, prose- cuted their conquests westward; and, leading their forces against the king of Egypt, as an invader of their right of conquest, they beat him at Carchemish, and took from him what- ever he had recently taken from the Assyrians, 2 Kings xxiv, 7; Jer. xlvi, 2; “‘ and therefore we cannot err,” says Sir Isaac Newton, ‘‘ above a year or two, if we refer the destruction of Nineveh, and fall of the Assyrian empire, to the third year of Jehoiakim,” or the hundred and fortieth, or according to Blair, the hun- dred and forty-first year of Nabonassar ; that is, the year B. C. 607. ' Of the government, laws, religion, learning, customs, &c, of the ancient Assyrians, nothing absolutely certain is recorded. Their kingdom was at first small, and subsisted for several ages under hereditary chiefs; and their go- vernment was simple. Afterward, when they rose to the sublimity of empire, their govern- ment seems to have been despotic, and the empire hereditary. Their laws were probably AST few, and depended upon the mere will of the prince. To Ninus we may ascribe the division of the Assyrian empire into provinces and go- vernments; for we find that this institution was fully established in the reigns of Semi- ramis and her successors. The people were distributed into a certain number of tribes; and their occupations or professions were hereditary. The Assyrians had several distinct councils, and several tribunals for the regulation of pub- lic affairs. Of councils there were three, which were created by the body of the people, and who governed the state in conjunction with the sovereign. The first consisted of officers who had retired from military employments ; the second, of the nobility; and the third, of the old men. The sovereigns also had three tribunals, whose province it was to watch over the conduct of the people. The Assyrians have been competitors with the Egyptians for the honour of having invented alphabetic writing. It appears, from the few remains now extant of the writing of these ancient nations, that their letters had a great affinity with each other. They much resembled one another in shape; and they ranged them in the same manner, from right to left. ASTROLOGY, the art of foretelling future events, from the aspects, positions, and influ- ences of the heavenly bodies. The word is compounded of dori, star, and Adyos, discourse ; whence, in the literal sense of the term, as- trology should signify no more than the doc- trine or science of the stars. Astrology judi- ciary, or judicial, is what we commonly call simple astrology, or that which pretends to fore- tel mortal events, even those which have a de- pendence on the free will and agency of man; as if they were directed by the stars. This art, which owed its origin to the practice of knavery on credulity, is now universally explod- ed by the intelligent part of mankind. Judicial astrology is commonly said to have been in- vented in Chaldea, and thence transmitted to the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans ; though some will have it of Egyptian origin, and as- cribe the invention to Cham. But we derive it from the Arabians. The Chaldeans, and the Egyptians, and indeed almost all the na- tions of antiquity, were infatuated with the chimeras of astrology. It originated in the notion, that the stars have an influence, either beneficial or malignant, upon the affairs of men, which may be discovered, and made the ground of certain prediction, in particular cases ; and the whole art consisted in applying astronomical observations to this fanciful pur- pose. Diodorus Siculus relates that the Chal- deans learned these arts from the Egyptians; and he would not have made this assertion, if there had not been at least a general tradition that they were practised from the earliest times in Egypt. ‘The system was, in those re- mote ages, intimately connected with Sabaism, or the worship of the stars as divinities ; but whether it emanates from idolatry or fatality, it denies God and his providence, and is there- fore condemned in the Scriptures, and ranked with practices the most offensive and pro- voking to the Divine Majesty, 104 ATH ASTYAGES, otherwise Cyaxares, king of the Medes, and successor to Phraortes. He reigned forty years, and died A. M. 3409. He was father to Astyages, otherwise called Darius the Mede. e had two daughters, Mandane and Amyit: Mandane married Cam- byses, the Persian, and was the mother of Cyrus; Amyit married Nebuchadnezzar, tke son of Nabopolassar, and was the mother of Evilmerodach. . Asryaces, otherwise called Ahasuerusin the Greek, Dan. 1x, 1, or Cyaxares in Xenophon, or Apandus in Ctesias, was appointed by his father Cyaxares governor of Media, and sent with Nabopolassar, king of Babylon, against Saracus, otherwise called Chynaladanus, king of Assyria. These two princes besieged Sa- racus in Nineveh, took the city, and dismem- bered the Assyrian empire. Astyages was with Cyrus at the conquest of Babylon, and suc- ceeded Belshazzar, king of the Chaldeans, as is expressly mentioned in Daniel, v, 30, 31, A. M. 3447. After his death Cyrus succeeded him, A. M. 3456. eats ASUPPIM, a word which signifies gather- ings, and the name of the treasury of the tem- ple of Jerusalem, 1 Chron. xxvi, 15. ATHALIAGM, the daughter of Omri, king of Samaria, and wife to Jehoram, king of Judah. This princess, being informed that Jehu had slain ee son Ahaziah, resolved to take the government upon herself, 2 Kings xi; which that she might effect without opposition, she destroyed all the children that Jehoram had by other wives, and all their offspring. But Je- hosheba, the sister of Ahaziah, by the father’s side only, was at this time married to Jehoiada, the high priest; and while Athaliah’s execu- tioners were murdering the rest, she conveyed Joash the son of Ahaziah away, and kept him and his nurse concealed in an apartment of the temple, during six years. In the seventh year, his uncle Jehoiada being determined to place him on the throne of his ancestors, and procure the destruction of Athaliah, he en- gaged the priests and Levites, and the leading men in all the parts of the kingdom in his interest, and in a public assembly produced him, and made them take an oath of secrecy and fidelity to him. He then distributed arms among the people, whom he divided inte three bodies, one to guard the person of the king, and the other two to secure the gates of the temple. After this, he brought out the young prince, set the crown on his head, put the book of the law into his hand, and with sound of trumpet proclaimed him; which was _se- conded with the joyful shouts and acclamations of the pa Athaliah, hearing the noise, made all haste to the temple; but when, to her astonishment, she saw the young king seated on a throne, she rent her clothes and cried out, “Treason!” But at the command of Jehoiada, the guards seized and carried her out of the temple, putting all to the sword who offered to rescue or assist her; and then taking her to the stable gate belonging to the palace, there put her to death, A. M. 3126. ATHANASIANS, the orthodox followers of St. Athanasius, the great and able antagon- ATH ist of Arius. The Athanasian Creed, though enerally admitted not to be drawn up by this ather, (but probably, as Doctor Waterland says, by Hilary, bishop of Arles, in the fifth century,) is universally allowed to contain a fair expression of his sentiments. This creed says, “The Catholic faith is this: that we worship One God in Trinity, and Trinity m Unity: neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the glory equal,. the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost;” namely, “‘uncreate, incomprehensible, eternal,” é&c. The true key to the Athanasian Creed lies in the knowledge of the errors to which it was op- osed. The Sabellians considered the Father, on, and Holy Spirit as one in person ;—this was ‘confounding the persons:” the Arians considered them as differing in essence—three beings ;—this was ‘dividing the substance:” and against these two hypotheses was the creed originally framed. And since every sect was willing to adopt the language of Scripture, it was thought necessary to adopt scholastic terms, in order to fix the sense of Scripture, language. Many, however, hold the doctrine of the Atha- nasian Creed, and approve its terms, who ob- eye its damnatory clauses. See ARIANs. THANASIUS, the celebrated patriarch of Alexandria, resisted Arius and his erroneous doctrines; and his sentiments as to the Trinity are embodied in the creed which bears his name, though not composed by him. At the Council of Nice, though then but a deacon of Alexandria, his reputation for skill in contro- versy ese him an honourable place in the council, and with great dexterity he exposed the sophistry of those who pleaded on the side of Arius. Notwithstanding the influence of the emperor, who had recalled Arius from banishment, and upon a plausible confession of his faith, in which he affected to be orthodox in his sentiments, directed that he should be received by the Alexandrian church, Atha- nasius refused to admit him to communion, and exposed his prevarication. The Arians upon this exerted themselves to raise tumults at Alexandria, and to injure the character of Athanasius with the emperor, who was pre- vailed upon to pronounce against him a sen- tence of banishment. In the beginning of the reign of Constantius he was recalled ; but was again disturbed and deposed through the influ- ence of the Arians. Accusations were also sent against him and other bishops from the east to the west, but they were acquitted by Pope Julius in full council. Athanasius was restored to his see upon the death of the Arian bishop, who had been placed in it. Arian- ism, however, being in favour at court, he was condemned by a council convened at Ar- les, and by another at Milan, and was obliged to fly into the deserts. He returned with the other bishops whom Julian the apostate recall- ed from banishment, and in A. D. 362, held a 105 ATH council at Alexandria, where the belief of a consubstantial Trinity was openly professed. Many now were recovered from Arianism, and brought to subscribe the Nicene Creed. During the reign’ of Jovian also Athanasius held an- other council, which declared its adherence to the Nicene faith; and with the exception of a short retirement under Valens, he was permitted to sit down in quiet and govern his affectionate church of Alexandria. Athanasius was an eminent instrument of maintaining the truth in an age when errors affecting the great foundation of our faith were urged with great subtlety. He was by his acuteness able to trace the enemy through his most insidious modes of attack; and thus to preserve the simple and unwary from being misled by terms and distine- tions, which, whilst they sounded in unison with the true faith of the Gospel, did in fact imply, or at least open the door to, the most deadly errors. The Scripture doctrine of the Trinity, as explained by him, at length triumphed over the heresies which at one time met with so much support and sanction; and the views of Athanasius have been received, in substance, by all orthodox churches to the present time. ATHEIST, in the strict and proper sense of the word, is one who does not believe in the existence of a God, or who owns no being superior to nature. It is compounded of the two terms, a negative, and Geis, God, signify- ing without God. Atheists have been also known by the name infidels; but the word infidel is now commonly used to distinguish a more numerous party, and is become almost synonymous with Deist. He who disbelieves the existence of a God, as an infinite, intelligent, and a moral agent, is a direct or speculative Atheist; he who confesses a Deity and provi- dence in words, but denies them in his life and actions, is a practical Atheist. That Atheism existed in some sense before the flood, may be suspected from what we read in Scripture, as well as from Heathen tradition; and it is not very unreasonable to suppose, that the deluge was partly intended to evince to the world a heavenly power, as Lord of the universe, and superior to the visible system of nature. This was at least a happy consequence of that fatal catastrophe; for, as it is observed by Dean Sherlock, ‘The universal deluge, and the confusion of languages, had so &bundantly convinced mankind of a divine power and pro- vidence, that there was no such creature as an Atheist, till their ridiculous idolatries had tempt- ed some men of wit and thought, rather to own no God than such as the Heathens worshipped.” Atheistical principles were long nourished and cherished in Greece, and especially among the atomical, peripatetic, and skeptical phi- losophers; and hence some have ascribed the origin of Atheism to the philosophy of Greece. This is true, if they mean that species of re- fined Atheism, which contrives any impious scheme of principles to account for the ia of the world, without a divine being. For though there may have been in former ages, and in other countries, some persons irreligious in principle as well as in practice, yet we know ATH of none who, forming a philosophical scheme of mnpiety, became a sect, and erected colleges of Atheistical learning, till the arrogant and en- terprising genius of Greece undertook that detestable work. Carrying their presumptuous and ungoverned speculations into the very essence of the divinity, at first they doubted, and at length denied, the existence of a first cause independent of nature, and of a provi- dence that superintends its laws, and governs the concerns of mankind. These principles, with the other improvements of Greece, were transferred to Rome; and, excepting in Italy, we hear little of Atheism, for many ages after the Christian era. “For some ages before the Reformation,” says Archbishop Tillotson, “ Atheism was confined to Italy, and had its chief residence at Rome. But, in this last age, Atheism has travelled over the Alps and infect- ed France, and now of late it hath crossed the seas, and invaded our nation, and hath prevail- ed to amazement.” However, to Tillotson, and other able writers, we owe its suppression in this country; for they pressed it down with a weight of sound argument, from which it has never been able to raise itself. For although in our time, in France and Germany a subtle Atheism was revived, and spread its unhallow- ed and destructive influence for many years throughout the Continent, it made but little progress in this better-instructed nation. Atheism, in its primary sense, comprehends, or at least goes beyond, every heresy in the world; for it professes to acknowledge no reli- gion, true or false. The two leading hypothe- ses which have prevailed, among Atheists, respecting this world and its origin, are, that of Ocellus Lucanus, adopted and improved b Aristotle, that it was eternal; and that of Epi- curus, that it was formed by a fortuitous con- course of atoms. “ That the soul is material and mortal, Christianity an imposture, the Scripture a forgery, the worship of God super- stition, hell a fable, and heaven a dream, our life without providence, and our death without hope, like that of asses and dogs, are part of the glorious gospel of our modern Atheists.” The being of a God may be proved from the marks of design, and from the order and beauty visible in the world; from universal consent ; from the relation of cause and effect; from internal consciousness ; and from the necessity of a final as well as an efficient cause. Of all the false doctrines and foolish opi- nions that ever infested the mind of man, no- thing can possibly equal that of Atheism, which is such a monstrous contradiction of all evi- dence, to all the powers of understanding, and the dictates of common sense, that it may be well questioned whether any man can really fall into it by a deliberate use of his judgment. All nature so clearly points out, and so loudly proclaims, a Creator of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, that whoever hears not its voice, and sees not its proofs, may well be thought wilfully deaf, and obstinately blind. If it be evident, selfevident to every man of thought, that there can be no effect without a cause, what shall we say of that manifold combina- 106 ATH tion of effects, that series of operations, that system of wonders, which fill the universe, which present themselves to all our perceptions, and strike our minds and our senses on every side? Every faculty, every object of every faculty, demonstrates a Deity. The meanest insect we can see, the minutest and most con- temptible weed we can tread upon, is reall sufficient to confound Atheism, and baffle all its pretensions. How much more that astonish- ing variety and multiplicity of God’s works with which we are continually surrounded! Let any man survey the face of the earth, or lift up his eyes to the firmament; let him con- sider the nature and instincts of brute animale, and afterward look into the operations of his own mind, and will he presume to say or sup- pose that all the objects he meets with are nothing more than the result of unaccountable accidents and blind chance? Can he possibly conceive that such wonderful order should spring out of confusion? or that such perfect beauty should be ever formed by the fortuitous operations of unconscious, wnactive particles of matter? As well, nay better, and more easily, might he suppose that an earthquake might happen to build towns and cities; or the ma- terials carried down by a flood fit themselves up without hands into a regular fleet. For what are towns, cities, or fleets, in comparison of the vast and amazing fabric of the universe! In short, Atheism offers such violence to all our faculties, that it seems scarce credible it should ever really find any place in the human understanding. Atheism is unreasonable, be- cause it gives no tolerable account of the ex- istence of the world. ‘This is one of the great- est difficulties with which the Atheist has to contend. For he must suppose either that the world is eternal, or that it was formed by chance and a fortuitous concourse of the parts of matter. That the world had a beginning, is evident from universal tradition, and the most ancient history that exists; from there being no memorials of any actions performed previously to the time assigned in that history as the era of the creation; from the origin of learning and arts, and the liability of the parts of matter to decay. That the world was not produced by chance, is also evident. Nothing can be more unreasonable than to ascribe to chance an effect which appears with all the characters of a wise design and contrivance. Will chance fit means to ends, even in ten thousand instances, and not fail in a single one? How often might a man, after shaking a set of letters in a bag, throw them on the ground, before they would become an exact poem, or form a good discourse in prose? In short, the arguments in proof of Deity are so numerous, and at the same time $o obvious to a thinking mind, that to waste time in dis- puting with an Atheist, is approaching too much toward that irrationality, which may be considered as one of the most striding charac- teristics of the sect. The more noted Atheists, since the Reforma- tion, are Machiavel, Spinoza, Hobbes, Blount, and Vanini. To these may be added Hume, ATH and Voltaire the corypheus of the sect, and the great nursing father of that swarm of them which has appeared in these last days. Dr. Samuel Clarke, in his “ Demonstration of the Being of a God,” says, that Atheism arises either from stupid ignorance, or from corruption of principles and manners, or from the reasonings of false philosophy; and he adds, that the latter, who are the only Atheisti- cal persons capable of being reasoned with at all, must of necessity own that, supposing it cannot be proved to be true, yet it is a thing very desirable, and which any wise man would wish to be true, for the great benefit and hap- es of man, that there was a God, an intel- igent and wise, a_just and good Being, to govern the world. hatever hypothesis these men can possibly frame, whatever. argument they can invent, by which they would exclude God and providence out of the world; that very argument or hypothesis, will of necessity lead them to this concession. If they argue, that our notion of God arises not from nature and reason, but from the art and contrivance of politicians; that argument itself forces them to confess, that it is manifestly for the interest of human society, that it should be believed there is a God. i they suppose that the world was made by chance, and is every moment subject to be destroyed by chance again; no man can be so absurd as to contend, that it is as comfortable and desirable to live in such an uncertain state of things, and so continually liable to ruin, without any hope of renovation, as in a world that is under the preservation and conduct of a powerful, wise, and good God. If they argue against the being of God, from the faults and defects which they imagine they can find in the frame and constitution of the visible and material world; this supposition obliges them to acknowledge that it would have been better the world had been made by an intelligent and wise Being, who might have prevented all faults and imperfections. If they argue against providence, from the faultiness and inequality which they think they discover in the management of the moral world; this is a plain confession, that it is a thing more fit and desirable in itself, that the world should be governed by a just and good Being, than by mere chance or unintelligent necessity. Lastly, if they suppose the world to be eternally and necessarily self-existent, and consequently that every thing in it is established by a blind and eternal fatality; no rational man can at the same time deny, but that liberty and choice, ora free power of acting, is a more eligible state, than to be determined thus in all our actions, as a stone is to move downward, by an absolute and inevitable fate. In a word, which way soever they turn themselves, and whatever hypothesis they make, concerning the original and frame of things, nothing is so certain and undeniable, as that man, considered without the protection and conduct of a supe- rior Being, is in a far worse case than upon supposition of the being and government of God, and of men’s being under his peculiar conduct, protection, and favour. 107 ATH ATHENS, a celebrated city of Greece, too well known to be here described. St. Paul’s celebrated sermon, Acts xvii, was preached on the Areopagus, or Hill of Mars, where a cele- brated court was held which took cognizance of matters of religion, blasphemies against the gods, the building of temples, &c. (See Are- opagus.) ‘The inscription on the altar, “to the unknown God,” which St. Paul so appropriate- ly made the text of his discourse, was adopted on the occasion of the city having been re- lieved from a pestilence; and they erected altars to “the God unknown,” either as not knowing to which of their divinities they were indebted for the favour, or, which is more pro- bable, because there was something in the cir- cumstances of this deliverance, which led them to refer it to a higher power than their own gods, even to the supreme God, who was not unfrequently styled, the “unknown,” by the wiser Heathens. The existence of such altars is expressly mentioned by Lucian. On the place where the great Apostle bore his noble testimony against idols, and declared to them the God whom they ignorantly worshipped, Dr. E. D. Clarke, the traveller, remarks, “ It is not possible to conceive a situation of great- er peril, or one more calculated to prove the sincerity of a preacher, than that in which the Apostle was here placed; and the truth of this, perhaps, will never be better felt than by a spectator, who from this eminence actually beholds the monuments of Pagan pomp and superstition by which he, whom the Athenians considered as the setter forth of strange gods, was then surrounded: representing to the imagination the disciples of Socrates and of Plato, the dogmatist of the porch, and the skeptic of the academy, addressed by a poor and lowly man, who, ‘ rude in speech,’ without the ‘ enticing words of man’s wisdom,’ enjoined precepts contrary to their taste, and very hostile to their eee One of the peculiar privi- leges of the Areopagitz seems to have been set at defiance by the zeal of St. Paul on this occasion; namely, that of inflicting extreme and exemplary punishment upon any person who should slight the celebration of the holy mysteries, or blaspheme the gods of Greece. We ascended to the summit by means of steps cut in the natural stone. The sublime scene here exhibited is so striking, that a brief de- scription of it may prove how truly it offers to us a commentary upon the Apostle’s words, as they were delivered upon the spot. He stood upon the top of the rock, and beneath the ca- nopy of heaven. Before him there was spread a glorious prospect of mountains, islands, seas, and skies; behind him towered the lofty Acro- polis, crowned with all its marble temples. Thus every object, whether in the face of na- ture, or among the works of art, conspired to elevate the mind, and to fill it with reverence toward that Being who made and governs the world, Acts xvii, 24, 28; who sitteth in that light which no mortal eye can approach, and yet is nigh unto the meanest of his creatures; in whom we live, and move, and have ow being.” ATO ATONEMENT, the satisfaction offered to divine justice by the death of Christ for the sins of mankind, by virtue of which all true penitents who believe in Christ are personally reconciled to God, are freed from the penalty of their sins, and entitled to eternal life. The atonement for sin made by the death of Christ, is represented in the Christian system as the means by which mankind may be delivered from the awful catastrophe of eternal death; from judicial inflictions of the displeasure of a Governor, whose authority has been contemned, and whose will has been resisted, which shall know no mitigation in their degree, nor bound to their duration. This end it professes to ac- complish by means which, with respect to the Supreme Governor himself, preserve his cha- racter from mistake, and maintain the authority of his government; and with respect to man, give him the strongest possible reason for hope, and render more favourable the condition of his earthly probation. These are considera- tions which so manifestly show, from its own internal constitution, the superlative import- ance and excellence of Christianity, that it would be exceedingly criminal to overlook them. How sin may be forgiven without leading to such misconceptions of the divine character as would encourage disobedience, and thereby weaken the influence of the divine govern- ment, must be considered as a problem of very difficult solution. A government which ad- mitted no forgiveness, would sink the guilty to despair; a government which never punishes offence, is a contradiction,—it cannot exist. Not to punish the guilty, is to dissolve au- thority ; to punish without mercy, is to destroy, and where all are guilty, to make the destruc- tion universal. That we cannot sin with im- punity, is a matter determined. The Ruler of the world is not careless of the conduct of his creatures ; for that penal consequences are at- tached to the offence, is not a subject of argu- ment, but is matter of fact evident by daily observation of the events and circumstances of the present life. It is a principle therefore already laid down, that the authority of God must be preserved ; but it ought to be remarked, that in that kind of administration which re- strains evil by penalty, and encourages obe- dience by favour and hope, we and all moral creatures are the interested parties, and not the divine Governor himself, whom, because of his independent and all-sufficient nature, our trans- gressions cannot injure. The reasons, there- fore, which compel him to maintain his au- thority do not terminate in himself. If he treats offenders with severity, it is for our sake, and for the sake of the moral order of the uni- verse, to which sin, if encouraged by a negli- gent administration, or by an entire or frequent impunity, would be the source of endless dis- order and misery ; and if the granting of par- don to offence be strongly and even severely guarded, so that no less a satisfaction could be accepted than the death of God’s own Son, we are to refer this to the moral necessity of the ease as arising out of the gencral welfare of 108 ATO accountable creatures, liable to the deep evil of sin, and-not to any reluctance on the part of our Maker to forgive, much less to an thing vindictive in his nature,—charges whic have been most inconsiderately and unfairly said to be implied in the doctrine of Christ’s vicarious sufferings. If it then be true, that the release of offending man from future pun- ishment, and his restoration to the divine fa- vour, ought, for the interests of mankind them- selves, and for the instruction and caution of other beings, to be so bestowed, that no license shall be given to offence ;—that God himself, whilst he manifests his compassion, should not appear less just, less, holy, than he really is ;— that his authority should be felt to be as com- pelling, and that disobedience should as truly, though not unconditionally, subject us to the deserved penalty, as though no hope of forgive- ness had been- exhibited ;—we ask, On what scheme, save that which is developed in the New Testament, are these necessary conditions provided for? ‘Necessary they are, unless we contend for a license and an impunity which shall annul all good government in the uni- verse, a point for which no reasonable man will contend; and if so, then we must allow that there is strong internal evidence of the truth of the doctrine of Scripture, when it makes the offer of pardon consequent only upon the securities we have before mentioned. If it be said, that sin may be pardoned in the ex- ercise of the divine prerogative, the reply is, that if this prerogative were exercised toward a part of mankind only, the passing by of the rest would be with difficulty reconciled to the divine character; and if the benefit were ex- tended to all, government would be at an end This scheme of bringing men within the ex ercise of a merciful prerogative, does not there. fore meet the obvious difficulty of the case; nor is it improved by confining the act of grace only to repentant criminals. For in the immediate view of danger, what offender, sur- rounded with the wreck of former enjoyments, feeling the vanity of guilty pleasures, now past for ever, and beholding the approach of the delayed penal visitation, but would repent? ‘Were the principle of granting pardon to re- pentance to regulate human governments, every criminal would escape, and judicial forms would become a subject for ridicule. Nor is it re- cognised by the divine Being in his conduct to men in the present state, although in this world punishments are not final and absolute. Repentance does not restore health injured by intemperance; property, wasted by profusion; or character, once stained by dishonourable practices. If repentance alone could secure pardon, then all must be pardoned, and govern- ment dissolved, as in the case of forgiveness by the exercise of mere prerogative; but if an arbitrary selection be made, then different and discordant principles of government are in- troduced into the divine administration, which is a derogatory supposition. The question proposed abstractedly, How may mercy be extended to offending creatures, the subjects of the divine government, without ATO encouraging vice, by lowering the righteous and holy character of God, and the authority of his government, in the maintenance of which the whole universe of beings are inter- ested? is, therefore, at once one of the most important and one of the most difficult that can employ the human mind. None of the theories which have been opposed to Chris- tianity affords a satisfactory solution of the problem. They assume principles either de- structive of moral government, or which can- not, in the circumstances of man, be acted upon. The only answer is found in the Holy Scriptures. They alone show, and, indeed, they alone profess to show, how God may be “just,” and yet the “ justifier” of the ungodly. Other schemes show how he may be merciful ; but the difficulty does not lie there. The Gos- pel meets it, by declaring “ the righteousness of God,” at the same time that it proclaims his mercy. The voluntary sufferings of the Divine Son of God “ for us,” that is, in our room and stead, magnify the justice of God; display his hatred to sin; proclaim “the exceeding sinful- ness” of transgression, by the deep and painful manner in which they were inflicted upon the Substitute ; warn the persevering offender of the terribleness, as well as the certainty, of his punishment; and open the gates of salvation to every penitent. It isa part of the same divine plan also to engage the influence of the Holy Spirit, to awaken penitence in man, and to lead the wanderer back to himself; to re- new our fallen nature in righteousness, at the Moment we are justified through faith, and to lace us in circumstances in which we may henestorth “walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” All the ends of government are here answered—no license is given to offence, —the moral law is unrepealed,—a day of judg- ment is still appointed,—future and eternal punishments still display their aw ful sanctions, —a new and singular display of the awful purity of the divine character is afforded,—yet par- don is offered to all who seek it; and the whole world may be saved. With such evidence of suitableness to the case of mankind, under such lofty views of connection with the principles and ends of moral government, does the doctrine of the atonement present itself. But other important considerations are not wanting to mark the united wisdom and goodness of that method of extending mercy to the guilty which Chris- tianity teaches us to have been actually and exclusively adopted. It is rendered, indeed, “worthy of all acceptation,” by the circum- stance of its meeting the difficulties we have just dwelt upon,—dificulties which could not otherwise have failed to make a gloomy im- pression upon every offender awakened to a sense of his spiritual danger; but it must be very inattentively considered, if it does not farther commend itself to us, by not only re- moving the apprehensions we might feel as to the severity of the divine Lawgiver, but as ex- alting him in our esteem as “ the righteous Lord, -who loveth righteousness,” who sur- rendered his beloved Son to suffering and 109 ATO death, that the influence of moral goodness might not be weakened in the hearts of his creatures ; and as a God of love, affording in this instance a view of the tenderness and benignity of his nature infinitely more impres- sive and affecting than any abstract descrip- tion could convey, or than any act of creating and providential power and grace could ex- hibit, and, therefore, most suitable to subdue that enmity which had unnaturally grown up in the hearts of his creatures, and which, when corrupt, they so easily transfer from a law which restrains their inclination to the Law- giver himself. If it be important to us to know the extent and reality of our danger, by the death of Christ it isdisplayed, not in descrip- tion, but in the most impressive action; if it be important that we should have an assurance of the divine placability toward us, it here receives a demonstration incapable of being heightened ; if gratitude be the most powerful motive of future obedience, and one which renders command on the one part, and active service on the other, “not grievous but joy- ous,” the recollection of such obligations as those which the “love of Christ” has laid us under, is a perpetual spring to this energetic affection, and will be iis means of raising it to higher and more delightful activity for ever. All that can most powerfully illustrate the united tenderness and awful majesty of God, and the odiousness of sin; all that can win back the heart of man to his Maker and Lord, and render future obedience a matter of affec- tion and delight as well as duty; all that can extinguish the angry and malignant passions of man to man; all that can inspire a mutual benevolence, and dispose to a self-denying charity for the benefit of others; all that can arouse by hope, or tranquillize by faith; is to be found in the vicarious death of Christ, an¢ the principles and purposes for which it was endured. The first declaration, on this subject, after the appearance of Christ, is that of John the Baptist, when he saw Jesus coming unto him, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world ;” where it is obvious, that when John called our Lord, “the Lamb of God,” he spoke of him under a sacrificial character, and of the effect of that sacrifice as an atonement for the sins of mankind. This was said of our Lord, even before he entered on his public office; but if any doubt should exist respecting the meaning of the Baptist’s expression, it is removed by other passages, in which a similar allusion is adopted, and in which it is specifically applied to the death of Christ, as an atonement for sin. In the Acta of the Apostles, the following words of Isaiah are, by Philip the evangelist, distinctly applied to Christ, and to his death: ‘He was led asa sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before hiseshearer, so opened he not his mouth. in his humiliation his judgment was taken away : and who shall declare his generation ? for his life is taken from the earth.” This par- ticular part of the prophecy being applied to our Lord’s death, the whole must relate to the ATO game subject ; for it is undoubtedly one entire prophecy, and the other expressions in it are still stronger: “He was wounded for our transgressions ; he was bruised for our iniqui- ties; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed: the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” In the First Epistle of Peter, is also astrong and very apposite text, in which the application of the term “lamb” to our Lord, and the sense in which it is applied, can admit of no doubt: “ Morasmuch as ye know that ye were not re- deemed with corruptible things, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot,” 1 Peter i, 18, 19. It is therefore evident that the Prophet Isaiah, six hundred years before the birth of Jesus ; that John the Baptist, on the commencement of his ministry; and that St. Peter, his friend, companion, and Apostle, subsequent to the transaction ; speak of Christ’s death as an atonement for sin, under the figure of a lamb sacrificed. The passages that follow, plainly and dis- tinctly declare the atoning efficacy of Christ’s death: ‘‘ Now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacri- fice of himself.” “ Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation,” Heb. ix, 26, 28. “This man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sin, for ever sat down on the right hand of God; for by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified,” Heb. x, 12. It is observable, that nothing similar is said of the death of any other person, and that no such efficacy is imputed to any other martyr- dom. ‘“ While we were yet sinners Christ died for us; much more then, being now justi- fied by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him: for if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life,” Rom. v, 8-10. The words, “reconciled to God by the death of his Son,” show that his death had an efficacy in our reconciliation; but reconciliation is only preparatory to salvation. ‘“ He has reconciled us to his Father in his cross, and in the bod of his flesh through death,” Col. i, 20, 33, What is said of reconciliation in these texts, is in some others spoken of sanctification, which is also preparatory to salvation. “We are sanctified,”—how ? “by the offering of the body of Christ once for all,” Heb. x, 10. In the same epistle, the blood of Jesus is called “the blood of the covenant by which we are sanctified.” In these and many other passages that occur in different parts of the New Testa- ment, it is therefore asserted that the death of Christ had an efficacy in the procuring of hu- man salvation. Such expressions are used concerning no other person, and the death of no other person; and it is therefore evident, that Christ’s death included something more than a confirmation of his preaching; some- thing more than a pattern of a holy and patient martyrdom; something more than a necessary 110 AUG antecedent to his resurrection, by which he gave a grand and clear proof of our resurrec- tion from the dead. hrist’s death was all these, but it was something more. It was ap atonement for the sins of mankind; and in this way only it became the accomplishment of our eternal redemption. See Day or Expr- TION. AUGSBURGH, or AUGUSTAN CON- FESSION. In 1530, a diet of the German prin- ces was convened by the emperor Charles V, to meet at Augsburgh, for the express purpose of composing the religious troubles which then distracted Germany. On this occasion Melane- thon was employed to draw up this famous con- fession of faith which may be considered as the creed of the German reformers, especially of the more temperate among them. It consist- ed of twenty-one articles, including the follow- ing points:—The Trinity, original sin, the incarnation, justification by faith, the word and sacraments, necessity of good works, the per- etuity of the church, infant baptism, the Lord’s Bupper, repentance and confession, the proper use of the sacraments, church order, rites and ceremonies, the magistracy, a future soderarat free will, the worship of saints, &c. It then proceeds to state the abuses of which the re- formers chiefly complained, as the denial of the sacramental cup to the laity, the celibacy of ‘the clergy, the mass, auricular confession, forced abstinence from meats, monastic vows, and the enormous power of the church of Rome. The confession was read at a full meeting of the diet, and signed by the elector of Saxony, and three other princes of the German empire. John Faber, afterward archbishop of Vienna, and two other Catholic divines, were employed to draw up an answer to this confession, which was replied to by Melancthon in his “ Apology for the Augsburgh Confession” in 1531. This confession and defence; the articles of Smal- cald, drawn up by Luther; hisycatechisms, &c, form the symbolical books of the Lutheran church; and it must be owned that they con- tain concessions in favour of some parts of opery, particularly the real presence, that few Piptcsonia in this country would admit. AUGUSTINE, or, as he is sometimes called in the court style of the middle ages, St. Avs- TIN, one of the ancient fathers of the church, whose writings for many centuries had almost as potent an influence on the religious opinions of Christendom as those of Aristotle exercised over philosophy. Indeed, it has often been men- tioned as a fact, with expressions of regret, that the writings of no man, those of the Stagirite excepted, contributed more than those of St. Augustine to encourage that spirit of subtle dis- quisition which subsequently distinguished the era of the Schoolmen. He was born, Novem- ber 13th, A. D. 354, at Tagasta, an episcopal city of Numidiain Africa. His parents, Patri- cius and Monica, were Christians of respect- able rank in life, who afforded their son all the means of instruction which his excellent genius and wonderful aptitude for learning seemed to require. He studied grammar and rhetoric at Madura, until he was sixteen years old; and AUG afterward removed to Carthage, to complete his studies. In both these cities, in all the fervour of unregenerate youth, he entered eagerly into the seducing scenes of dissipation and folly with which he was surrounded, and became not only depraved but infamous in his conduct. In this respect he was not improved by his subse- quent connection with the Manichees, whose unhallowed principles afforded an excuse for his immorality, and threw a veil over the vilest of his actions. The simplicity and minuteness with which he has narrated the numerous inci- dents of his childhood, youth, and mature age, in his celebrated book of “Confessions,” have afforded abundant matter of ridicule to the pro- fane and infidel wits of this and the last age. The reflections, however, which accompany his narrative, are generally important and judi- cious, and furnish to the moral philosopher copious materials for a history of the varieties of the human heart, and are of superior value to the humble Christian for the investigation and better knowledge of his own. With a strange though not uncommon inconsistency, few books have been more frequently quoted as authority on matters relating to general lite- rature and philosophy by infidels themselves, than St. Augustine’s otherwise despised “ Con- fessions,” and his ‘‘ City of God.” But, what- ever else is taught in this remarkable piece of autobiography, every pious reader will be de- lighted with the additional proofs which it con- tains of the ultimate prevalence of faithful prayer, especially on the part of Christian pa- rents. Monica’s importunate prayers to heaven followed the aberrations of her graceless son, when he settled at Carthage as a teacher of rhetoric; when he removed to Rome, and lodg- ed with a Manichee;—and when he finally set- tled at Milan as professor of rhetoric. St. Ambrose was at that time, A. D. 384, bishop of Milan, and to his public discourses Augus- tine began to pay much attention. His heart became gradually prepared for the reception of divine truth, and for that important change of heart and principles which constitutes “con- version.” The circumstances attending this change, though often related, are not unworthy of being repeated, if only to show that the mode of the Holy Spirit’s operations was in substance the same in those early days as they are now ; and time was when some of the sound- est divines and most worthy dignitaries of the church of England were in the habit of refer- ring with approbation to this well attested in- stance of change of heart. One of his Chris- tian countrymen, Pontinius, who held a high situation at court, having perceived a copy of St. Paul’s Epistles lying on the table, entered one day into conversation with him and his friend Alipius about the nature of faith and the happiness of those who lived in the enjoyment of religion. Augustine was deeply affected at the close of this visit; and when Pontinius had retired, giving vent to his feelings he address- ed Alipius in a most animated strain: ‘‘ How is this? What shall we do? Ignorant people come, and seize upon heaven; and ‘we, with our learning, (senseless wretches that we are!) 111 AUG behold we are immersed in flesh and blood‘ Are we ashamed to follow them? Yet is it not a still greater shame, not even to be able to fol- low them?’ Full of remorse and contrition Augustine left the house and retired to a secret part of the garden, followed by his friend, who seemed on this occasion to be a partaker of his grief only because he saw him grieved in spi- rit. Unwilling to unman himself, as he ac- counted it, before Alipius, he left him; and throwing himself down under the branches of a large fig tree he poured out a torrent of tears which he was unable any longer to restrain, and exclaimed in bitterness of soul, ‘‘ When, O Lord, when will thy anger cease? Why to- morrow? Why not at this time?’ He instantly heard what he considered to be the voice of a child, saying Tolle, lege, “Take and read.” These two Latin words were repeated several times; Augustine reflected upon them, checked his tears, received them as the voice of God, and running into the house, opened, according to the divine direction, the Epistles of St. Paul which he had left on the table, and attentively read the first passage which he found. It was Romans xiii, 13, 14; a passage peculiarly ap- plicable to him, in reference to his former habits and present state of mind: “ Not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wanton- ness, not in strife and envying: but put ye on THE Lorp Jesus Curist, and make not provi- sion for the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof.” He shut up the book, and was amazed that all his doubts and fears had vanished. Alipius was speedily informed of this wonderful change in his feelings and views; and after having desired to see the two verses, in the spirit of a true seeker he pointed out to Augustine the passage which immediately follows, and which he con sidered as peculiarly adapted to his own case. “ Him that is weak in the faith receive ye,’ &c, Rom. xiv, 1. The two friends then ran to acquaint Monica with these circumstances, the knowledge of which transported her with joy. In a frame of mind not unfamiliar to those who have themselves had “ much forgiven,” Augustine wished to retire at once from so wicked a world as that in which he had passed the first thirty-two years of his dissolute life. His secession, however, was only a temporary one; for he and Alipius were, a few months afterward, received by baptism into the Chris- tian church. After having composed several religious treatises in his retreat near Tagasta, especially against the errors of the Manichees, from which he had been so recently reclaimed, he was, in the year 392, ordained priest by Va- lerius, bishop of Hippo, now a part of the Bar- bary States on the coast of Africa. He there held a public disputation with Fortunatus, a celebrated priest among the Manichees, and acquitted himself with great spirit and success; he also wrote and preached largely and to great effect against the Donatists and Manichees. His reputation as a divine increased; and he was, at the close of the year 395, ordained bishop of Hippo, in which high station he continued with great advantage to wage war against va- rious orders of heretics. AUG Augustine had hitherto directed his theolo- gical artillery principally against the predesti- narian errors of the Manichees; but he was soon called upon to change his weapons and his mode of warfare, in attacking a new and not less dan- gerous class of heretics. In the year 412 he began to write against the injurious doctrines of Pelagius, a native of Britain, whe had resided for a considerable time at Rome, and acquired universal esteem by the purity of his manners, his piety, and his erudition. Alarmed at the consequences which seemed to him obviously to result from allowing that Adam’s sin is trans- mitted to all his posterity, and fortified in his sentiments on this subject by those of Origen and Ruffinus, with the latter of whom he had associated, he boldly denied tenets which he did not believe. In the defence of his opinions, Pelagius was seconded by Celestius, a man equally eminent for his talents and his virtues. Their principles were propagated at first rather by hints and intimations, than by open avowal and plain declarations; but this reserve was laid aside when they perceived the ready recep- tion which their doctrines obtained; and Celes- tus began zealously to disseminate them in Africa, while Pelagius sowed the same tares in Palestine, whence they were speedily trans- lanted to almost every corner of Christendom. f the brief notices, which have come down to us respecting their tenets, in the writings of their adversaries, be correct, they affirmed, “ It is not free will if it- requires the aid of God; because every one has it within the power of his own will to do any thing, or not to do it. Our victory over sin and Satan proceeds not from the help which God affords, but is owing to our own free will. The prayers which the church offers up either for the conversion of unbelievers and other sinners, or for the perse- verance of believers, are poured forth in vain. The unrestricted capability of men’s own free will is amply sufficient for all these things, and therefore no necessity exists for asking of God those things which we are able of ourselves to obtain; the gifts of grace being only neces- sary to enable men to do that more easily and completely which yet they could do themselves though more slowly and with greater difficulty ; and that they are perfectly free creatures,” in opposition to all the current notions of predes- tination and reprobation. These novel opi- nions were refuted by St. Augustine and St. Je- rom, as well as by Orosius, a Spanish presby- ter, and they were condemned as heresies in the council of Carthage and in that of Milevum. The discussions which then arose have been warmly agitated in various subsequent periods of the Christian church, though little new light has been thrown upon them from that age to the present. In his eagerness to confute these opponents St. Augustine employed language so strong as made it susceptible of an interpreta- tion wholly at variance with the accountability of man. This led to farther explanations and modifications of his sentiments, which were multiplied when the Semi-Pelagians arose, who thought that the truth lay between his doctrines and those of the Pelagians. Concerning origi- 112 AUG nal sin, he maintained that it was derived from our first parents ; and he believed he had ascer- tained in what the original sin conveyed b Adam to his posterity consisted. In his senti- ments, however, upon the latter point he was rather inconsistent, at one time asserting that the essence of original sin was concupiscence, and at another expressing doubts respecting his own position. This subject was bequeath- ed as a legacy to the schoolmen of a subsequent age, who exercised their subtle wits upon all its ramifications down to the period of the coun- cil of Trent. On the consequences of the fall of our first parents, St. Augustine taught that by it human nature was totally corrupted, and deprived of all inclination and ability to do good. Before the age in which he lived, the early fathers held what, in the language of systematic theology, is termed the synergestic system, or the needfulness of human codpera- tion in the works of holiness; but though the freedom of the will was not considered by them as excluding or rendering unnecessary the grace of God, yet much vagueness is percepti- ‘ble in the manner in which they express them- selves, because they had not examined the subject with the same attention as the theolo- gians by whom they were succeeded. Those early divines generally used the language of Scripture, the fertile invention of controversial writers, not having as yet displayed itself, ex- Be on the divine nature of Jesus Christ, and subsidiary terms and learned distinctions not being then required by any great differences of opinion. But as soon as Pelagius broached his errors, the attention of Christians was natu- rally turned to the investigation of the doctrine of grace. The opinions of St. Augustine on this subject, which soon became those of the great body of the Christian church, admitted the necessity of divine grace, or the influence of the Holy Spirit, for our obedience to the law of God. He ascribed the renovation of our moral constitution wholly to this grace, denied all codperation of man with it for answering the end to be accomplished, and represented it as irresistible. He farther affirmed that it was given only to a certain portion of the human race, to those who showed the fruits of it in their sanctification, and that it secured the per- severance of all upon whom it was bestowed. Plaifere in his “ Appello Evangelium” has given the following as the substance of that opinion of the order of predestination of which ‘‘ many do say that St. Austin was the first author: 1. That God from all eternity decreed to create mankind holy and good. 2. That he fore- saw man, being tempted by Satan, would fall into sin, if God did not hinder it; he decreed not to hinder. 3. That out of mankind, seen fallen into sin and misery, he chose a certain number to raise to righteousness and to eternal life, and rejected the rest, leaving them in their sins. 4. That for these his chosen he decreed to send his Son to redeem them, and his Spirit to call them and sanctify them; the rest he decreed to forsake, leaving them to Satan and themselves, and to punish them for their sins.” After St. Augustine had thus in a great de- AUG ee new moulded the science of theology, and ad combined with it as an essential part of divine truth, that the fate of mankind was de- termined by the divine decree independently of their own efforts and conduct, and that they were thus divided into the elect and reprobate, it became necessary, in order to preserve con- sistency, to introduce into his system a limita- tion with respect to baptism, and to prevent the opinions concerning it from interfering with those which flowed from the doctrine of redestination. He accordingly taught, that aptism brings with it the forgiveness of sins; that it is so essential, that the omission of it will expose us to condemnation; and that it is attended with regeneration. He also aifirmed that the virtue of baptism is not in the water ; that the ministers of Christ perform the external ceremony, but that Christ accompanies it with invisible grace; that baptism is common to all, whilst grace is not so; and that the same ex- ternal rite may be death to some, and life to others. By this distinction he rids himself of the difficulty which would have pressed upon his scheme of theology, had pardon, regenera- tion, and salvation been necessarily connected with the outward ordinance of baptism; and limits its proper efficacy to those who are com- prehended, as the heirs of eternal life, in the decree of the Almighty. Many, however, of those who strictly adhere to him in other parts of his doctrinal system, desert him at this point. Bishop Bedell speaks thus in disparage- ment of his baptismal views, in a letter to Ward: “ This I do yield to my Lord of Sarum most willingly, that the justification, sanctifi- cation, and adoption which children have in baptism, is not wnivocé [univocally] the same with that which adulti [adults] have. I think the emphatical speeches of Augustine against the Pelagians, and of Prosper, are not so much to be regarded (who say the like of the eucha- rist also) touching the necessity and efficacy in the case of infants; and they are very like the speeches of Lanfranc and Guitmund of Christ’s presence in the sacrament, opposing veracitér, [truly] and veré [truly] to sacramenta- litér ; [sacramentally ;] which is a false and absurd contraposition. The opinion of the Franciscans out of Scotus and Bernard, men- tioned in the council of Trent, seems to be the true opinion; for they make the sacra- ments to be effectual, ‘because God gives them effectus regularitér concomitantes, [regularly accompanying effects,] and to contain grace no otherwise than as an effectual sign; and that grace is received by them as an investiture by a ring or staff, which is obsignando, [by signation.] Consider that if you will aver, that baptism washes away otherwise than sacra- mentally, that is, obsignatorily, original sin, yet you must allow that manner of washing for future actual sins; and you must make two sorts of justification, one for children, another for adulti ; [adults;] and (which passes all the rest) you must find some promise in God’s covenant wherein he binds himself to wash away sin without faith or repentance. By this doctrine, you must also emir that children 113 AUG do spiritually eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood, if they receive the eucharist, as for ages they did, and by the analogy of the pass- over they may; and sith [if] the use of this sacrament tolies quoties [as often as it is used] must needs confer grace, it seems it were necessary to let them communicate, and the oftener the better, to the intent they might be stronger in grace: which opinion, though St. Austin and many more of the ancients do maintain, I believe you will not easily conde- scend unto, or that children dying without baptism are damned.” These remarks are im- portant, as proceeding from the pen of the ersonal friend of Father Paul, who wrote the istory of the council of Trent. In the various discussions which have arisen concerning predestination and the doctrines with which it is connected, some modern di- vines have quoted the arguments of St. Augus- tine against the Manichees, and others those which he employed against the Pelagians, ac- cording to the discordant views which the combatants severally entertain on these contro- verted points. One of them has thus expressed himself, in his endeavour to reconcile St. Au- custine with himself:—‘‘ The heresy of Pela- gius being suppressed, the catholic doctrine in that point became more settled and confirmed by the opposition; such freedom being left to the will of man, as was subservient unto grace, codperating in some measure with those hea- venly influences. And so much is confessed by St. Augustine himself, where he asks this question, “Doth any man affirm that free will is perished utterly from man by the fall of Adam? And thereunto he makes this answer: ‘Freedom is perished by sin; but it is that freedom only which we had in paradise, of having perfect righteousness with immortality.’ For, otherwise, it appears to be his opinion, that man was not merely passive in all the acts of grace which conduced to glory, according to the memorable saying of his, so common in the mouths of all men, ‘He who first made us without our help will not vouchsafe to save us at last without our concurrence.’ If any harsher expressions have escaped his pen, (as commonly it happeneth in the heats of a disputation,) they are to be qualified by this last rule, and by that before, in which it was affirmed, that ‘God could not with justice judge and con- demn the world, if all men’s sins proceeded not from their own free will, but from some overruling providence which inforced them to it.”” Another admirer of this father offers the following as an attempt at reconciliation: “St. Augustine denied that the codperation of man is at all exerted to produce the renewal of our nature; but, when the renewal had been pro- duced, he admitted that there was an exercise of the will combined with the workings of grace. In the tenth chapter of his work against the Manicheans, the bishop of Hippo thus expresses himself: ‘Who is it that will not exclaim, How foolish it is to deliver precepts to that man who is not at liberty to perform what is commanded! And how unjust it is to con- demn him who had not power to fulfil the com- AUG mands! Yet these unhappy persons [the Mani- chees] do not perceive that they are ascribing such injustice and want of equity to God. But what greater truth is there than this, that God has delivered precepts, and that human spirits have freedom of will? Elsewhere he says, ‘Nothing is more within our power than our own will. The willis that by which we com- mit sin, and by which we live righteously.’ Nothing can be plainer than that the writer of these passages admitted the liberty of the hu- man will, and the necessity of our own exer- tions in conjunction with divine grace. How this is to be reconciled with his general doc- trine, is perhaps indicated in the following passage from his book De Gratid et lib. Arbi- trio, c.17. Speaking of grace he says, ‘ That we may will God works without us; but when we will, and so will as to do, he co-works with us; yet unless he either works that we may will, or co-works when we do will, we are utterly incapable of a any thing in the good works of piety.”” These are but very slight specimens of the mode in which learned and ingenious men have tried to give a kind of symmetrical proportion to this father’s doc- trinal system. Several large treatises have been published with the same praiseworthy intention ; the pious authors of them either entirely forgetting. or having never read, the rather latitudinarian indulgence of opinion which St. Augustine claims for himself in his “ Retractations,” in which he has qualified the harshness of his previous assertions on many subjects. If, however, an estimate may be formed of what this father intended in his va- rious pacificatory doctrinal explanations from what he has actually admitted and expressed, it may be safely affirmed that no systematic writer of theology seems so completely to have entered into the last and best views of the bishop of Hippo, or so nearly reconciled the apparent discordances in them, as Arminius has done; and few other authors have rendered more ample justice to his sentiments, talents, and character, than the famous Dutch Professor. Many were the theological labours to which he was invited by the most eminent of his con- temporaries; and hastily as some of his lucu- brations were executed, it is not surprising that among two hundred and seventy-two treatises on different subjects, some are of inferior value and unworthy of the fame which he had ac- quired in the church. After a life of various changes, and of a mixed character, he died A. D. 430, in the seventy-sixth year of his age; having been harassed at the close of life by seeing his country invaded by the Vandals, and the city of which he was the bishop be- sieged. Though those barbarians took Hippo and burned it, they saved his library, which contained his voluminous writings. St. Augustine was a diligent man in the sacred calling; and that the office of a bishop even in that age of the church was no sinecure, is evident from several notices in his letters. At the close of one addressed to Marcellinus he gives the subjoined account: “If I were able to give you a narrative of the manner in 114 AUG which I spend my time, you would be both sur- prised and distressed on account of the great number of affairs which oppress me without my being able to suspend them. For when some little leisure is allowed me by those who daily attend upon me about business, and who are so urgent with me that I can neither shun them nor ought to despise them, I have always some other writings to compose, which indeed ought to be preferred, [to those which Marcel- linus requested,] because the present juncture will not permit them to be postponed. For the rule of cnarity is, not to consider the greatness of the friendship, but the necessity of the affair. Thus I have continually something or other to compose which diverts me from writing what would be more agreeable to my inclinations, during the little intervals in that multiplicity of business with which I am burdened either through the wants or the passions of others.” He frequently complains of this oppressive weight of occupation in which his love of his flock had engaged him, by obeying the Apos- tolical precept, which forbids Christians from going to law before Pagan tribunals. In refer- ence to this employment his biographer, Posi- donius, says: “ At the desire of Christians, or of men belonging to any sect whatever, he would hear causes with patience and attention, sometimes till the usual hour of eating, and sometimes the whole day without eating at all, observing the dispositions of the parties, and how much they advanced or decreased in faith and good works; and when he had opportunity he instructed them in the law of God, and gave them suitable advice, requiring nothing of them except Christian obedience. He sometimes wrote letters, when desired, on temporal sub- jects; but lopked upon all this as unprofitable occupation, which drew him aside from that pi was better and more agreeable to him- self.” The character of this eminent father has been much misrepresented both as a man and as a writer. Whoever looks into his writings for accurate and enlarged views of Christian doctrine, looks for that which could not be ex- pected in the very infancy of Biblical criticism. é was a rhetorician by profession, and the degenerate taste of that age must be blamed, rather than the individual who wrote in the style which then prevailed. The learning of St. Augustine, and particularly his knowledge of Greek, have been disputed; and hence the importance of his Biblical criticisms has been depreciated. In the account of the early part of his life he confesses his great aversion to the study of that language; and as he tells us, in his maturer age, that he read the Platonists in a Latin version, it has perhaps been too hastily concluded that he never made any great proficiency in it. But though it be allowed that his comments on Scripture consist chiefly of popular reflections, spiritual and moral, or allegorical and mystical perversions of the lite- ral meaning ; yet the works of this father are not wholly destitute of remarks and critical interpretations, that are pertinent and judi- cious : to such, after a series of extracts from his AVE writings, Dr. Lardner has referred his readers. With regard to his knowledge of Greek, this impartial and candid author is of opinion, that he undersiood that language better than some have supposed; and he has cited several pas- sages from which it may be perceived, that St. Augustine frequently compared his copies of the Latin version with those of the Greek ori- inal. Le Clerc himself allows that he some- times explains Greek words and phrases in a very felicitous manner. Indeed, the com- mencement of his correspondence with St. Jerom proves him to have been no contempti- ble critic. In this he besought him, in the name of all the African churches, to apply himself to the translation into Latin of the Greek interpreters of Scripture, rather than to enter upon a new translation from the original Hebrew; and to point out those passages in which the Hebrew differed from the Septua- gn as he had previously done in the book of ob. Voltaire and other profane wits have, in the exercise of their buffoonery, impeached his moral conduct ; but their charges, when impar- tially examined, will be seen to be founded in ignorance or in malice. They resemble those which the same parties prefer against Prophets, Apostles, and against Christ himself. Mosheim observes that Augustine’s high reputation filled the Christian world; and “not without reason, as a variety of great and shining qualities were united in the character of that illustrious man. A sublime genius, an uninterrupted and zeal- ous pursuit of truth, an indefatigable applica- tion, an invincible patience, a sincere piety, and a subtle and lively wit, conspired to esta- blish his fame upon the most lasting founda- tions.” Such a testimony as this far outweighs the vituperative remarks and petty sneers of a thousand infidels. See Penagians and Sy- NoDs. AUGUSTUS, emperor of Rome, and suc- cessor of Julius Cesar. The battle of Actium, which he fought with Mark Antony, and which made him master of the empire, happened fif- teen years before the birth of Christ. This is the emperor who appointed the enrolment mentioned Luke ii, 1, which obliged Joseph and the Virgin Mary to go to Bethlehem, the place where Feus Christ was born. Augustus procured the crown of Judea for Herod, from the Roman senate. After the defeat of Mark Antony, Herod adhered to Augustus, and was always faithful to him; so that Augustus load- ed him with honours and riches. AVEN, a city of Egypt, afterward called Heliopolis, and On, Ezek. xxx,17. Herodotus informs us that in this city there was an annual assembly in honour of the sun, and a temple dedicated to him. It appears, however, highly probable, by the behaviour of Pharaoh to Jo- seph and Jacob, and especially by Joseph’s care to preserve the land to the priests, Gen. xlvii, 22, 26, that the true religion prevailed in Egypt in his time; and it is incredible that Touch should have married the daughter of the priest of On, had that name among the tians denoted only the material light; which, however, no doubt they, like all the 115 AZA rest of the world, idolized in after times, and to which we find a temple dedicated among the Canaanites, under this name, Joshua vii, 2. AVENGER OF BLOOD. He who prose- cuted the man-slayer under the law was called the avenger of blood, and had a right to slay the person, if he found him without a city of refuge. See Gor. AVIMS, a people descended from Hevus, the son of Canaan. They dwelt at first in the country which was afterward possessed by the Caphtorims, or Philistines. The Scripture says expressly, that the Caphtorims drove out the Avims, who dwelt in Hazerim, even unto Azzah, Deut. ii, 23. There were also Avims, or Hivites, at Shechem, or Gibeon, Joshua xi, 19; for the inhabitants of Shechem were Hivites. Lastly, there were some of them beyond Jordan, at the foot of Mount Hermon. Bochart thinks, that Cadmus, who conducted a colony of the Phenicians into Greece, was a Hivite. His name, Cadmus, comes from the Hebrew Kedem, ‘‘the east,” because he came from the eastern parts of the land of Canaan. The name of his wife Hermione was taken from Mount Hermon, at the foot whereof the Hivites dwelt. The metamorphoses of the companions of Cadmus into serpents is founded upon the signification of the name of Hivites, which, in the Phenician language, signifies serpents. AZARIAH, or UZZIAH, king of Judah, son of Amaziah. He began to reign at the age of sixteen years, and reigned fifty-two years in Jerusalem ; his mother’s name being Jecholiah, 2 Kings xv. Azariah did that which was right in the sight of the Lord; nevertheless he did not destroy the high places; and, against the express prohibition of God, the people continued to sacrifice there. Having taken upon him to offer incense in the temple, which office belong- ed entirely to the priests, he was struck with a leprosy, and continued without the city, separa- ted from other men until the day of his death, 2 Chron. xxvi. Josephus says, that upon this occasion a great earthquake happened; and that the temple opening at the top, a ray of light darted upon the king’s forehead, the very moment he took the censer into his hand, and he instantly became a leper ; nay, that the earth- quake was so very violent, that it tore in sunder a mountain west of Jerusalem, and rolled one half of it over and over to the distance of four furlongs, till at length it was stopped by another mountain which stood over against it; but choked up the highway, and covered the king’s gardens with dust. This is what Josephus adds to the history related in the Chronicles ; but the truth of it may be justly suspected. We know, indeed, that there was a very great earth- quake in the reign of Uzziah ; for Amos, chap. i, 1, and Zechariah, chap. xiv, 5, make mention of it: however, it is not certain that it happened at the very time that Uzziah took upon him to offer incense. During the time that Uzziah was a leper, his son Jotham, as his father’s viceroy, took the public administration upon himself, and sue~ ceeded him after his death, which happened in the fifty-second year of his reign, A. M. 3246 . BAA He was not buried in the royal sepulchre; but in the same field, at some distance, on account of his leprosy. The first part of Uzziah’s reign was very successful: he obtained great advantages over the Philistines, Ammonites, and Arabians. He made additions to the fortifications at Je- rusalem, and always kept an army on foot of three hundred and seven thousand men, and upwards, 2 Chron. xxvi; and he had great magazines, well stored with all sorts of arms, as well offensive as defensive; and he was a great lover of agriculture. BAAL, BEL, or BELUS, denoting lord, a divinity among several ancient nations; as the Canaanites, Pheenicians, Sidonians, Cartha- ginians, Babylonians, Chaldeans, and Assy- rians. The term Baal, which is itself an appellative, served at first to denote the true God, among those who adhered to the true re- ligion. Accordingly, the Phenicians, being originally Canaanites, having once had, as well as the rest of their kindred, the knowledge of the true God, probably called him Baal, or tord. But they, as well as other nations, gra- dually degenerating into idolatry, applied this appellation to their respective idols; and thus Were introduced a variety of divinities, called Baalim, or Baal, with some epithet annexed to it, as Baal Berith, Baal Gad, Baal Moloch, Baal Peor, Baal Zebub, &c. Some have sup- posed that the descendants of Ham first wor- shipped the sun under the title of Baal, 2 Kings xxiii, 5, 11; and that they afterward as- cribed it to the patriarch who was the head of their line; making the sun only an emblem of his influence or power. It is certain, how- ever, that when the custom prevailed of deify- ing and worshipping those who were in any respect distinguished among mankind, the ap- pel ation of Baal was not restricted to the sun, ut extended to those eminent persons who were deified, and who became objects of wor- ship in different nations. The Pheenicians had several divinities of this kind, who were not intended to represent the sun. It is probable that Baal, Belus, or Bel, the great god of the Carthaginians, and also of the Sidonians, Babylonians, and Assyrians, who, from the testimony of Scripture, appears to have been delighted with human sacrifices, was the Mo- loch of the Ammonites; the Chronus of the Greeks, who was the chief object of adoration in Italy, Crete, Cyprus, and Rhodes, and all other countries where divine honours were paid him; and the Saturn of the Latins. 1n process of time, many other deities, beside the princi- a ones ae mentioned, were distinguished y the title of Baal among the Phenicians, particularly those of Tyre, and of course among the Carthaginians, and other nations. Such were Jupiter, Mars, Bacchus, and Apollo, or the sun. The temples and altars of Baal were gene- rally placed on eminences: they were places inclosed by walls, within which was maintained @ perpetual fire; and some of them had statues or images, called in Scripture “ Chamanim.” 116 BAA Maundrell, in his journey from Aleppo to Je rusalem, observed some remains of these en closures in Syria. Baal had his prophets and his priests in great numbers; accordingly, we read of four hundred and fifty of them that were fed at the table of Jezebel only; and they conducted the worship of this deity, by offering sacrifices, by dancing round his altar with vio- lent gesticulations and exclamations, by cutting their bodies with knives and lancets, and by raving and pretending to prophesy, as if they were possessed by some invisible power. It 1s remarkable that we do not find the name Baal so much in popular use east of Babylonia; but it was general west of Baby- lonia, and to the aps extremity of western Europe, including the British isles. The wor- ship of Bel, Belus, Belenus, or Betnus, was general throughout the British islands; and certain of its rites and observances are still maintained among us, notwithstanding the establishment of Christianity during so many ages. A town in Perthshire, on the borders of the Highlands, is called Tulliebeltane or Tuilicheliane ; that is, the eminence, or rising ground, of the fire of Baal. In the neighbour- hood is a Druidical temple of eight upright stoncs, where it is supposed the fire was kin- dled. At some distance from this is another temple of the same kind, but smaller; and near it a well still held in great veneration. On Beltane morning, superstitious people go to this well, and drink of it; then they make a procession round it nine times. After this they in like manner go round the temple. So deep- rooted is this Heathenish superstition in the minds of many who reckon themselves good Protestants, that they will not neglect these rites, even when Beltane falls on the Sabbath. In Ireland, Bel-tein is celebrated on the twenty-first of June, at the time of the solstice. There, as they make fires on the tops of hills, every member of the family is made to pass though the fire; as they reckon this ceremony necessary to ensure good fortune through the succeeding year. This resembles the rites used by the Romans in the Palilia. Bel-tein is also observed in Lancashire. In Wales, this annual fire is kindled in au- tumn, on the first day of November; which being neither at the solstice nor equinox, de- serves attention. It may be accounted for by supposing that the lapse of ages has removed it from its ancient station, and that the observ- ance is Hae on the same day, nominally, though that be now removed some weeks back- ward from its true station. However that may be, in North Wales especially, this fire is at- tended by many ceremonies; such as running through the fire and smoke, each participator casting a stone into the fire. The Hebrews often imitated the idolatry of the Canaanites in adoring Baal. They offered human sacrifices to him in groves, upon high oe ‘and upon the terraces of houses. Baal ad priests and prophets consecrated to his service. All sorts of infamous and immodest actions Were committed in the festivals of Baal and Astarte. See Jer. xxxii, 35; 2 Kings xvii, BAA ab; xxiii, 4, 5, 12; 1 Kings xviii, 22; 2 Kings x, 19; 1 Kings xiv, 24; xv, 12; 2Kings xxiii, 7; Hosea iv, 14. This false deity is frequently mentioned in Scripture in the plural number, Baalim, which may intimate that the name Baal was given to several different deities. There were many cities in Palestine, whose names were ee of Baal and some other word: whether it was that the god Baal was adored in them, or that these places were looked upon as the capital cities,—lords of their respective provinces,—is uncertain. BAAL BERITH, the god of the Shechem- ites, Judges viii, 33; ix, 4,46. - BAAL PEOR. Peor is supposed to have been a part of Mount Abarim; and Baal was the great idol or chief god of the Phenicians, and was known and worshipped under a similar name, with tumultuous and obscene rites, all over Asia. He is the same as the Bel of the Babylonians. Baal, by itself, signifies lord, and was a name of the solar or principal god. But it was also variously compounded, in allu- sion to the different characters and attributes of the particular or local deities who were known by it, as Baal Peor, Baal Zebub, Baal Zephon, &c. Baal Peor, then, was probably the temple of an idol belonging to the Moab- ites, on Mourt Abarim, which the Israelites worshipped when encamped at Shittim; this brought a plague upon them, of which twenty- four thousand died, Num. xxxv. Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, to whom Solomon erected an altar, 1 Kings xi, 7, is supposed to have been the same deity. Baal Peor has been farther supposed by some to have been Priapus ; by others, Saturn; by others, Pluto; and by others again, Adonis. Mr. Faber agrees with Calmet in making Baal Peor the same with Adonis; a part of whose worship consisted in bewailing him with funeral rites, as one lost or dead, and afterward welcoming, with extrava- gant joy, his fictitious return to life. He was m an eminent degree the god of impurity. Hosea, speaking of the worship of this idol, emphatically calls it ‘that shame,” Hos. ix, 10. Yet in the rites of this deity the Moabite and Midianite women seduced the Israelites to join. BAAL ZEBUB, BEELZEBUB, or BEL- ZEBUB, signifies the god of flies, and was an idol of the Ekronites. It is not easy to dis- cover how this false deity obtained its name. Some commentators think that he was called Baal Samin, or the lord of heaven; but that the Jews, from contempt, gave him the name of Baal-zebub. Others with greater reason be- lieve that he was denominated “the god of flies” by his votaries, because he defended them from flies, which are exceedingly troublesome in hot countries; in the same manner as the Eleans worshipped Hercules under the appella- tion of "Anépuios, the fly chaser. Pliny is of opinion, that the name of Achor, the god in- voked at Cyrene against flies, is derived from Accaron, or Ekron, where Baal-zebub was worshipped, and where he had a famous temple and oracle. Winkelman has given the figures of two heads, “ both of them images of Jupiter, called by the Greeks ’Amépuius, and by the Ro- 7 BAB mans Muscarius ; that is to say, fly drwer ; for to this Jupiter was attributed the function of driving away flies.” It is evident that Beelzebub was considered as the patron deity of medicine; for this is plainly implied in the conduct of Ahaziah, 2 Kings i. The Greek mythology considered Apollo as the god of medicine, and attributed also to him those possessions by a pythonic spirit which occasionally perplexed spectators, and of which we have an instance in Acts xvi, 19. Apollo, too, was the sun. Hence we pro- bably see the reason why Ahaziah sent to Beel- zebub to inquire the issue of his accident; since Beelzebub was Apollo, and Apollo was the god of physic. The Jews, who changed Beelzebub into Beelzebul, ‘‘ god of a dunghill,” perhaps had a reference to the Greek of pytho, which signifies putrefied. In Scripture Beelzebub is called “the prince of devils,” Matt. xii, 24; Luke xi, 15; merely, it would seem, through the application of the name of the chief idol of the Heathen world to the prince of evil spirits. This was natural, since the Jews were taught in their own Scriptures to consider all the idols of the Heathens “ devils.” Those commenta- tors who think that the idol of Ekron himself is intended, have indulged in an improbable fancy. See Horner. BAAL ZEPHON, or the god of the watch tower, was probably the temple of some idol, which served at the same time for a place of observation for the neighbouring sea and coun- try, and a beacon to the travellers by either. It was situated on a cape or promontory on the eastern side of the western or Heroopolitan branch of the Red Sea, near its northern ex- tremity, over against Pihahiroth, or the open- ing in the mountains which led from the de- sert, on the side of Egypt, to the Red Sea. BAASHA, the son of Ahijah, commander- in-chief of the armies belonging to Nadab, the son of Jeroboam, king of Israel. Baasha kill- ed his master treacherously at the siege of Gibbethon, acity of the Philistines, A. M. 3051, and usurped the crown, which he pos- sessed twenty-four years, 1 Kings xv, 27, &c. And, to secure himself in his usurpation, he raassacred all the relatives of his predecessor; which barbarous action proved the accomplish- ment of the prophecy denounced against the house of Jeroboam by Ahijah, the prophet, 1 Kings xiv, 1, &c. BABEL, the tower and city founded by the descendants of Noah in the plain of Shinar. The different tribes descended from Noah were here collected, and from this point were dis- persed, through the confusion of their language, The time when this tower was built is differ- ently stated in the Hebrew and Samaritan chronologies. The former fixes it in the year 101 after the flood, which Mr. Faber thinks encumbered with innumerable difficulties. This writer then goes on to show, that the chrono- logy of the Samaritan Pentateuch reconciles every date, and surmounts every difficulty. It represents Shem as dying nearly a century and a half before the death of Peleg, instead of more than that number of years afterward, and BAB almost four centuries and a half before the death of Abraham; whom, in accordance with the history, it makes to survive his father Terah precisely a hundred years. It removes the difficulties with which the Hebrew chro- nology invests the whole history, by giving time, while it allows the dispersion to have taken place in the latter part of Peleg’s life, for the thirteen sons of his younger brother Joktan to have become heads of families; for Noah and his sons to have died, as it is proved they must have done, prior to the emigration from Armenia; for Nimrod, instead of being a boy, to have been of an age suitable to his exploits, and to have acquired the sovereign command, not, in the face of all probability, while the four great patriarchs were living, but after their decease; and for the families of mankind to have multiplied sufficiently to undertake the stupendous work of the tower. It explains also the silence respecting Shem in the history of Abraham, by making the former die in Ar- menia four hundred and forty years before the latter was born, instead of surviving him thirty- five years ; and, lastly, it makes sacred history accord with profane; the Babylonic history of Berosus, and the old records consulted by Epiphanius, both placing the death of Noah and his sons before the emigration from Armenia. The sum of the whole is as follows: All the descendants of Noah remained in Armenia in peaceable subjection to the patriarchal religion and government during the lifetime of the four royal patriarchs, or till about the begin- ning of the sixth century after the flood; when, gradually falling off from the pure worship of God, and from their allegiance to the respective heads of families, and seduced by the schemes of the ambitious Nimrod, and farther actuated by a restless disposition, or a desire for a more fertile country, they migrated in a body southwards, till they reached the plains of Shinar, probably about sixty years after the death of Shem. Here, under the command of their new leader, and his domi- nant military and sacerdotal Cuthites, by whom the original scheme of idolatry, the groundwork of which was probably laid in Armenia, was now perfected; and, with the express view to counteract the designs of the Almighty in their dispersion into different countries, they began to build the city and tower, and set up a banner which should serve as a mark of national union, and concentrate them in one unbroken empire; when they were defeated and dispersed by the miraculous confusior of tongues. All this probably occu- pied the ‘arther space of twenty or twenty-one ears; making eighty-one from the death of Shem, and five hundred and eighty-three after the flood. All of which also will come within the life of Peleg, who, according to the Sama- ritan Pentateuch, died in the year 640. The tower of Belus in Babylon, mentioned by Herodotus, was probably either the original tower of Babel repaired, or it was constructed upon its massive foundations. The remains of this tower are still to be seen, and are thus 118 BAB described by Captain Mignan, in his Travela in Chaldea :-— “ At daylight I departed for the ruins, with a mind absorbed by the objects which I had seen yesterday. An hour’s walk, indulged in intense reflection, brought me to the grandest and most gigantic northern mass, on the east- ern bank of the Euphrates, and distant about four miles and a half from the eastern suburb of Hillah. It is called by the natives, El Mu- jellibah, ‘the overturned;’ also Haroot and Maroot, from a tradition handed down, with little deviation, from time immemorial, that near the foot of the ruin there is a well, invisi- ble to mortals, in which those rebellious angels were condemned by God to be hung with their heels upward, until the day of judgment, asa punishment for their wickedness. This solid mound, which I consider, from its situation and magnitude, to be the remains of the Tower of Babel, (an opinion likewise adopted by that venerable and highly distinguished geographer, Major Rennell,) is a vast oblong square, com- posed of kiln-burnt and sun-dried bricks, rising uregularly to the height of one hundred and thirty-nine feet, at the south-west; whence it slopes toward the north-east to a depth of one hundred and ten feet. Its sides face the four cardinal points. I measured them carefully, and the following is the full extent of each face: that to the north, along the visible face, is two hundred and seventy-four yards ; to the south, two hundred and fifty-six yards; to the east, two hundred and twenty-six yards; and to the west, two hundred and forty yards. The summit is an uneven flat, strewed with broken and unbroken bricks, the perfect ones measuring thirteen inches square, by three thick. Many exhibited the arrow-headed character, which appeared remarkably fresh. Pottery, bitumen, vitrified and petrified brick, shells, and glass, were all equally abundant. The principal materials composing this ruin are, doubtless, mud bricks baked in the sun, and mixed up with straw. It is not difficult to trace brick work along each front, particu- larly at the south-west angle, which is faced by a wall, composed partly of kiln-burnt brick, that in shape exactly resembles a watch tower or small turret. On its summit there are still considerable traces of erect building; at the western end is a circular mass of solid brick work, sloping toward the top, and rising from a confused heap of rubbish. The chief ma- terial forming this fabric appeared similar to that composing the ruin called Akercouff, a mixture of chopped straw, with slime used as cement; and regular layers of unbroken reeds between the horizontal courses of the bricks. The base is greatly injured by time and _ the elements ; particularly to the south-east, where it is cloven into a deep furrow from top to bottom. The sides of the ruin exhibit hol- lows worn partly by the weather, but more generally formed by the Arabs, who are inces- santly digging for bricks, and hunting for antiquities.’ BABYLON, 2 Kings xxiv, 1. The capital of Chaldea, built by Nimrod, Gen. x, 10. It BAB was under Nebuchadnezzar that Babylon, then become the seat of universal empire, is sup- posed to have acquired that extent and mag- nificence, and that those stupendous works were completed which rendered it the wonder of the world and of posterity: and accordingly, this prince, then the most potent on the earth, arrogated to himself the whole glory of its erection; and in the pride of his heart ex- claimed, “ Is not this great Babylon that J have built?” ~The city at this period stood on both sides of the river, which intersected it in the middle. It was, according to the least compu- tation, that of Diodorus Siculus, 45 miles in circumference; and according to Herodotus, the older author of the two, 60 miles Its shape was that of a square, traversed each way by 25 principal streets; which of course intersected each other, dividing the city into 626 squares. These streets were terminated at each end by gates of brass, of prodigious size and strength, with a smaller one opening toward the river. The walls, from the most moderate accounts, were 7 feet in height and 32 in breadth; while Herodotus makes them 300 in height and 75 in breadth: which last measurement, incredible as it may seem, is worthy of credit, as Herodotus is much the oldest author who describes them, and who gives their original height; whereas, those who follow him in their accounts of these stupendous walls, describe them as they were after they had been taken down to the less elevation by Darius Hystaspes. They were built of brick, cemented with bitumen instead of mortar; and were encompassed by a broad and deep ditch, lined with the same materials, as were also the banks of the river in its course through the city: the inhabitants descending to the water by steps through the smaller brazen gates before mentioned. The houses were three or four stories high, separated from each other by small courts or gardens, with open spaces and even fields interspersed over the immense area enclosed within the walls. Over the river was a bridge, connecting the two halves of the city, which stood, the one on its eastern, and the other on its western, bank; the river running nearly north and south. The bridge was 5 furlongs in length, and 30 feet in breadth, and had a palace at each end, with, it is said, a subterraneous passage beneath the river, from one to the other: the work of Se- miramis. Within the city was the temple of Belus, or Jupiter, which Herodotus describes as a square of two stadia, or a quarter of a mile: in the midst of which arose the cele- brated tower, to which both the same writer, and Strabo, give an elevation of one stadium, or 660 feet; and the same measure at its base; the whole being divided into eight separate towers, one above another, of decreasing dimensions to the summit; where stood a chapel, containing a couch, table, and other things of gold. Here the principal devotions were performed; and over this, on the highest platform of all, was the observatory, by the help of which the Babylonians arrived to such perfection in astronomy, that Calisthenes the 119 BAB pee who accompanied Alexander to abylon, found astronomical observations for 1903 years backwards from that time; which reach as high as the 115th year after the flood. On either side of the river, according to Dio- dorus, adjoining to the bridge, was a palace ; that on the western bank being by much the larger. This palace was eight miles in cir- cumference, and strongly fortified with three walls one within another. Within it were the celebrated pensile or mene gardens, enclosed in a square of 400 feet. These gardens were raised on terraces, supported by arches, or rather by piers, laid over with broad flat stones ; the arch appearing to be unknown to the Baby- lonians: which courses of piers rose above one another, till they reached the level of the top of the city walls. On each terrace or platform, a deep layer of mould was laid, in which flow- ers, shrubs and trees were planted; some of which are said to have reached the height of 50 feet. On the highest level was a reservoir, with an engine to draw water up from the river by which the whole was watered. This novel and astonishing structure, the work of a monarch who knew not how to create food for his own pampered fancy, or labour for his de- based subjects or unhappy captives, was under taken to please his wife Amyitis; that she might see an imitation of the hills and woods of her native country, Media. Yet, while in the plenitude of its power, and, according to the most accurate chronologers, 160 years before the foot of an enemy had en- tered it, the voice of an enemy had entered it, the voice of prophecy pronounced the doom of the mighty and unconquered Babylon. A succession of ages brought it gradually to the dust; and the gradation of its fall is marked till it sinks at last into utter desolation. Ata time when nothing but magnifieence was around this city, emphatically called the great, fallen Babylon was delineated by the pencil of inspiration exactly as every traveller now de- scribes its ruins. The immense fertility of Chaldea, which retained also the name of Babylonia till after the Christian era, corresponded with the great- ness of Babylon. It was the most fertile re- gion of the whole east. Babylonia was one vast plain, adorned and enriched by the Eu- phrates and the Tigris, from which, and from the numerous canals that intersected the coun- try from the one river to the other, water was distributed over the fields by manual labour and by hydraulic machines, giving rise, in that warm climate and rich exhaustless soil, to an exuberance of produce without a known paral- lel, over so extensive a region, either in ancient or modern times. Herodotus states, that he knew not how to speak of its wonderful fer- tility, which none but eye witnesses would credit; and, though writing in the language of Greece, itself a fertile country, he expresses his own consciousness that his description of what he actually saw would appear to be improbable, and to exceed belief. Such was the “ Chaldees’ excellency,” that it departed not on the first conquest, nor on the firs extinction of ite BAB capital, but one metropolis of Assyria arose after another in the land of Chaldea, when Babylon had ceased to be “the glory of kingdoms,” — 2. Manifold are the prophecies respecting Babylon and the land of the Chaldeans ; and the long lapse of ages has served to confirm their fulfilment in every particular, and to ren- der it at last complete. The judgments of Heaven are not casual, but sure; they are not arbitrary, but righteous. And they were de- nounced against the Babylonians, and the in- habitants of Chaldea, expressly because of their idolatry, tyranny, oppression, pride, covetous- ness, drunkenness, falsehood, and other wick- edness. The burdenof Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amos did see: “ The noise of a multitude in the mountains, like as of a great people: a tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together: the Lord of Hosts mustereth the host of the battle. They come from a far country, from the end of heaven, even the Lord and the weapons of his indigna- tion, to destroy the whole land. Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Challees’ excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there: neither shall the shepherds make their fold there. But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there: and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there. And the wild beasts of the islands shall ery in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces.” ‘Thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased! Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee. Thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. Thou art cast outof the grave like an abominable branch.—I will cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, the son, and nephew, saith the Lord. I will also make it a possession for the bittern, and pools of water: and I will sweep it with the besom of destruc- tion, saith the Lord of Hosts.” ‘“ Babylon is fallen, is fallen; and all the graven images of her gods he hath broken unto the ground.” “ Thus saith the Lord, that saith unto the deep, Be dry; and I will dry up thy rivers: that saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure,—and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two- leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut.” “Bel boweth down,” &c. “ Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon: sit on the ground, there is no throne, O daugh- terof the Chaldeans. Sit thou silent, and get thee into darkness, O daughter of the Chal- deans; for thou shalt no more be called the lady of kingdoms.” Many other prophecies against Babylon, and the whole land of Chaldea, are found in the 120 BAB Old Testament; and though the limits of this article will only allow a reference to be made to the exact fulfilment of a few, there is nct one of the great number of predictions on record, the accomplishment of which has not been remarked by numerous writers, and more especially by those who have visited the spot. For, though for many centuries the site of Babylon was unknown, or the ruins of other Chaldean cities mistaken for its remains, its true situation and present condition have been, within a few years, satisfactorily ascertained, and accurately described, by several most intel- ligent and enterprising travellers. ‘When in the plenitude of its greatness, splendour and strength, Babylon first yielded to the arms of Cyrus, whose name, and the maneuvre by which the city was taken, were mentioned by Isaiah nearly two hundred years before the event; which was also predicted by Jeremiah: “Go up, O Elam, (or Persia,) be- siege, O Media. ‘The Lord hath raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes, for his device is against Babylon, to destroy it.” The kings of Persia and Media, prompted by a common interest, freely entered into a league against Babylon, and with one accord entrusted the command of their united armies to Cyrus, the relative and eventually the successor of them both—But the taking of Babylon was not reserved for these kingdoms alone: other na- tions had to be “prepared against her.” “ Set up a standard in’ the land; blow the trumpet among the nations, prepare the nations against her, call together against her the kingdoms of Ararat, Minni, and Aschenaz: Lo, I will raise and cause to come up against Babylon an as- sembly of great nations from the north coun- try,” &c. Cyrus subdued the Armenians, who had revolted against Media, spared their king, bound them over anew to their allegiance, by kindness rather than by force, and incorporated their army with his own.— The mighty men of Babylon have foreborne to fight. They have remained in their holds; their might hath fail- ed, they became as women.” 0 dispirited became its people, that Babylon, which had made the world to tremble, was long besieged, without making any effort to drive off the enemy. But, possessed of provisions for twenty years, which in their timid caution they had plentifully stored, they derided Cyrus from their impregnable walls, within which they remained. Their profligacy, their wickedness and false confidence were unabated; they continued to live carelessly in pleasures: and Babylon the great, unlike to many a small fortress and un- walled town, made not one struggle to regain its freedom or to be rid of the foe-—Much time having been lost, and no progress being made in the siege, the anxiety of Cyrus was strongly excited, and he was reduced to great perplexity, when at last it was suggested and immediately determined to divert the course of the Euphra- tes. And while the unconscious and reckless citizens were engaged in dancing and merri- ment, the river was suddenly turned into the lake, the trench, and the canals; and the Pes sians, both foot and horse, so soon as the sub- BAB siding of the water permitted, entered by its channel, and were followed by the allies in array, along the dry part of the river. ‘J will dry up thy sea, and make thy sputtes dry. That saith to the deep, Be dry, I will dry up thy yivers.”—One detachment was placed where the river first enters the city, and another where it leaves it. And “one post did run to meet another, and one messenger to meet an- other, to show the king of Babylon that his city is taken at the end, and that the passages are shut.” ‘‘ They were taken,” says Herodo- tus, “ by surprise ; and such is the extent of the city, that, as the inhabitants themselves affirm, they who lived in the extremities were made prisoners before any alarm was communicated to the centre of the place,” where the palace stood. Thus a “snare was laid for Babylon, it was taken, and it was not aware; it was found and also caught; for it had sinned against the Lord. How is the praise of the whole earth surprised !”—‘TIn their heat I will make their feasts, and I will make them drunken, that they may rejoice and sleep a perpetual sleep, and not awake, saith the Lord. I will bring them down like lambs to the slaughter,” &e. “TI will make drunken her princes and her wise men, her captains and her rulers, and her mighty men, and they shall sleep a per- petual sleep,” &c. Cyrus, as the night drew on, stimulated his assembled troops to enter the city, because in that night of general revel within the walls, many of them were asleep, many drunk, and confusion universally pre- vailed. On passing, without obstruction | or hinderance, into the city, the Persians, slaying some, putting others to flight, and joining with the revellers, as if slaughter had been merri- ment, hastened by the shortest way to the palace, and reached it ere yet a messenger had told the king that his city was taken. The gates of the palace, which was strongly forti- fied, were shut. The guards stationed before them, were drinking beside a blazing light, when the Persians rushed impetuously upon them. A louder and altered clamour, no longer joyous, caught the ear of the inmates of the palace, and the bright light showed them the work of destruction, without revealing its cause. And not aware of the presence of an enemy in the midst of Babylon, the king him- self, (who had been roused from his revelry by the hand writing on the wall,) excited by the warlike tumult at the gates, commanded those within to examine from whence it arose; and according to the same word, by which “the gates” (loathe from the river to the city) “were not shut, the loins of kings were loosed to open before Cyrus the two-leaved gates” of the palace. The eager Persians sprang in. “The king of Babylon heard the report of them; anguish took hold of him;” he and all who were about him perished; God had ‘‘ num- bered” his kingdom and finished it; it was “divided,” and given to the Medes and Per- sians; the lives of the Babylonian princes, and lords, and rulers, and captains, closed with that night’s festival ; the drunken slept ‘‘ a per- petual sleep, and did not wake.”—* I will fill | 121 BAB thee with men as with caterpillars.” Not only did the Persian army enter with ease as cater- pillars, together with all the nations that had come up against Babylon, but they seemed also as numerous. Cyrus, after the capture of the city, made a great display of his cavalry in the presence of the Babylonians, and in the midst of Babylon. Four thousand guards stood before the palace gates, and two thousand on each side. These advanced as Cyrus approach- ed; two thousand spearmen followed them. These were succeeded by four square masses of Persian cavalry, each consisting of ten thousand men: and to these again were added, in their order, the Median, Armenian, Hyrca- nian, Caducian, and Sacian horsemen,—all, as before, “riding upon horses, every man in array,”—with lines of chariots, four abreast, concluding the train of the numerous hosts. Cyrus afterward reviewed, at Babylon, the whele of his army, consisting of one hundred and twenty thousand horse, two thousand chariots, and six hundred thousand foot. Baby- lon, which was taken when not aware, and within whose walls no enemy, except a cap- tive, had been ever seen, was thus “filled with men as with caterpillars,” as if there had not been a wall around it. The Scriptures do not relate the manner in which Babylon was taken, nor do they ever allude to the exact fulfilment of the prophecies. But there is, in every par- ticular, a strict coincidence between the pre- dictions of the prophets and the historical narratives, both of Herodotus and Xenophon. 3. Every step in the progress of the decline of Babylon was the accomplishment of a pro- phecy. Conquered, for the first time, by Cyrus, it was afterward reduced from an imperial to a tributary city. ‘‘Come down and sit in the dust, O daughter of Babylon: sit on the ground, there is no throne, O daughter of the Chal- deans.” After the Babylonians rebelled against Darius, the walls were reduced in height, and all the gates destroyed. ‘The wall of Baby- lon shall fall, her walls are thrown down.”— Xerxes, after his ignominious retreat from Greece, rifled the temples of Babylon, the golden images alone of which were estimated at 20,000,000/. beside treasures of vast amount. “J will punish Bel in Babylon, and I willbring forth out of his mouth that which he has swal- lowed up; I will do judgment upon the graven images of Babylon.”—Alexander the Great at- tempted to restore it to its former glory, and designed to make it the metropolis of a uni- versal empire. But while the building of the temple of Belus, and the reparation of the em- bankments of the Euphrates, were actually carrying on, the conqueror of the world died, at the commencement of this his last undertak- ing, in the height of his power, and in the flower of his age. ‘Take balm for her pain, if so be that she may be healed. We would have healed Babylon, but she is not healed.” The building of the neighbouring city of Se- leucia was the chief cause of the decline or Babylon, and drained it of a great part of its population. And ata later period, or about 130 years before the birth of Christ, Humerus, a BAB Parthian governor, who was noted as excelling all tyrants in cruelty, exercised great severities on the Babylonians; and having burned the forum and some of the temples, and destroyed the fairest parts of the city, reduced many of the inhabitants to slavery on the slightest pre- texts, and caused them, together with all their households, to be sent into Media. “ They shall remove, they shall depart, both man and beast.” The “golden city” thus gradually verged, for centuries, toward poverty and deso- tation. Notwithstanding that Cyrus resided chiefly at Babylon, and sought to reform the overnment, and remodel the manners of the abylonians, the succeeding kings of Persia referred, as the Seat of empire, Susa, Persepo- is, or Ecbatana, situated in their own country: ' and in like manner the successors of Alexan- der did not attempt to complete his purpose of restoring Babylon to its preéminence and glo- ry; but, after the subdivision of his mighty em- pire, the very kings of Assyria, during their temporary residence even in Chaldea, deserted Babylon, and dwelt in Seleucia. And thus the foreign inhabitants, first Persians and afterward Greeks, imitating their sovereigns by deserting Babylon, acted as if they verily had said, ‘‘ For- sake her, and let us go every man unto his own country; for her judgment is reached unto heaven, and is lifted up even to the skies.” 4. But kindred judgments, the issue of com- mon crimes, rested on the land of Chaldea, as well as on its doomed metropolis. ‘ They come from a far country, from the end of the earth, to destroy the whole land. Many nations and great kings shall serve themselves of thee also,” &c. The Persians, the Macedonians, the Parthians, the Romans, the Saracens, and the Turks, are the chief of the many nations who have un- scrupulously and unsparingly “served them- selves” of the land of the Chaldeans: and Cyrus and Darius, kings of Persia; Alexander the Great; and Seleucus, king of Assyria; De- metrius and Antiochus the Great; Trajan, Se- verus, Julian, and Heraclius, emperors of Rome; the victorious Omar, the successor of Moham- med; Holagou, and Tamerlane, are “ great kings” who successively subdued or desolated Chaldea, or exacted from it tribute to such an extent, as scarcely any other country ever paid to a single conqueror. And though the names of some of these nations were unknown to the Babylonians, and unheard of in the world at the time of the prophecy, most of these “ many nations and great kings” need now but to be named, to show that, in local relation to Chal- dea, “they came from the utmost border, from the coasts of the earth.”—“T will punish the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it per- etual desolations; cut off the sower from Ba- ylon, and him that handleth the sickle in the time of harvest. A drought is on her waters, and they shall be dried up. Behold the hinder- most of the nations, a dry land and a desert.” The land of the Chaldeans was indeed made— perpetual, or long continued, desolation. Ra- vaged and spoiled for ages, the Chaldees’ excel- lency finally disappeared, and the land became desolate, as still it remains. Rauwolff, who 122 BAB passed through it in 1574, describes the coun try as bare, and “so dry and barren that it can- not be tilled.” And the most recent travellers all concur in describing it in similar terms. On the one side, near to the site of Opis, “ the country all around,” says Mr. Buckingham, “appears to be one wide desert, of sandy and barren soil, thinly scattered over with brush- wood and tufts of reedy grass.” On the other, between Bussorah and Bagdad, “ immediately on either bank of the Tigris,” observes Mignan, “is the wntrodden desert. The absence of all cultivation, the sterile, arid, and wild character of the whole scene, formed a contrast to the rich and delightful accounts delineated in Scrip- ture. The natives, in travelling over these pathless deserts, are compelled to explore their way by the stars.” ‘ The whole country be- tween Beaded and Hillah is a perfectly flat and (with the exception of a few spots as you ap- proach the latter place) wacullivated waste, That it was at some former period in a far different state, is evident from the number of canals by which it is traversed, now dry and neglected; and the quantity of heaps of earth covered with fragments of brick and broken tiles, which are seen in every direction, the indis- putable traces of former population. At present the only inhabitants of the tract are the Sobeide Arabs. Around, as far as the eye can reach is a trackless desert.”—‘ Her cities, are desola- tions.” The course of the Tigris through Ba- bylonia, instead of being adorned with cities, is marked with the sites of “ ancient ruins.” Sitace, Sabata, Narisa, Fuchera, Sendia, ‘“‘no longer exist.’ A succession of longitudinal mounds, crossed at right angles by others, mark the supposed site of Artemita, or Destagered. Its once luxuriant gardens are covered with grass ; and a higher mound distinguishes “the royal residence” from the ancient streets.‘ Ex- tensive ridges and mountains, (near to Hou mania,) varying in height and extent, are seen branching in every direction.” A wall, with sixteen bastions, is the only memorial of Apol- lonia. ‘The once magnificent Seleucia is nowa scene of desolation. There is not a single en- tire edifice, but the country is strewed for miles with fragments of decayed buildings. “ As far,” says Major Keppel, ‘‘as the eye could reach, the horizon presented a broken line of mounds; the whole of this place was a desert flat.” On the opposite bank of the Tigris, where Ctesiphon its rival stood, beside fragments of walls and broken masses of brick work, and re- mains of vast structures encumbered with heaps of earth, there is one magnificent monument of antiquity “in a remarkably perfect state of preservation,” “a large and aap pile of build- ing, the front of which presents to view a wall three hundred feet in length, adorned with four rows of arched recesses, with a central arch, in span eighty-six feet, and above a hundred feet high, supported by walls sixteen feet thick, and leading to a hall which extends to the depth of a hundred and fifty-six feet,” the width of the building. A great part of the back wall, and of the roof, is broken down; but that which remains “ still appears much larger than West- BAB minster Abbey. It is supposed to have been the lofty palace of Chosroes ; but there desola- tion now reigns. ‘On the site of Ctesiphon,” says Mignan, “ the smallest insect under heaven would not find a single blade of grass wherein to hide itself, nor one drop of water to allay its thirst.” In the rear of the palace, and attach- ed to it, are mounds two miles in circumference, indicating the utter desolation of buildings, formed to minister to luxury. 5. But let us come to the fulfilment of these wonderful prophecies in the present condition of Babylon itself, as described by those who have most recently visited it. “ Babylon shall become heaps.” Babylon the glory of kingdoms is now the greatest of ruins. “ Immense tumuli of temples, palaces, and ha- bitations of every description,” are every where seen, and form “long and varied lines of ruins,” which in some places, says Sir R. K. Porter, ** rather stsemile natural hills than mownds which cover the remains of great and splendid edifices.” These buildings, which were once the labour of slaves and the pride of kings, are now misshapen heaps of rubbish. “ The whole face of the country,” observes Rich, “is cover- ed with vestiges of building, in some places consisting of brick walls surprisingly fresh, in others, merely a vast succession of mounds of rubbish, of such indeterminate figures, variety, and extent, as to involve the person who should have formed any theory in inextricable confu- sion.”—“ Let nothing of her be left.” “Vast heaps constitute all that now remains of Ancient Babylon,” says Rich. All its grandeur is de- parted; all its treasures have been spoiled; all its excellence has utterly vanished; the very heaps are searched for bide. when nothing else can be found; even these are not left, wherever they can be taken away; and Baby- lon has for ages been ‘“‘a quarry abaya ground,” ready to the hand of every successive despoiler. Without the most remote allusion to this pro- phecy, Captain Mignan describes a mound at- tached to the palace, ninety yards in breadth by half that height, the whole of which isdeeply furrowed, in the same manner as the generality of the mounds. “The ground is extremely soft, and tiresome to walk over, and appears completely exhausted of all its building mate- rials; nothing now is left, save one towering hill, the earth of which is mixed with fragments of broken brick, red varnished pottery, tile, bitumen, mortar, glass, shells, and pieces of mother of pearl,”—worthless fragments, of no value to the poorest. “From thence shall she be taken, let nothing of her be left.” While the workmen “cast her up as heaps” while ex- cavating for bricks, that they may “ take” them “from thence,” and that “nothing may be left ;” they labour more than trebly in the fulfil- ment of prophecy: for the numerous and deep excavations form pools of water, on the over- flowing of the Euphrates, and, annually filled, they are not dried up throughout the year. “Deep cavities are also formed by the Arabs, when digging for hidden treasure.” Thus “the ground,” says Buckingham, “ is sometimes covered with poo's of water in the hollows.” 123 BAB “Sit in the dust, sit on the ground, O daugn- ter of the Chaldeans.” The surface of the mounds which form all that remains of Baby- lon, consists of decomposed buildings, reduced to dust; and over all the ancient streets ard habitations, there is literally nothing but the dust of the ground on which to sit—‘ Thy nakedness shall be uncovered.” ‘Our path,” says Captain Mignan, “lay through the great mass of ruined heaps on the site of ‘shrunken Babylon;’ and I am perfectly incapable of con- veying an adequate idea of the dreary, lonely nakedness that appeared before me.”—“ Sit thou silent, and get thee into darkness.” “There reigns throughout the ruins,” says Sir R. K. Porter, “a silence profound as the grave.” “Babylon is now a silent scene, a sublime solitude.”— It shall never be inhabited, nor dwelt in from generation to generation.” From Rauwolff’s testimony it appears that, in the sixteenth century, “there was not a house to be seen.” And now “the eye wanders over a barren desert, in which the ruins are nearly the only indication that it had ever been in- habited.” “ It is impossible,” adds Major Keppel, “to behold this scene and not to be reminded how exactly the predictions of Isaiah and Je- remiah have been fulfilled, even in the appear- ance Babylon was doomed to present, that ‘she should never be inhabited ;’ that ‘the Arabian should not pitch his tent there;’ that she should ‘become heaps;’ that her cities should be ‘a desolation, a dry land, and a wilderness.’” “Babylon is spurned alike by the heel of the Ottomans, the laracliten, and the sons of Ish- It is ‘a tenantless and desolate me- tropolis,” remarks Mignan. ‘It shall not be inhabited, but be wholly desolate. Neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there, neither shall the shepherds make their folds there.” It was prophesied of Ammon that it should be a stable for camels and a couching place for flocks; and of Philistia, that it should be cottages for shepherds, and a pasture of flocks. But Baby- lon was to be visited with a far greater desola- tion, and to become unfit or unsuited even for such a purpose; and that neither a tent would be pitched there, even by an Arab, nor a fold made by a shepherd, implies the last degree of solitude and desolation. “It is common in these parts for shepherds to make use of ruined edifices to shelter their flocks in.” But Baby- lon is an exception. Instead of taking the bricks from thence, the shepherd might very readily erect a defence from wild beasts, and make a fold for his flock amidst the heaps of Babylon; and the Arab who fearlessly traverses it by day, might pitch his tent by mght. But neither the one nor the other could now be persuaded to remain a single night among the ruins. The superstitious dread of evil spirits, far more than the natural terror of the wild beasts, effectually prevents them. Captain Mignan was accompanied by six Arabs, com- pletely armed; but he “could not induce them to remain toward night, from the apprehension of evil spirits. It is impossible to eradicate this idea from the minds of this people, who are very deeply imbued with superstition.” mael.” BAB “ Wild beasts of the deserts shall lie there, and their houses shall be full of doleful crea- tures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs (goats) shall dance there,” &. ‘‘ There are many dens of wild beasts in various parts. And while the lower excavations are often pools of water, in most of the cavities are num- bers of bats and owls.” The king of the forest now ranges over the site of that Babylon which Nebuchadnezzar built for his own glory. And the temple of Belus, the greatest work of man, is now like unto a natural den of lions. Two or three majestic lions were seen upon its heights by Sir Robert Ker Porter, as he was approaching it; and “the broad prints of their feet were left plain in the clayey soil.” Major Keppel saw there a similar foot-print of a lion. It is also the unmolested retreat of jackals, hyenas, and other noxious animals. Wild beasts are numerous at the Mujelibé, as well as on Birs Nimrood. ‘‘ The mound,” says Kinneir, “was full of large holes: we entered some of them, and found them strewed with the car- casses and skeletons of animals recently killed. The ordure of wild beasts was so strong, that penis got the better of curiosity; for we ad no doubt as to the savage nature of the inhabitants. Our guides, indeed, told us, that all the ruins abounded in lions, and other wild beasts: so literally has the divine prediction been fulfilled, that wild beasts of the deserts should lie there, and their houses be full of doleful creatures; that the wild beasts of the island should cry in their desolate houses.” “The sea is come upon Babylon. She is covered with the multitude of the waves there- of.” The traces of the western bank of the Euphrates are now no longer discernible. The river overflows unrestrained; and the very ruins, with “every appearance of the embank- ment,” have been swept away. “The ground there is low and marshy, and presents not the slightest vestige of former buildings, of any description whatever.” ‘‘ Morasses and ponds,” says Porter, ‘‘tracked the ground in various parts. For a long time after the general sub- siding of the Euphrates, great part of this plain is little better than aswamp,” &c. “ The ruins of Babylon are then inundated, so as to render many parts of them inaccessible, by converting the valleys among them into morasses.” But while Babylon is thus “covered with the mul- titude of waves, and the waters come upon it ;” yet, in striking contrast and seeming contra- diction to such a feature of desolation, (like the formation of “pools of water,” from the ‘casting up of heaps,”) are the elevated sun- burnt ruins, which the waters do not overflow, ara the “dry waste” and “ parched and burn- ing plain,” on which the heaps of Babylon lie, equally prove that it is “a desert, a dry land, and a wilderness.” One part, even on the western side of the river, is “low and marshy, and another,” says Mignan, “ an arid desert.” Many other striking particulars might be collected; and we may conclude in the words of Mr. Keith, from whose work on the prophe- cies several of the above particulars have been extracted :—“ Is it possible that there can be 124 BAD any attestation of the truth of prophecy, if it be not witnessed here? Is there any spot on earth which has undergone a more complete trans- formation? ‘The records of the human race,’ it has been said with truth, ‘do not present a contrast more striking than that between the primeval magnificence of Babylon and its long desolation.’ Its ruins have of late been care- fully and_scrupulously examined by different natives of Britain, of unimpeached veracity; and the result of every research is a more striking demonstration of the literal accom- plishment of every prediction. How few spots are there on earth of which we have so clear and faithful a picture as prophecy gave to fallen } Babylon at a time when no spot on earth re- sembled it less than its present desolate solitary site! or could any prophecies respecting any single place have been more precise, or won- derful, or numerous, or true, or more gradually accomplished throughout many generations ? And when they look at what Babylon was, and what it is, and perceive the minute realization of them all, may not nations learn wisdom, may not tyrants tremble, and may not skeptics think ?” The reasons why prophecies so numerous and particular were recorded concerning Baby- lon, appear to have been, 1. That Babylon was the great oppressor of the Jews. 2. That it was the type of all the powerful persecuting enemies of the church of God, especially ot Rome; and in its fate they may read their own. 3. That the accomplishment of prophecy in the destruction of so eminent an empire might give a solemn testimony to the truth of the Scrip- tures to the whole earth, and to all ages. BACKSLIDING, a falling off, or defection in matters of religion; an apostasy, Acts xxi, 21; 2 Thess. ii, 3; 1 Tim. iv, 1. This may be either partial or complete: partial, when it is in the heart, as Prov. xiv, 14; complete, as that described in Heb. vi, 4, &c; x, 6, &c. On the latter passage Chrysostom observes, “‘ When a house has a strong foundation, suppose an arch fall, some of the beams break, or a wall decline, while the foundation is good, these breaches may be repaired; so in religion, whilst a per- son maintains the true doctrines, and remains on the firm rock, though he fall, true repent- ance may restore him to the favour and image of God: but as in a house, when the foundation is bad, nothing can save the building from ruin; so when heretical doctrines are admitted for a foundation, nothing can save the professor from destruction.” It is important in interpreting these passages to keep it steadfastly in mind, that the apostasy they speak of is not only morab but doctrinal. BADGER, wnn. This wordina plural form occurs, Exod. xxv, 5; xxvi, 14; xxxv, 7, 23; xxxvi, 19; xxxix, 34; Num. iv, 6, 8, 10-12, 14, 25; Ezek. xvi, 10; and is joined with my, skins used for the covering of the tabernacle in the wilderness. The Jewish interpreters are agreed as to its being some animal. Jarchi says it was a beast of many colours, which no more exists. Kimchi holds the same opi- nion, Aben Ezra thinks it some animal of the BAL bovine kind, of whose skins shoes are made; alluding to Ezek. xvi, 10. Most modern inter- preters have taken it to be the badger, and among these our English translators; but, in the first place, the badger is not an inhabitant of Arabia; and there is nothing im its skin pe- culiarly proper either for covering a tabernacle or making shoes. Haseus, Michaelis, and others, have laboured to prove that it is the mermaid, or homo marinus, the trichekus of Linneus. Faber, Dathe, and Rosenmuller, think that it is the seal, or sea calf, vitwlus marinus, the skin of which is both strong and pliable, and was accounted by the ancients as a most proper outer covering for tents, and was also made into shoes, as Rau has clearly shown. Niebuhr says, “ A merchant of Abu- shahr called dahash that fish which the cap- tains in English vessels call porpoise, and the Germans, sea hog. In my voyage from Mas- kat to Abushahr, I saw a prodigious quantit together near Ras Mussendom, that were all going the same way, and seemed to swim with great vehemence.” Bochart thinks that not an animal, but a colowr, was intended, Exodus xxv, 5; so that the covering of the tabernacle was to be azure, or sky blue. G, a purse or pouch, Deut. xxv, 13; 1 Sam. xvii, 40; Luke xii, 33; Job xiv, 17. The money collected in the treasuries of eastern princes was reckoned up in certain equal sums, put into bags and sealed. These are, in some parts of the Levant, called purses, where they estimate great expenses by so many purses. The money collected in the temple in the time of Joash, for its reparation, seems, in like man- ner, to have been told up in bags of equal value; and these were probably delivered sealed to those who paid the workmen, 2 Kings xii, 10. In the east, in the present day, a bag of money ia for some time at least, currently from and to hand, under the authority of a banker’s seal, without any examination of its contents. See Tobit ix, 5; xi, 16. BAKING BREAD. Abraham directed Sa- rah to bake cakes upon the hearth, for the use of the strangers who had visited him, Genesis xviii, 6. Elijah requests the same of the widow of Zarephath, 1 Kings xvii, 13. Amnon the son of David requests Tamar his sister to come and make cakes in his sight, that he might eat at her hand, 2 Sam. xiii, 6. These and other allu- sions to the preparation of bread will be ex- plained by referring to eastern customs. Rau- wolff observes that travellers frequently bake bread in the deserts of Arabia, on the ground heated for that purpose by fire, covering their cakes of bread with ashes and coals, and turn- ing them several times till they are enough. The eastern bread is made in small thin cakes, and is generally eaten new. Sometimes it was ‘however made to keep several days, as the shew bread; and a sort of rusks, or bread for travelling, Joshua ix, 12, The eastern ladies of rank often prepare cakes, pastry, &c, in their own apartments. BALAAM, a prophet of the city of Pethor, or Bosor, upon the Euphrates, whose inter- course with Balak, king of the Moabites, who 125 BAL sent for him to curse the Israelites, is recordea at large by Moses, Num. xxii-xxiv. It has been a subject of controversy, whether Balaam was a true prophet or a mere diviner, magician, or fortune teller. Origen says that his whole power consisted in magic and cursing. Theo- doret is of opinion that Balaam did not consult the Lord, but that he was supernaturally in- spired, and constrained to speak against his own inclination. Cyril says that he was a ma- gician, an idolater, and a false prophet, whe spoke truth against his will; and St. Ambrose compares him to Caiaphas, who prophesied without being aware of the import of what he said. Jerom seems to have adopted the opinion of the Hebrews; which was, that Balaam knew the true God, erected altars to him, and that he was a true prophet, though corrupted by ava- rice, Num. xxii, 18. St. Austin and other com- mentators have inclined to this opinion. Dr. Jortin supposes that Balaam was a worshipper of the true God, and a priest and prophet o* reat reputation; and that he was sent for by alak from a notion which generally prevail- ed, that priests and prophets could sometimes, by prayers and sacrifices duly and skilfully ap- lied, obtain favours from God, and that their imprecations were efficacious. He conceives that the prophet had been accustomed to reve- lations, and that he used to receive them in visions, or in dreams of the night. It cannot be denied that the Scripture expressly calls him a prophet, 2 Pet. ii, 15, and therefore those are probably right who think that he had once been a good man and a true prophet, till, loving the wages of unrighteousness, and prostituting the honour of his office to covetousness, he aposta- tized from God, and, betaking himself to idola- trous practices, fell under the delusion of the devil, of whom he learned all his magical en- chantments; though at this juncture, when the preservation of his people was concerned, it might be consistent with God’s wisdom to ap- pear to him and overrule his mind by the im- pulse of real revelations. As to what passed between him and his ass, when that animal was miraculously enabled to speak to its mas- ter, commentators are divided in their opinions; whether it really and literally happened as Mo- ses relates it, or whether it be an allegory only, or was the mere imagination or vision of Ba- laam. Eut St. Peter evidently mentions it as a fact literally and certainly ocewring: “the dumb ass, speaking with man’s voice, when she forbade the madness of the prophet,” 2 Pet. ii, 16. This, it is true, has frequently been made the subject of profane banter by those whose skepticism leads them to scoff at all prodigies. But how absurd is it to subject a miraculous event to the ordinary rules of reasoning! “Say what you will of the formation of the tongue and jaws being unfit for speaking,” says Bishop Newton, “yet an adequate cause is assigned for this wonderful event; for it is expressly said that ‘the Lord opened the mouth of the ass ;’ and who that believes a God, can doubt his power to do this and much more? The miracle was by no means needless or superflu- ous; it was well adapted to convince Balaam BAL that the mouth and tongue were under God’s direction, and that the same divine power which caused the dumb ass to speak contrary to its nature, could, in like manner, make him utter blessings contrary to his inclination. And, accordingly, he was overruled to bless the peo- ple, though he came prepared and disposed to curse them; which was the greater miracle of the two; for the ass was merely passive, but Balaam resisted the good motions of God.” The prophecy which Balaam delivered con- cerning Israel on this remarkable occasion, and which is contained in Numbers xxiv, 5-9, has been greatly admired by critics. Bishop Lowth, in particular, remarks that he knows nothing in the whole scope of the Hebrew poetry more exquisite or perfect. “It abounds,” says he, “in splendid imagery, copied immediately from the tablet of nature; and is chiefly conspicuous for the glowing elegance of the style, and the form and diversity of the figures.” After his predictions, Balaam returned into his own country; but before he left the land of Moab, as if vexed with his own disappoint- nient in missing the promised reward, and with a purpose of revenging himself on the Israel- ites, as the cause of it, he instructed the Moab- ites and Midianites in a wicked scheme, which was to send their daughters into the camp of the Israclites, in order to draw them first into lewdness, and then into idolatry, the cer- tain means of depriving them of the help of that God who protected them. This artifice succeeded; for as the Israelites lay encamped at Shittim, many of them were deluded by these strange women, not only to commit whoredom with them, but to assist at their sacrifices, and worship their god Baal-Peor, Num. xxv, 1-3; xxxi, 16; Mic. vi, 5; 2 Pet. ii, 15; Jude 11; Rev. ii, 14; Deut. xxiii, 4,5; Joshua xxiv, 9, 10; Neh. xiii, 2. God commanded Moses to avenge this crime. He therefore declared war against the Midianites, killed five of their princes, and a great number of other persons without distinction of age or sex, among whom was Balaam himself. Moses says that Balaam consulted the Lord, and calls the Lord his God: “I cannot go be- ond the commandment of the Lord my God,” um. xxii, 18. The reason why Balaam calls Jehovah, ‘‘ my God” may be, because he was of the posterity of Shem, who maintained the worship of Tahoveh, not only in his own per- son, but among his descendants , so that while the posterity of Ham fell into idolatry, and the osterity of Japhet were settled at a distance in Europe, the Shemites generally, though not universally, retained the worship of God. BALDNESS is a natural effect of old age, in which period of life the hair of the head, want- ing nourishment, falls off, and leaves the head naked. Artificial baldness was used as a token of mourning ; it is threatened to the voluptuous daughters of Isracl, instead of well set hair, Isaiah ili, 24. See Mic. i, 16; and instances of it occur, Isaiah xv, 2; Jer. xlvii, 5. See Ezek. vii, 18; Amos viii, 10. The insult offered to Elisha by the young people of Bethel, improperly rendered “little 126 BAL children,” who cried out after him, “Go up, thou bald head,” may here be noticgd. The town of Bethel was one of the principal nur- series of Ahab’s idolatry, and the contempt was offered to Elisha in his public character as a prophet of the Lord. If in the expression, “Go up,” there was also a reference to the transla- tion of Elijah, as turning it into jest, this was another aggravation of the sin, to which these young people were probably instigated by their parents. ‘The malediction laid upon them by the prophet was not an act of private resent- ment, but evidently proceeded from prophetic impulse. ALM, »s, Gen. xxxvii, 25; xlili, 11; Jer. viii, 22; xlvi, 11; li,8; Ezek. xxvii, 17. Balm, or balsam, is used with us as a common name for many of those oily resinous substances, which flow spontaneously or by incision, from certain trees or plants, and are of considerable use in medicine and surgery. It serves there- fore very properly to express the Hebrew word wy, which the LXX have rendered fnrivn, and the ancients have interpreted restn indiscrimi- nately. BALSAM TREE, pow-dya; in Arabic, abus- chém, that is, “father of scent,” sweet-scented. According to Mr. Bruce, the dalessan, balsam, or balm, is an evergreen shrub, or tree, which grows to about fourteen feet high, spontane- ously and without culture in its native country, Azab, and all along the coast to Babelmandel. There were three kinds of balsam extracted from this tree. The first was called opobalsa- mum, and was most highly esteemed. It was that which flowed spontaneously, or by means of incision, from the trunk or branches of the tree in summer time. The second was carpo- balsamwm, made by expressing the fruit when in maturity. The third, and least esteemed of all, was Aylobalsamum, made by a decoction of the buds and small young twigs. The great value set upon this drug in the east is traced to the earliest ages. The Ishmaelites, or Arabian carriers and merchants, trafficking with the Arabian commodities into Egypt, brought with them »s as a part of their cargo, Gen. xxxvii, 25; xiii, 11. Josephus, in the history of the antiquities of his country, says that a tree of this balsam was brought to Jerusalem by the queen of Saba, and given among other presents to Solomon, who, as we know from Scripture, was very studious of all sorts of plants, and skilful in the description and distinction of them. And here, indeed, it seems to have been cultivated and to have thriven ; so that the place of its origin, through length of time, combined with other reasons, came to be forgotten. Not- withstanding the positive authority of Josephus, and the great probability that attends it, we cannot put it in competition with what we have been told in Scripture, as we have just now seen that the place where it grew, and was sold to merchants, was Gilead in Judea, more than 1730 years before Christ, or 1000 before the queen of Saba; so that in reading the verse, nothing can be plainer than that it had been transplanted into Judea, flourished, and had become an article of commerce in Gilead, long BAN before the period he mentions. “A company of Ishmaelites came from Gilead with their camels, bearing spicery and balm, and myrrh, going. to carry it down to Egypt,” Gen. xxxvii, 5. ‘Theophrastus, Dioscorides, Pliny, Strabo, Diodorus Siculus, Tacitus, Justin, Solinus, and Serapion, speaking of its costliness and medi- cinal virtues, all say that this balsam came from Judea. The words of Pliny are, “ But to all other odours whatever, the balsam is preferred, produced in no other part but the land of Ju- dea, and even there in two gardens only; both of them belonging to the king, one no more than twenty acres, the other still smaller.” The whole valley of Jericho was once esteemed the most fruitful in Judea; and the obstinacy with which the Jews fought here to prevent the bal- sam trees from falling into the possession of the Romans, attests the importance which was attached to them. This tree Pliny describes as pens to the vale of Jericho, and as “ more ike a vine than a myrtle.” It was esteemed so precious a rarity, that both Pompey and Ti- tus carried a specimen to Rome in triumph; and the balsam, owing to its scarcity, sold for double its weight in silver, till its high price led to the practice of adulteration. Justin makes it the chief source of the national wealth. He describes the country in which it grew, as a valley like a garden, environed with continual hills, and, as it ‘were, enclosed with a wall. “The space of the valley contains 200,000 acres, and is called Jericho. In that valley, there is wood as admirable for its fruitfulness as for its delight, for it is intermingled with palm trees and opobalsamum. Thetrees of the opobalsamum have a resemblance to fir trees ; but they are lower, and are planted and hus- banded after the manner of vines. On a set season of the year they sweat balsam. The darkness of the place is beside as wonderful as the fruitfulness of it; for although the sun shines no where hotter in the world, there is naturally a moderate and peed gloominess of the air.” According to Mr. Buckingham, this description is most accurate. ‘‘ Both the heat and the gloominess,” he says, ‘“‘ were ob- served by us, though darkness would be an im- proper term to apply to this gloom.” BANGORIAN CONTROVERSY, a con- troversy that arose with Dr. Hoadly, bishop of Bangor. That prelate, in a sermon preached before George I, asserted that Christ was su- preme in his own kingdom; that he had not delegated his power, like temporal lawgivers during their absence, to any persons as his vicegerents or deputies; and that the church of England, as all other national churches, was merely a civil or human institution, esta- blished for the purpose of diffusing and _per- petuating the knowledge and belief of Chris- tianity. On the meeting of the convocation, a conimittee was appointed to examine this pub- fication. A heavy censure was passed against it, as tending to subvert all government and discipline in the church of Christ, to reduce his kingdom to a state of anarchy and confu- sion, and to impugn and impeach the royal sunreniacy in matters ecclesiastical, and the au- 127 BAN thority of the legislature to enforce obedienco in matters of religion, by severe sanction. To these proceedings a sudden stop was put by proroguing the convocation; but the contro- versy which had been commenced was con- tinued for several years. BANNER, an ensign, or standard, used by armies or caravans on their journeys in the eastern countries. The original $x, is ren- dered by lexicographers and translators under this word, as a noun, in which form it often occurs, @ standard, banner ; as a verb, once, to set up a banner; Psalm xx, 5; as a participle pahul, vewillatus, one distinguished by a ban- ner, the chief; asa participle niphal, bannered, or with banners. The meaning of the root is illustrated by the very ingenious and _ sensible author of “ Observations on Divers Passages of Scripture,” who shows, from Pitts and Po- cocke, that, “asin Arabia and the neighbouring countries, on account of the intense heat of the sun by day, people generally choose to travel in the night ; so, to prevent confusion in their large caravans, particularly in the annual one to Mecca, each company, of which the cara- van consists, has its distinct portable beacon, which is carried on the top of a pole, and con- sists of several lights, which are somewhat like iron stoves, into which they put short dry wood, with which some of the camels are loaded. Every company has one of these poles belonging to it; some of which have ten, some twelve of these lights on their tops, more or less; and they are Tews of different figures, as well as numbers; one, perhaps, in an oval shape; another, triangular, or in the form of an M, or N, &c, so that by these every one knows his respective company. They are car- ried in the front, and set up in the place where the caravan is to pitch, before that comes up, at some distance from one another. As tra- velling then in the night must be, generally speaking, more agreeable to a great multitude in that desert, we may believe a compassionate God, for the most part, directed Israel to move in the night. And in consequence, must we not rather suppose the standards of the tribes were moveable beacons, like those of the Mecca pilgrims, than flags or any thing of that kind ?” This ingenious author seems, however, to for- et, 1. That the pillar of fire was with the sraelites to direct their marches. 2. That the Israelites were not a mere caravan, but an ar- my; and, as such, for order, required standards as well by day as by night. See Armuzs. BANQUET. The hospitality of the present day in the east exactly resembles that of the remotest antiquity. The parable of the “ great supper” is in those countries literally realized. And such was the hospitality of ancient Greece and Rome. When a person provided an en- tertainment for his friends or neighbours, he sent round a number of servants to invite the guests ; these were called vocatores by the Ro- mans, and xAnrdpes by the Greeks. The day when the entertainment is to be given is fixed some considerable time before ; and in the even- ing of the day appointed, a messenger comes to bid the guests tothe feast. The custom is BAN thus introduced in Luke: “A certain man made a great supper, and bade many ; and sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come, for all things are now ready.” They were not now asked for the first time; but had already accepted the invitation, when the day was appointed, and were there- fore already pledged to attend at the hour when they might be summoned. They were not taken unprepared, and could not in consistency and decency plead any prior engagement. They could not now refuse, without violating their word, and insulting the master of the feast, and, therefore, justly subjected themselves to punishment. The terms of the parable exactly accord with established custom. The Jews did not always follow the same method; sometimes they sent a number of servants different ways among the friends they meant to invite; and at other times, a single male domestic. The Persians send a deputation to meet their guests: this deputation are called openers of the way ; and the more distinguished the per- sons sent, and the greater the distance to which they go, so much greater is the honour. So it is proclaimed, ‘‘ Go forth and behold king So- lomon, with the crown wherewith his mother crowned him.” ‘“ The bridegroom cometh, go ye forth to meet him.” The names of the per- sons to be invited were inscribed upon tablets, and the gate was set open to receive those who had obtained them; but to prevent any getting in that had no ticket, only one leaf of the door was left open ; and that was strictly guarded by the servants of the family. Those who were admitted had to go along a narrow passage to the room; and after all who had received tick- ets of admission were assembled, the master of: the house rose and shut to the door; and then the entertainment began. The first ceremony, after the guests arrived at the house of enter- tainment, was the salutation performed by the master of the house, or one appointed in his place. Among the Greeks, this was sometimes done by embracing with arms around ; but the most common salutation was by the conjunc- tion of their right hands, the right hand being reckoned a pledge of fidelity and friendship. Sometimes they kissed the lips, hands, knees, or feet, as the person deserved more or less respect. The Jews welcomed a stranger to their house in the same way ; for our Lord com- nae to Simon, that he had given him no kiss, ad welcomed him to his table with none of the accustomed tokens of respect. The custom of reclining was introduced from the nations of the east, and particularly from Persia, where it seems to have been adopted at a very remote period. The Old Testament Scriptures allude to both customs; but they furnish undeniable proofs of the antiquity of sitting. As this 1s undoubtedly the most aatural and dignified posture, so it seems to nave been universally adopted by the first ge- nerations of men; and it was not till after the apse of many ages, and when degenerate man aad lost much of the firmness of his primitive character, that he began to recline. The tables were constructed of three dif 128 BAN ferent parts or separate tables, making but one in the whole. One was placed at the upper end crossways, and the two others joined to its ends, one on each side, so as to leave an open space between, by which the attendants could readily wait at ‘all the three. Round these tables were placed beds or couches, one to each table; each of these beds were called cliniwm ; and three of these being united, to surround the three tables, made the triclintwm. At the end of each cliniwm was a footstool, for the convenience of mounting up to it. These beds were formed of mattresses, and supported on frames of wood, often highly ornamented ; the mattresses were covered with cloth or tapestry, according to the quality of the entertainer. ‘hi the splendid feast which Ahasuerus made for the nobles of his kingdom, beds of silver and gold were placed round the tables; according to a custom in the east of naming a thing fro its principal ornament, these must have been couches profusely ornamented with the precious metals. Each guest inclined the- superior part of his body upon his left arm, the lower part being stretched out at length, or a little bent, his head was raised up, and his back sometimes supported with pillows. In conversation, those who spoke raised themselves almost upright, supported by cushions. When they ate, they raised themselves on their elbow, and made use of the right hand; which is the reason our Lord mentions the hand of Judas in the singu- lar number : “‘ He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me,” Matt. xxvi, 23. See AccuBaTIon. When a Persian comes into an assembly, and has saluted the house, he then measures with his eye the place to which his degree of rank entitles him; he straightway wedges himself into the line of guests, without offering any apology for the general disturbance which he produces. It often happens that persons take a higher seat than that to which they are en- titled. The Persian scribes are remarkable for their arrogance in this respect, in which they seem to bear a striking resemblance to the Jews of the same profession in the days of our Lord. The master of the entertainment has, however, the privilege of placing any one as high in the rank of the assembly as he may choose. And Mr. Morier saw an instance of it at a public entertainment to which he was invited. When the assembly was nearly full, the governor of Kashan, a man of humble mien, although of considerable rank, came in and seated himself at the lowest place; when the master of the house, after numerous ex- pressions of welcome, pointed with his hand to an upper seat in the assembly, to which he de- sired him to move, and which he accordingly did. These circumstances furnish a beautiful and striking illustration of the parable whick our Lord uttered, when he saw how those that were invited chose the highest places. Before the Greeks went to an entertainment, they washed and anointed themselves; for it was thought very indecent to appear on such an occasion, defiled with sweat and dust; but they who came off a journey were washed, and ee eS a BAN 129 clothed with suitable apparel, in the house of the entertainer, before they were admitted to the feast. When Telemachus and Pisistratus arrived at the palace of Menelaus, in the course of their wanderings, they were immediately supplied with water to wash, and with oil to anoint, themselves, before they took their seats by the side of the king. The oil used on such occasions, in the palaces of nobles and princes, was perfumed with roses and other odoriferous herbs. They also washed their hands before they sat down to meat. To these customary marks of respect, to which a traveller, or one who had no house of his own, was entitled, our Lord alludes in his defence of Mary: “ And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house ; thou gavest me no water for my feet, but she hath washed my feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head. Thou gavest meno kiss; but this woman, since the time I came in, hath not ceased to kiss my feet. My head with oil thou didst not anoint ; but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment,” Luke vii, 44. Homer mentions it as a custom quite common’ in those days, for daughters to wash and afterward to anoint the feet of their parents. Our Saviour was in the circumstances of a traveller; he had no home to wash and anoint himself in, before he went to Simon’s house; and, therefore, had a right to complain that his entertainer had failed in the respect that was due to him asa stranger, at adistance from the usual place of his resi- dence. The Jews regularly washed their hands and their feet before dinner; they considered this ceremony as essential, which discovers the reason of their astonishment, when they ob- served the disciples of Christ sit down at table without having observed this ceremony: ““Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders ? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread,” Matt. xv, 2. After meals they wash them again; for, says the evangelist, “the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tra- dition of the elders,” Mark vii, 3, 4. When they washed their hands themselves, they lunged them into the water up to the wrists; Ei when others performed this office for them, it was done by pouring it upon their hands. The same custom prevailed in Greece, for Homer says, the attendants poured water on the hands of their chiefs. This was a part of the service which Elisha performed for his master Elijah; and in every instance under the law where water was applied to the body by another, it was done, not by plunging, but by pouring or sprinkling. To wash the feet was a mean and servile office, and, therefore, gene- rally performed by the female servants of the family. 1t was occasionally performed, how- ever, by females of the highest rank; for the daughter of Cleobulus, one of the Grecian sages, and king of Lindus, 2 city on’the south- east part of Rhodes, was not ashamed to wash the feet of her father’s guests. And it was customary for them to kiss the feet of those to whom they thought a than common BAP respect was due; forthedaughter of Philocleon, in Aristophanes, washed her father, anointed his feet, and, stooping down, kissed them. The towel which was used to wipe the feet after washing, was considered through all the east as a badge of servitude. Suetonius men- tions it asa sure mark of the intolerable pride of ee, the Roman emperor, that when at supper he suffered senators of the highest rank, sometimes to stand by his couch, sometimes at his feet, girt with a towel. Hence it appears that this honour was a token of humiliation, which was not, however, absolutely degrading and inconsistent with all regard to rank. Yet our blessed Redeemer did not refuse to give his disciples, and Judas Iscariot himself, that proof of his love and humility. The entertainment was conducted by a sym- posiarch, or governor of the feast. He was, says Plutarch, one chosen among the guests, the most pleasant and diverting in the com- pany, that would not get drunk, and yet would drink freely; he was to rule over the rest, to forbid any disorder, but to encourage their mirth. He observed the temper of the guests, and how the wine worked upon them; how every one could bear his wine, and to endea. vour accordingly to keep them all in harmony, and in an even composure, that there might be no disquiet nor disturbance. ‘To do this effect- ually, he first proclaimed liberty to every one to drink what he thought proper, and then ob- serving who among them was most ready to be disordered, mixed more water with his wine, to keep him equally sober with the rest of the company ; so that this officer took care that none should be forced to drink, and that none, though left to their own choice, should get intoxicated. Such, we have reason to believe,. was the governor of the feast at the marriage in Cana of Galilee, which our Lord honoured: with his presence. The term dpyerpixhw,os lite- rally signifies the governor of a place furnished | with three beds; and he acted as one having: authority ; for he tasted the wine before he distributed it to the company, which, it is uni-~ versally admitted, was one of the duties of a symposiarch. Neither the name nor the act accords with the character and situation of a guest; he must, therefore, have been the sym- posiarch, or governor of the feast. The exist- ence of such an officer among the Jews is placed beyond a doubt, by a passage in the apocryphal hook of Ecclesiasticus, where his office is thus described: “If thou be made the master of a feast, lift not thyself up, but be among them as one of the rest ; take diligent care of them, and so sit down. And when thou hast done all thine office, take thy place, that thou mayest be merry with them, and re- ceive acrown for the well-ordering of the feast,” Ecclesiasticus xxxii, 1. See ARcHITRICLINUS. BAPTISM, from the Greek word Barrigu, is a rite or ceremony by which persons are initiated into the profession of the Christian religion ; or, it is the appointed mode by which a person assumes the profession of Christianity, or is admitted to a participation of the privi- leges belonging to the disciples of Christ. It BAP was by this mode that those who believed the Gospel were to be separated from unbelievers, and joined to the visible Christian church; and the rite accompanying it, or washing with wa- ter, was probably intended to represent the washing away, or renouncing, the impurities of some former state, viz. the sins that had been committed, and the vicious habits that had been contracted; and to this purpose it may be observed, that the profession of repent- ance always accompanied, or was understood to accompany, the profession of faith in Christ. That our Lord instituted such an ordinance as baptism, is plain from the commission given to the Apostles after his resurrection, and_record- ed in Matt. xxviii, 19,20. To this rite there is also an allusion in Mark xvi, 16; John iii, 5; Acts ii, 41; viii, 12, 36-38; xxii, 16. Thede- sign of this institution, which was to express faith in Christ on the part of those who were baptized, and to declare their resolution of openly professing his religion, and cultivating real and universal holiness, appears from Rom. vi, 3,4; 1 Peter iii, 21; Ephes. v. 26; and Titus ili, 5. We find no account of baptism as a distinct religious rite, before the mission of John, the forerunner of Christ, who was called the ‘‘ Baptist,” on account of his being commanded by God to baptize with water all who should hearken to his invitation to repent. ‘Washing, however, accompanied many of the Jewish rites, and, indeed, was required after contracting any kind of uncleanness. Also, soon after the time of our Saviour, we find it to have been the custom of the Jews solemnly to baptize, as well as to circumcise, all their ‘proselytes. As their writers treat largely of the reasons for this rite, and give no hint of its being a novel institution, it is probable that ‘this had always been the custom antecedent to the time of Moses, whose account of the ‘rite of circumcision, and of the manner of per- forming it, is by no means circumstantial. Or, baptism, after circumcision, might have come into use gradually from the natural propriety of the thing, and its easy conformity to other -Jewish customs. For if no Jew could approach the tabernacle, or temple, after the most trifling ‘ancleanness, without washing, much less would -it be thought proper to admit a proselyte from a state so impure and unclean as Heathenism was conceived to be, without the same mode -of purification. The antiquity of this practice of proselyte baptism among the Jews, has been a subject of considerable debate among divines. {tis strenuously maintained by Lightfoot. Dr. John Owen considers the opinion, that Chris- ‘tian baptism came from the Jews, as destitute ofall probability. Onthe other hand, Mr. Wall has made it highly probable, to say the least, ‘from many testimonies of the Jewish writers, ‘who without one dissenting voice allow the ‘fact, that the practice of Jewish baptism ob- ‘tained before and, at, as well as after, our Sa- viour’s time. There is also a strong intimation, ‘even in the Gospel itself; of such a known prac- tice among the Jews in the time of John the ‘Baptist, John i, 25. The testimonies of the “Jewish writers aro of the greater weight, be- 130 BAP cause the practice, reported by them to have been of so ancient a date, did still remain among them; for if it had not been of that antiquity to which it pretends, viz. before the time of Christ, it is not likely that it would ever have become a custom among the Jews afterward. Would they begin to proselyte per- sons to their religion by baptism in imitation of the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth, whom they held accursed? And yet if this proselyte baptism were adopted by the Jews since the time of Christ, it must have been a mere inno- vation in imitation of Christians, which is not very likely. This ceremony is performed by immersion in the oriental churches. The prac- tice of the western churches is, to sprinkle the water on the head or face of the person to be baptized, excent in tne church of Milan, in whose ritua. it us ordered, that the head of the infant be plunged three times into the water; the minister at the same time pronouncing the words, “I baptize thee in the name of the Fa- ther, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ;” importing that by this ceremony the person baptized is received among the professors of that religion which God, the Father of all, revealed to man- kind by the ministry of his Son, and confirmed by the miracles of his Spirit. 2. It is observable that the baptismal form, above cited from St. Matthew, never occurs in the same words, either in the book of the Acts, or in any of the Epistles. But though the form in St. Matthew never appears elsewhese, the thing intended thereby is always implied. There are many ceremonies delivered by ec- clesiastical writers, as used in baptism, which were introduced afterthe age of Justin Martyr, but which are now disused; as the giving milk and honey to the baptized, in the east; wine and milk, in the west, &c. They also added unction and the imposition of hands. Ter- tullian is the first who mentions the signing with the sign of the cross, but only as used in private, and not in public worship; and he particularly describes the custom of baptizing without it. Indeed, it does not appear to have been used in baptism till the latter end of the fourth or fifth century; at which time great virtue was ascribed to it. Lactantius, who lived in the beginning of the fourth centwy, says the devil cannot approach those who have the heavenly mark of the cross upon them as an impregnable fortress to defend them; but he does not say it was used in baptism. After the council of Nice, Christians added to bap- tism the ceremonies of exorcism and adjuration, to make evil spirits depart from the persons to be baptized. They made several signings with the cross, they used lighted candles, they gave salt to the baptized person to taste, and the priest touched is mouth and ears with spittle, and also bletv and spat upon his face. At that time also baptized persons wore white garments till the Sunday following. They had also va- rious other ceremonies; some of which are now abolished, though others of them remain in the church of Rome to this day. "3. The Quakers assert, that water baptism was never intended to continue in the church BAP of Christ any longer than while Jewish preju- dices made such an external ceremony neces- sary. They argue from Eph. iv, 5, in which one baptism is spoken of as necessary to Chris- tians, that this must be a baptism of the Spirit. But from comparing the texts that relate to this institution, it will plainly appear that water baptism was instituted by Christ in more general terms than will agree with this expli- cation. That it was administered to all the Gentile converts, and not confined to the Jews, appears from Matt. xxviii, 19, 20, compared with Acts x, 47; and that the baptism of the Spirit did not supersede water baptism appears to have been the judgment of Peter and of those that were with him; so that the one baptism spoken of seems to have been that of water; the communication of the Holy Spirit being only called baptism in a figurative sense. As for any objection which may be drawn from 1 Cor. i, 17, it is sufficiently answered by the preceding verses, and all the numerous texts, in which, in epistles written long after this, the Apostle speaks of ail Christians as baptized ; and argues from the obligation of baptism, in such a manner as we can never imagine he would have done, if he had apprehended it to have been the will of God that it should be discontinued in the church. Compare Rom. vi, 3, &c; Col. ii, 12; Gal. iii, 27. 4. Baptism, in early times, was only admi- nistered at Easter and Whitsuntide, except in cases of necessity. Adult persons were pre- pared for baptism by abstinence, prayer, and other pious exercises. It was to answer for them, says Mosheim, that sponsors, or god- fathers, were first instituted in the second cen- tury, though they were afterward admitted also in the baptism of infants. This, according to M. Daillé, was not done till the fourth cen- tury. Wall refers the origin of sponsors, or godfathers, on the authority of Tertullian, to the commencement of the second century ; who were used in the baptism of infants that could not answer for themselves. The catechumens were not forward in coming to baptism. St. Ambrose was not baptized before he was elect- ed bishop of Milan; and some of the fathers not till the time of’ their death. Some deferred it out of a tender conscience; and others out ©* too much attachment to the world; it being the prevailing opinion of the primitive times, that baptism, whenever conferred, washed away all antecedent stains and sins. Accordingly they deferred this sanctifying rite as long as possible, even till they apprehended they were at the point of death. Cases of this kind oceur at the beginning of the third century. Constantine the Greet was not baptized till he was at the last gasp, and in this he was fol- lowed by his son Constantius; and two of his other sons, Constantine and Constans, were killed before they were baptized. As to the necessity of baptism, we may observe, how- ever, that, though some seem to have laid too great stress upon it, as if it were indispensa- id necessary in order to salvation; it must be allowed, that for any person to omit baptism, when he acknowledges it to be an institution 1 BAP of Christ, and that it is the will o° Christ that he should submit to it, is an act of disobedience e his authority, which is inconsistent with true aith. 5. The word baptism is frequently taken for sufferings, Mark x,38; Luke xii, 50; Matt. xx, 22,23. Of expressions like these we find some traces in the Old Testament also, where waters often denote tribulations, Psalm lxix, 1, 15; cxxiv, 4,5; and where to be swallowed up by the waters, and to pass through the great wa- ters, signify to be overwhelmed with miseries and calamities. 6. St. Paul, endeavouring to prove the re- surrection of the dead, among several other reasons in support of the doctrine, says, “If the dead rise not at all, what shall they do who are baptized for the dead?” 1 Cor. xv, 29. Of this phrase various interpretations have been given; three of which only shall be here men- tioned. ‘It means,” say some, “ ‘baptized in the room of the dead just fallen in the cause of Christ, and who are thus supported by a suc- cession of new converts, immediately offering themselves to fill up their places, as ranks of soldiers who advance to combat in the room of their companions, who have just been slain in their sight.’” Others think it signifies, “ In hope of blessings to be received after they are numbered with the dead.” Dr. Macknight sup- plies the words, vis dvacrdcews, and reads the clause, “ Who are baptized for the resurrection of the dead;” or in consequence of their be- lieving in the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead; on account of which faith, and their profession of it, they are exposed to great suf- ferings, for which they can have no recompense, if there be no resurrection of the dead, nor any future life at all. 7. As to the subjects of baptism, the anti- pedobaptists hold that believing adults only are proper subjects, because the commission of Christ to baptize appears to them to restrict this ordinance to such only as are taught, or made disciples; and that, consequently, infants, who cannot be thus taught, ought to be ex- cluded. “It does not appear,” say they, “ that the Apostles, in executing the commission of Christ, ever baptized any but those who were first instructed in the Christian faith, and pro- fessed their belief of it.” They contend that infants can receive no benefit from baptism, and are not capable of faith and repentance, which are to be considered as prerequisites. 8. As to the mode, they observe that the meaning of the word Garrifw signifies to im- merse or dip, and that only; that John baptized in Jordan; that he chose a place where there was much water; that Jesus came up out of the water; that Philip and the eunuch went down both into the water; that the terms, washing, purifying, burying in baptism, so often mentioned in the Scriptures, allude to this mode; that immersion only was the practice of the Apostles and the first Christians; and that it was only laid aside from the love of novelty, and the coldness of climate. These positions, they think, are so clear from Seri; ture, and the history of the church, that they BAP stand in need of but little argument for their support. Farther, they also insist that all positive institutions depend entirely upon the will and declaration of the institutor; and that, therefore, reasoning by analogy from previously abrogated rites is to be rejected, and the express command of Christ respecting baptism ought to be our rule. ; 9. The Pedobaptists, however, are of a dif- ferent opinion. As to the subjects of baptism, they believe that qualified adults, who have not been baptized before, are certainly proper subjects ; but then they think, also, that infants ought not to be excluded. They believe that, as the Abrahamic and Christian covenants are the same, Gen. xvii, 7; Heb. vili, 12; that as children were admitted under the former; and that as baptism is now a sign, seal, or confirma- tion of this covenant, infants have as greata right to it as the children of the Israelites had to the seal of circumcision under the law, Acts ii, 39; Rom. iv, 11. Farther, if children are not to be baptized because there is no positive command for it, for the same reason they say that women should not come to the Lord’s Supper; nor ought we to keep holy the first day of the week; neither of these being ex- pecly commanded. If baptizing infants had een a human invention, they also ask, how such a practice could have been so universal in the first three hundred years of the church, and yet no record have remained when it was introduced, nor any dispute or controversy about it have taken place? Some reduce the matter toa narrower compass; urging, (1.) That God constituted in his church the membership of infants, and admitted them to that privilege by a religious ordinance, Gen. xvii; Gal. iui, 14,17. (2.) That this right of infants to church membership was never taken away: and this being the case, they argue, that infants must be received, because God has appointed it; and, since they must be received, it must be either with baptism or without it; but none must be received without baptism; therefore, infants must of necessity be baptized. Hence it is clear that, under the Gospel, infants are still continued exactly in the same relation to God and his church in which they were originally placed under former dispensations. That in- fants are to be received into the church, and as such baptized, is also inferred from the follow- ing passages of Scripture: Gen. xvii; Isa. xliv, 3; Matt. xix, 13; Luke ix, 47,48; Acts ii, 38, 39; Rom. xi, 17,21; 1 Cor. vii, 14. 10. Though there are no express examples in the New Testament of Christ and his Apos- tles baptizing infants, yet there is no proof that they were excluded. Jesus Christ actually blessed little children; and it is difficult to be- lieve that such received his blessing, and yet were not to be members of the Gospel church. If Christ received them, and would have us “ receive” them, how can we keep them out of the visible church? Beside, if children were not to be baptized, it is reasonable to expect that they would have been expressly forbidden. As whole households were baptized, it is also brobable there were children among them. 132 BAP From the year 400 to 1150, no society of men, in all that period of seven hundred and fifty ears, ever pretended to say it was unlawful to fapiiee infants: and still nearer the time of our Saviour there appears to have been scarcely any one who advised the delay of infant bap. tism. Ireneus, who lived in the second cen- tury, and was well acquainted with Polycarp, who was John’s disciple, declares expressly, that the church learned from the Apostles to baptize children. Origen, in the third century, affirms, that the custom of baptizing infants was received from Christ and his Apostles. Cyprian, and a council of ministers, held about the year 254, no less than sixty-six in number, unanimously agreed that children might be bap- tized as soon as they were born. Ambrose, who wrote about 274 years from the Apostles, declares that the baptism of infants had been practised by the Apostles themselves, and by the church down to that time. “The catho- lic church every where declares,” says Chry- sostom, in the fifth century, “that infants should be baptized;” and Augustine affirmed, that he never heard or read of any Christian, catholic or sectarian, but who always held that infants were to be baptized. They farther be- lieve that there needed no mention in the New Testament of receiving infants into the church, as it had been once appointed and never re- pealed. So far from confining baptism to adults, it must be remembered that _there is not a single instance recorded in the New Testa- ment, in which the descendants of Christian parents were baptized in adult years. The objection that infants are not proper subjects for baptism, because they cannot profess faith and repentance, falls with as much weight upon’ the institution of circumcision as infant baptism ; since they are as capable or are as fit subjects for the one as the other. Finally, it is generally acknowledged, that if infants die, (and a great part of the human race die in their infancy,) they are saved: if this be the case then why refuse them the sign of union with Christ, if they be capable of enjoying the thing signified ? 1. As to the mode, the Padobaptists deny that the term Garri?w, which is a derivative of Bérrw, and, consequently, must be something less in its signification, is invariably used in the New Testament to express plunging. It is denied, therefore, that dipping is its only meaning; that Christ absolutely enjoined im- mersion; and that it is his positive will that no other mode should be used. As the word Banrifw is used to express the various ablutions ae the Jews, such as sprinkling, pouring, &c, Heb. ix, 10, for the custom of washing before meals, and the washing of household furniture, pots, &c, it is evident from hence that it does not express the manner of doing a thing, whether by immersion or effusion, but only the thing done; that is, washing; or the application of water in some form or other. It nowhere signifies to dip, but in denoting a mode of, and in order to, washing or cleansing; and the mode or use is only the ceremonial part of A positive institute; just as in the Lord’s BAP Supper, the time of day, the number and pos- ture of the communicants, the quantity and quality of bread and wine, are circumstances not accounted essential by any part of Chris- tians. If in baptism there be an expressive emblem of the descending influence of the Spirit, pouring must be the mode of adminis- tration; for that is the Scriptural term most commonly and properly used for the commu- nication of divine influences, Matt. iii, 11; Mark i, 8, 10; Luke iii, 16-22; John i, 33; Acts i, 5; ii, 38, 39; vii, 12, 17; xi, 15, 16. The term sprinkling, also, is made use of in reference to the act of purification, Isa. lii, 15; Ezek. xxxvi, 25; Heb. ix, 13, 14; and there- fore cannot be inapplicable to baptismal purifi- cation. But, it is observed, that John baptized “am Jordan:” to this it is replied, To infer always a plunging of the whole body in water from this particle, would, in many instances, be false and absurd. The same Greek preposi- tion, év, is used when it is said they should be “baptized with fire;” but few will assert that they should be plunged into it. The Apostle, speaking of Christ, says, he came not, év, “ by water only ;” but, é&, “by water and blood.” There the same word, év, is translated by ; and with justice and propriety; for we know no good sense in which we could say he came in water. It has been remarked that é is, more than a hundred times, in the New Testament, rendered at; and in a hundred and fifty others it is translated with. If it be rendered so here, John baptized at Jordan, or with the water of Jordan, there is no proof that he plunged his disciples in it. Jesus, it is said, came up out of the water; but this is no proof that he was immersed, as the Greek term, dro, often signifies from: for instance, “ Who hath warned you to flee from,” not out of, “the wrath to come?” with many others that might be mentioned. Again: it is urged that Philip and the eunuch went down both into the water. To this it is answered, that here also is no proof of immersion: for, if the expression of their going down into the water necessarily includes dipping, then Philip was dipped, as well as the eunuch. The pre- position «'s, translated into, often signifies no more than to, or wnto: see Matt. xv, 24; Rom. x, 10; Acts xxviii, 14; Matt. iii, 11; xvii, 27: so that from none of these circumstances can it be proved that there was one person of all the baptized, who went into the water ankle deep. As to the Apostle’s expression, “ buried with him in baptism,” that has no force in the argument for immersion, since it does not allude to a custom of dipping, any more than our baptismal crucifixion and death has any such reference. It is not the sign, but the thing signified, that is here alluded to. As Christ was buried, and rose again to a heavenly life, so we by baptism signify that we are sepa- rated from sin, that we may live a new life of faith and love. To conclude: it is urged, against the mode of immersion, that, as it carries with it too much of the appearance of a burdensome rite for the Gospel dispensation; as it is too inde- 133 BAP cent for so solemn an ordirance; as it has a tendency to agitate the spirits, often rendering the subject unfit for the exercise of proper thoughts and affections, and indeed utterly in- capable of them; as in many cases the immer- sion of the body would, in all probability, be instant death; as in other situations it would be impracticable, for want of water; it cannot be considered as necessary to the ordinance of baptism, and there is the strongest improbabil- ity that it was ever practised in the times of the New Testament, or in the earliest periods of the Christian church. BAPTISTS, or ANTIPZEDOBAPTISTS, so called from their rejecting the baptism of infants. The Baptists in England form one of “the three denominations of Protestant Dis- senters.” The constitution of their churches, and their modes of worship, are congregational, or independent. They bore a considerable share in the sufferings of the seventeenth and preceding centuries,: for there were many among the Lollards and Wickliffites who dis- approved of infant baptism. There were also many of this faith among the Protestants and Reformers abroad. In Holland, Germany, and the north, they went by the names of Anabap- tists and Mennonites; and in Piedmont and the south, they were found among the Albi- genses and Waldenses. The Baptists subsiss chiefly under two denominations,—the Particu- lar or Calvinistical, and the General or Armi- nian. The former is by far the most numerous. Some of both denominations, General and Par- ticular, allow of free or mixed communion ; admitting to the Lord’s table pious persons who have not been immersed, while others consider that as an essential requisite to communion. These are sometimes called Strict Baptists. Other societies of this denomination observe the seventh day of the week as their Sabbath, apprehending the original law of the Sabbath to remain in force, unaltered and unrepealed. These are called Seventh-day Baptists. A considerable number of the General Baptists have gone into Unitarianism; in consequence of which, those who maintained the doctrines of the Trinity and atonement, in the latter part of the eighteenth century, formed them- selves into what is called “ The New Connec- tion,” or Association. These preservea friendly correspondence with their other brethren in things which concern the general interests of the denomination, but hold no religious com- munion with them. Some congregations of General Baptists admit three distinct orders of church officers: messengers or ministers, elders, and deacons. The Baptists in America, and in the East and West Indies, are chiefly Calvinists; but many of thera admit of free communion. The Scottish Baptists form a distinct denomination, and are distinguished by several peculiarities of church government. “No trace can be found of a Baptist church in Scotland,” says Mr. Jones, “excepting one which aj pears to have been formed out of Cromwell’s army, previous to 1765, when a church was settled at Edinburgh, under the pastoral care of Mr. Carmichael and Mr. Archi- BAR bald M‘Lean. Others have since been formed at Dundee, Glasgow, and in most of the princi- pal towns of Scotland:” also at London, and in various parts of England. They think that the order of public worship, which uniformly obtained m the Apostolic churches, is clearly set forth in Acts ii, 42-47; and therefore they endeavour to follow it out to the utmost of their power. They require a plurality of elders in every church, administer the Lord’s Supper, and se contributions for the poor every first day ofthe week. The prayers and exhortations of the brethren form a part of their church order, under the direction and control of the elders, to whom it exclusively belongs to pre- side in conducting the worship, to rule in cases of discipline, and to labour in the word and doctrine, in distinction from the brethren ex- horting one another. The elders are all lay- men, generally chosen from among the bre- thren; but, when circumstances require, are supported by their contributions. They approve also of persons who are froperly qualified for it, being appointed by the church to preach the Gospel and baptize, though not vested with any pastoral charge. The discipline and go- vernment of the Scottish Baptists are strictly congregational. BARACHIAS, the father of Zacharias, mentioned Matt. xxiii, 35, as slain between the temple andthealtar. There is a great diversity of opinions concerning the person of this Zacharias, the son of Barachias. Some think him to be Zacharias, the son of Jehoiada, who was killed by the orders of Joash, between the temple and the altar, 2 Chron. xxiv,21. Camp- bell thinks, with Father Simon, that Jehoiada had two names, Barachias and Jehoiada. See ‘ZACHARIAS. BARAK, son of Abinoam, chosen by God to deliver the Hebrews from that bondage under which they were held by Jabin, king of the Canaanites, Judges iv, 4, 5, &c. He refused to obey the Lord’s commands, signified to him by Deborah, the prophetess, unless she con- sented to go with him. Deborah accompanied Barak toward Kedesh of Naphtali; and, having assembled ten thousand men, they advanced to mount Tabor. Sisera, being informed of this movement, marched with nine hundred cha- riots of war, and encamped near the river Ki- shon. Barak rapidly descended from mount Tabor, and the Lord having spread terror through Sisera’s army Barak easily obtained a complete victory. Sisera was killed by Jael. Barak and Deborah composed a hymn of thanksgiving; and the land had peace forty years from A. M. 2719 to 2759, B. C. 1245. BARBARIAN. The word ty (rendered Jarbarian; LXX, BapBapos,) in the Hebrew sense of it, signifies @ stranger; one who knows neither the holy language nor the law. Ac- tording to the notions of the Greeks, all nations who were not Greeks, or not govern- ed by laws like the Greeks, were barbarians. The Persians, Ezyptians, Hebrews, Arabians, Gauls, Germans, and even the Romans, were, in their phraseology, barbarians, however learn- ed or polite they might be in themselves. St. 134 BAR Paul comprehends all mangind under the names of Greeks and barbarians: “I am a debtor both to the Greeks and to the barbari ans ; to the wise and to the unwise,” Rom. i, 14. St. Luke calls the inhabitants of the island of Malta barbarians, Acts xxviii, 2,4. St. Paul, writing to the Colossians, uses the terms dar- barian and Scythian almost in the same signifi- cation. In 1 Cor. xiv, 11, he says, that if he who speaks a foreign language in an assembly be not understood by those to whom he dis- courses, with respect to them he is a barbarian; and, reciprocally, if he understand not those who speak to him, they are to him barbarians. Barbarian, therefore, is used for every stranger or foreigner who does not speak our native language, and includes no implication what- ever of savage nature or manners in those re- specting whom it is used. It is most probably derived from berbir, “a shepherd ;” whence Barbary, the cguntry of wandering shepherds; Bedouins, Sceni, Scythei, as if, wanderers in tents; therefore barbarians. BAR-JESUS, or, according to some copies, BAR-JEU, was a Jewish magician in the island of Crete, Acts xiii, 6. St. Luke calls him Elymas. He was with the pro-consul Ser- gius Paulus, who, sending for Paul and Barna- bas, desired to hear the word of God. Bar- Jesus endeavouring to hinder the pro-consul from embracing Christianity, Paul, filled with the Holy Ghost, “set his eyes upon him, and said, O full of all subtilty and mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteous- ness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? Behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season;” which took place im- mediately. The pro-consul, who saw this miracle, was converted. Origen and Chrysos- tom think that Elymas, or Bar-Jesus, was con- verted likewise; and that St. Paul speedily restored his sight. BARLEY, myw, Exod. ix, 31; Lev. xxvii, 16, &c; a well-known kind of grain. It de- rives its Hebrew name from the long hairy beard which grows upon the ear. Pliny, on the testimony of Menander, says that barley was the most ancient aliment of mankind. In Palestine the barley was sown about October, and reaped in the end of March, just after the passover. In Egypt the barley harvest was later; for when the hail fell there, Exodus ix, 31, a few days before the passover, the flax and barley were bruised and destroyed: for the flax was at its full growth, and the barley began to form its green ears; but the wheat, and more backward grain, were not damaged, because they were only in the blade, and the hail bruised the young shoots which produce the ears. The rabbins sometimes called barley the food of beasts, because in reality they fed their cattle with it, 1 Kings iv, 28; and from Homer and other ancient writers we learn, that barley was given to horses. The Hebrews, however, frequently used barley bread, as we find by several passages of Scripture: for example, Da- vid’s friends brought to tad in his flight wheat, BAR ban:y, flour, &c, 2 Sam. xvii, 28. Solomon sent wheat, barley, oil, and wine, to the labour- ers King Hiram had furnished him, 2 Chron. ii, 15. ela had a present made him, of twenty barley loaves, and corn in the husk, 2 Kings iv, 22. And, by miraculously increas- ing the five barley loaves, Christ fed a multi- tude of about five thousand, John vi, 8-10. The jealousy-offering, in the Levitical institu- tion, was to be barley meal, Num. v, 15. The common mincha, or offering, was of fine wheat flour, Lev. ii, 1; but this was of barley, a meaner grain, probably to denote the vile condition of the person in whose behalf it was offered. For which reason, also, there was no oil or frankincense permitted to be offered with it. Sometimes barley is put for a low, con- temptible reward or price. So the false pro- pa are charged with seducing the people for andfuls of barley, and morsels of bread, Ezek. xii, 19. Hosea bought his emblematic bride for fifteen pieces of silver, and a homer and a half of barley, Hosea iii, 2. BARNABAS, a disciple of Jesus Christ, and companion of St. Paul in his labours. He was a Levite, born in the isle of Cyprus. His pro- per name was Joses, to which the Apostles added Barnabas, signifying the son of consola- tion. He is generally considered one of the seventy disciples, chosen by our Saviour. He was Erogeat up with Paul at the fect of Ga- maliel. hen that Apostle came to Jerusalem, three years after his conversion, Barnabas in- troduced him to the other Apostles, Acts ix, 26, 27, about A. D. 37. Five years afterward, the church at Jerusalem, being informed of the ee of the Gospel at Antioch, sent Barna- as thither, who beheld with great joy the wonders of the grace of God, Acts xi, 22, 24. He exhorted the faithful to perseverance. Some time afterward, he went to Tarsus, to seek Paul, and bring him to Antioch, where they jointly laboured two years, and converted he numbers; and here the disciples were rst called Christians. They left Antioch A. D. 44, to convey alms from this church to that at Jerusalem. At their return they brought John Mark, the cousin of Barnabas. While they were at Antioch, the Holy Ghost directed that they should be separated for those labours among the Gentiles to which he had appoint- ed them. They departed into Cyprus, where they converted Sergius Paulus, the pro-consul. ae preached at Perga in Pamphylia without much success, by reason of the obstinacy and malice of the Jews; but being come to Iconium, they made many converts. Here the Jews stirred up a sedition, and obliged them to retire to Derbe and Lystra, in Lycaonia, where St. Pau. curing one Aineas, who had been lame from his birth, the people of Lystra regarded them as gods; calling Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mereury; and would have sacrificed to them, which the two Apostles with great diffi- culty hindered: nevertheless, soon afterward, they were persecuted in this very city. Having revisited the cities through which they had passed, and where they had preached the Gos- pel, they returned to Antioch in Syria. 135 BAR In A. D. 51, Barnabas was sent with Paw from Antioch to Jerusalem, on occasion of dis- putes concerning the observance of legal rites, to which the Jews wished to subject the Gen- tiles. Paul and Barnabas were present in the council at Jerusalem, and returned immediately to Antioch. Peter, arriving there soon after- ward, was led to countenance, in some degree, by his conduct, the observance of the Mosaic distinctions. Barnabas, too, (who, being by descent a Levite, might retain some former no- tions,) used the like dissimulation: but Paul reproved Peter and Barnabas with great free- dom. Paul afterward determining to visit the churches in the isle of Cyprus, and in Asia Minor, Barnabas desired that John Mark might accompany them: but Paul objected, because Mark had left them on the first journey. Here- upon the two Apostles separated: Paul went toward Asia; and Barnabas, with Mark, to Cyprus. This is all we know certainly concern- ing Barnabas. here is extant among the writings of the fathers an epistle which is attributed to Bar- nabas; though, being without an inscription, it is not known to whom it professes to have been addressed. It was first published by Arch- bishop Usher, in Greek and Latin, and trans- lated by Archbishop Wake, in his “ Genuine Epistles of the Apostolical Fathers,” and has often been reprinted. That it is not the pro- duction of Barnabas, the companion of Paul, may be safely concluded from internal evi- dence; though it may have been written by some other person of the same name. There is also a tract which goes by the name of, “The Gospel of Barnabas,” still extant; from which Dr. White, at the end of his Bampton Lectures, has given extracts sufficiently copi- ous to satisfy any impartial mind that it is spu- rious. BARRENNESS. This was looked upon as reproachful ane the Greeks and Romans, but more particularly so among the Jews; which may be accounted for by the constant expectation of Messiah, and the hope that every woman had, that she might be the mother of the promised seed. This constant hope of the speedy coming of the great “Seed of the woman” serves also to account for many cir- cumstances in the Old Testament history. “Couple it,” says the Rev. J. J. Blunt, “with this consideration, and I see the scheme of revelation, like the physical scheme, proceed- ing with beautiful uniformity: « unity of lan ‘connecting,’ as it has been well said by Daley, ‘the chicken roosting upon its perch with the spheres revolving in the firmament; and a unity of plan connecting in like man- ner the meanest accidents of a household with the most illustrious visions of a prophet. Ab- stracted from this consideration, I see in the history of Moses details of actions, some tri- fling, some even offensive, pursued at a length: (when compared with the whole) singularly disproportionate ; while things which the an- gels would desire to look into are passed over and forgotten. But this principle once admit- ted, all is consecrated; all assumes a new as- BAR pect; trifles, that seem at first not bigger than a man’s hand, occupy the heavens; and where- fore Sarah laughed, for instance, at the pros- pect of a son, and wherefore that laugh was rendered immortal in his name; and wherefore the sacred historian dwells on a matter so trivial, whilst the world and its vast concerns were lying at his feet, I can fully understand. For then I'see the hand of God shaping every thing to his own ends, and in an event thus casual, thus easy, thus unimportant, telling forth his mighty design of salvation to the world, and working it up into the web of his noble prospective counsels, Gen. xxi, 6. I see that nothing is great or little before Him who can bend to his purposes whatever he willeth, and convert the light-hearted and thoughtless mockery of an aged woman into an instrument of his glory, effectual as the tongue of the seer which he touched with living coals from the altar. Bearing this master-key in my hand, I can interpret the scenes of domestic mirth, of domestic stratagem, or of domestic wickedness, with which the history of Moses abounds. The Seed of the woman, that was to bruise the serpent’s head, Gen. iii, 15, however indistinct- ly understood, (and probably it was understood very indistinctly,) was the one thing longed for in the families of old; was ‘the desire of all nations,’ as the Prophet Haggai expressly calls it, Hag. ii, 7; and, provided they could accom- pee this desire, they (like others, when urged Yy an overpowering motive) were often reck- less of the means, and rushed upon deeds which they could not defend. Then did the wife for- get her jealousy, and provoke, instead of re- senting, the faithlessness of her husband, Gen. xvi, 2; xxx, 3, 9; then did the mother forget a parent’s part, and teach her own child treach- ery and deceit, Gen. xxv, 23; xxvii, 13; then did daughters turn the instincts of nature back- ward, and deliberately work their own and their father’s shame, Gen. xix, 31; then did the daughter-in-law veil her face, and court the incestuous bed, Gen. xxxviii, 14; and to be childless, was to be a by-word, Gen. xvi, 5; xxx, 1; and to refuse to raise up seed to a brother, was to be spit upon, Gen. xxxviii, 26; Deut. xxv, 9; and the prospect of the promise, like the fulfilment of it, did not send peace into families, but a sword; and three were set against two, and two against three, Gen. xxvii, 41; and the elder, who would be promoted unto honour, was set against the younger, whom God would promote, Gen. iv,5; xxvii, 41; and national differences were engendered by it, as individuals grew into nations, Gen. xix, 37; xxvi, 35; and even the foulest of idolatries may be traced, perhaps, to this hallowed source; for the corruption of the best is the worst corrup- tion of all, Num. xxv, 1, 2,3. It is upon this principle of interpretation, and I know not upon what other so well, that we may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men, who have made those parts of the Mosaic history a stum- bling-block to many, which, if rightly under- stood, are the very testimony of the covenant ; and a principle which is thus extensive in its application and successful in its results, which 136 BAR explains so much that is difficult, and answers so much that is objected against, has, from this circumstance alone, strong presumption in its favour, strong claims upon our sober regard.” BARSABAS. Joseph Barsabas, surnamed Justus, was one of the first disciples of Jesus Christ, and probably one of theseventy. When St. Peter proposed to the disciples to fill up the place of Judas the traitor, by choosing another Apostle, Acts i, 21, Barsabas was nominated along with Matthias; but the lot fell on Mat- thias, who was therefore numbered with the eleven Apostles. We know nothing farther of the life of this Barsabas. 2. BarsaBas was also the surname of Judas, one of the principal disciples mentioned, Acts xv, 22, &c. Barsabas and some others were sent by the Apostles, with Paul and Barnabas, to Antioch, and carried a letter with them from the Apostles, signifying what the council at Jerusalem had decreed. After the reading of the letter to the brethren, which was received with joy, Barsabas and Silas continued here some time longer, mstructing and confirming the brethren; after which Silas and Barsabas returned to Jerusalem. This is all we know of Barsabas Judas. BARTHOLOMEW, one of the twelve Apos- tles, Matt. x, 3, is supposed to be the same per- son who is called Nathanael, one of the first of Christ’s disciples. This opinion is founded on the circumstance, that as the evangelist John never mentions Bartholomew in the num ber of the Apostles, so the other evangelists never mention Nathanael. And as in John i, 45, Philip and Nathanael are mentioned to- gether as coming to Jesus, so in the other evan. gelists Philip and Bartholomew are constantly associated together. The supposition also ac- quires additional probability from considering, that Nathanael is particularly mentioned among the Apostles to whom Christ appeared at the sea of Tiberias, after his resurrection; Simon Peter, Thomas, and Nathanael, of Cana in Galilee; the sons of Zebedee, namely, James and John; with two other of his disciples, re bably Andrew and Philip, John xxi, 2. It is an early tradition, that Bartholomew propa- gated the faith as far as India, and also in the more northern and western parts of Asia, and that he finally suffered martyrdom. But all the particulars respecting the life and labours of the Apostles, not mentioned in the New Testament, are exceedingly uncertain. BARUCH, the son of Neriah, and grandson of Maaseiah, was of illustrious birth, and of the tribe of Judah. He had a brother of the name of Seraiah, who occupied an important station in the court of King Zedekiah; but he himself adhered to the person of the Prophet Jeremiah, and was his most steady friend, though his attachment to him drew on himself several persecutions and much ill treatment. He ap- pears to have acted as his secretary during a great part of his life, and never left him till they were parted by death. In the reign of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, A. M. 3398, Jere- miah having been thrown into prison, the Lord commanded him to commit to writing all the BAR 13 poe that he had delivered until that time. Le accordingly sent for Baruch, and dictated them to him by word of mouth. Some time afterward he instructed the latter to go and read them to the people, who were then as- sembled in the temple; on which Michaiah, who happened to be present, and heard them, instantly gave notice of them to the king’s counsellors. The latter immediately sent for Baruch, and commanded him to repeat to them what he had been reading to the people in the temple; which he accordingly did, to their great astonishment: and, finding that they contained some very unwelcome tidings respecting the fate of the kingdom, they inquired how he came into possession of them; intimating that their duty to the king required that they should make him acquainted therewith. Baruch was at the same time advised to consult his own safety, and to let no man know where he was to be found; after which they took from him the roll of his prophecies, and deposited it in the chamber of Elishama, the scribe. They next waited on the king, and told him what had passed. The latter sent Jehudi to fetch the book ; which being brought, Jehoiakim com- manded it to be read in his presence, and in the presence of his nobles who surrounded him. But Jehudi had not proceeded far before the king took the book, cut it with his secre- tary’s penknife, and threw it into the fire, where it was consumed before their faces. He at the same time gave orders to have both Baruch and Jeremiah seized ; but the hand of Providence concealed them from his fury. Jeremiah was instructed a second time to commit his prophecies to writing; and Baruch wrote them as before, with the addition of several others which were not contained in the former book. In the fourth year of the reign of Zedekiah, Baruch went to Babylon, carrying with him a long letter from Jeremiah, in which the Prophet foretold the judgments that should come upon Babylon, and promised the Jews, who were then captives in that coun- try, that they should again be restored to their own land. The latter were exceedingly affect- ed at hearing Jeremiah’s letter read to them, and returned an answer to their brethren at Jerusalem. After his return to Jerusalem, Ba- ruch continued his constant attendance on Jeremiah; and when Jerusalem was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar, and Jeremiah thrown into prison, Baruch also was confined with him: ut when the city had surrendered, Nebuzarad- dan showed him much kindness, granted him his liberty, and permitted him to go with Jere- miah wherever he chose. The remnant of the people who had been left in Judea under the care of Gedaliah, having adopted the resolution of going into Egypt, and finding that Jeremiah opposed their taking that journey, threw the blame upon Baruch ; insinuating that the latter had influenced the Prophet to declare against it. They were, however, both of them at last compelled to fol- low the people into Egypt, where Jeremiah soon afterward died; on which Baruch retired to Babylon, where the rabbins say he also died ~ i BAS in the twelfth ycar of the captivity, Jer. xxxvi- xliii. The book of Baruch is justly placed among the apocryphal writings. Grotius thinks ita fiction written by some Hellenistic Jew ; and St. Jerome gives as the reason why he did not write a commentary upon it, that the Jews themselves did not deem it canonical. BASHAN, or BASAN, one of the most fer- tile cantons of Canaan, which was bounded on the west by the river Jordan, on the east by the mountains of Gilead, on the south by the brook of Jabbok, and on the north by the land of Geshur. The whole kingdom took its name from the hill of Bashan, which is situated in the middle of it, and by the Greeks is called Batanea. It had no less than sixty walled towns in it, beside villages. It afforded -an excellent breed of cattle, and stately oaks, and was, in short, a plentiful and populous country. Og, king of the Amorites, possessed this coun- try when Moses made the conquest thereof. In the division of the Holy Land, it was as- signed to the half tribe of Manassch. Of the present state of this portion of the ancient pos- sessions of the Israelites, Mr. Buckingham, in his Travels, gives the following account : “ We ascended the steep on the north side of the Zerkah, or Jabbok ; and, on reaching the sum- mit, came again on a beautiful plain, of an elevated level, and still covered with a very rich soil. We had now quitted the land of Sihon, king of the Amorites, and entered into that of Og, the king of Bashan, both of them well known to all the readers of the early Scrip- tures. We had quitted too, the districts appor- tioned to the tribes of Reuben and of Gad, and entered that part which was allotted to the half tribe of Manaaseh. beyond Jordan east- ward, leaving the land of the children of Am- mon on our right, or to the east of the Jabbok, which, according to the authority before quoted, divided Ammon, or Philadelphia, from Gerasa. The mountains here are called the land of Gilead in the Scriptures, and in Josephus; and, according to the Roman division, this was the country of the Decapolis, so often spoken of in the New Testament, or the province of Gaulonitis, from the city of Gaulon, its early capital. We continued our way over this ele- vated tract, continuing to behold, with surprise and admiration, a beautiful country on all sides of us: its plains covered with a fertile soil, its hills clothed with forests; at every new turn presenting the most magnificent landscapes that could be imagined. Among the trees, the oak was frequently seen; and we know that this territory produced them of old. In enu- merating the sources from which the supplies of Tyre were drawn in the time of her great wealth and naval splendour, the Prophet says, ‘ Of the oaks of Bashan have they made thine oars,’ Ezek. xxvii, 6. Some learned commenta- tors indeed, believing that no oaks grew in these supposed desert regions, have translated the word by ‘alders,’ to prevent the appearance of inaccuracy in the inspired writer. The ex- pression of ‘the fat bulls of Bashan,’ which occurs more than once in the Scriptures, seemed to us equally inconsistent, as applied BAT to the beasts of a country generally thought to be a desert, in common with the whole tract which is laid down in our modern maps as such between the Jordan and the Euphrates; but we could now fully comprehend, not only that the bulls of this foeuriant country might ve proverbially fat, but that its possessors, too, might be a race renowned for strength and zomeliness of person. The general face of this region improved as we advanced farther in it; and every new direction of our path opened upon us views which surprised and charmed us by their grandeur and their beauty. Lofty mountains gave an outline of the most magni- ficent character; flowing beds of secondary hills softened the romantic wildness of the pic- tuse; gentle slopes, clothed with wood, gave a rich variety of tints, hardly to be imitated by the pencil; deep valleys, filled with murmur- ing streams and verdant meadows, offered all the luxuriance of cultivation; and herds and flocks gave life and animation to scenes as grand, as beautiful, and as highly picturesque as the genius or taste of a Claude could either invent or desire.” BASILIDEANS, the followers of Basilides of Alexandria, a gnostic leader of the early part of the second century. See Gnosrtics. BASTARD, one born out of wedlock. A bastard among the Greeks was despised, and exposed to public scorn, on account of his spurious origin. In Persia the son of a concu- bine is never placed on a footing with the legitimate offspring; any attempt made by pa- rental fondness to do so would be resented by the relations of the legitimate wife, and out- rage the feelings of a whole tribe. The Jew- ish father bestowed as little attention on the education of his natural children as the Greek : he seems to have resigned them, in a great measure, to their own inclinations; he neither checked their passions, nor corrected their faults, nor stored their minds with useful know- ledge. This is evidently implied in these words of the Apostle: “If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are paren, then are ye bastards and not sons,” eb. xii, 7,8. To restrain the licentious de- sires of the heart, Jehovah by an express law fixed a stigma upon the bastard, which was not to be removed till the tenth generation; and to show that the precept was on no account to be violated, or suffered to fall into disuse, it is emphatically repeated, “A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord,” Deut. xxiii, 2. BASTINADO, the punishment of beating with sticks. It is also called tympanum, [a drum,] because the patient was beaten like a drum. Upwards of a hundred blows were often inflicted, and sometimes the beating was unto death. St. Paul, Heb. xi, 25, says that some of the saints were tortured, rupravifw, suffered the tympanum, that is, were stretched on an instrument of torture, and beaten to death. BAT, souy, Lev. xi, 19; Deut. xiv, 18; Isaiah 138 BAX ii, 20; Baruch vi, 22. The Jewish legislator having enumerated the animals legally unclean as well beasts as birds, closes his catalogue with a creature whose equivocal properties seem to exclude it from both those classes it is too much a bird to be properly a mouse, and too much a mouse to be properly a bird. The bat is therefore well described in Deut. xiv, 18, 19, as the passage should be read, ‘“ More- over the othelaph, and every creeping thing thal flieth, is unclean to you; they shall not be eaten.” This character is very descriptive, and places this creature at the head of a class of which he isa clear and well-known instance. It has feet or claws growing out of its pinions, and contradicts the general order of nature, by creeping with the instruments of its flight. The Hebrew name of the bat is from bw dark- ness, and sy to fly, as if it described “the flier in darkness.” So the Greeks called the crea- ture voxrepis, from vié, night; and the Latins, vespertilio, from vesper, “evening.” It ia prophesied, Isaiah ii, 20, “In that day shall they cast away their idols to the moles and to the bats ;” that is, they shall carry them into the dark caverns, old ruins, or desolate places, to which they shall fly for refuge, and so shal] give them up, and relinquish them to the filthy animals that frequent such places, and have taken possession of them as their proper habi- tation. BATH, a measure of capacity for things liquid being the same with the ephah, Ezek. xlv, 11, and containing ten homers, or seven gallons and four pints. BATH-KOL, ‘ip-na, daughter of the voice. By this name the Jewish writers distinguish what they called a revelation from ‘God, after verbal prophecy had ceased in Israel ; that is, after the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. The generality of their traditions and customs are founded on this Bath-Kol. They pretend that God revealed them to their elders, not by prophecy, but by the daughter of the voice. The Bath-Kol, as Dr. Prideaux shows, was a fantastical way of divination, invented by the Jews, like the Sortes Virgilia- n@ [divination by the works of Virgil] among the Heathen. For, as with them, the words first opened upon in the works of that poet, was the oracle whereby they prognosticated those future events which they desired to be informed of; so with the Jews when they ap- pealed to Bath-Kol, the next words which they should hear drop from any one’s mouth were taken as the desired oracle. With some it is probable that Bath-Kol, the daughter of the voice, was only an elegant personification of tradition. Others, however, more bold, said that it was a voice from heaven, sometimes attended by a clap of thunder. BATTLE. See Armigs. BAXTERIANISM, a modification of the Calvinistic doctrine of election advocated by the celebrated Baxter in his treatise of “ Uni- versal Redemption,” and in his ‘“ Methodus Theologie.” ‘The real author of the scheme, at least in a systematized form, was Camero, who taught divinity at Saumur, and it was un- BAX folded and defended by his disciple Amyraldus, whom Curcelzus refuted. Baxter says, in his preface to his “ Saint’s Rest,” ‘“ The middle wa which Camero, Crocius, Martinius, Amyral- dus, Davenant, with all the divines of Britain and Bremen in the synod of Dort, go, I think is nearest the truth of any that [know who nave written on these points.” Baxter first differs from the majority of Calvinists, though not from all, in his statement of the doctrine of satisfaction :— “Christ’s sufferings were not a fulfilling of the law’s threatening; (though he bore its curse materially ;) but a satisfaction for our not ful- filling the precept, and to prevent God's fulfill- img the threatening on us. Christ paid not, therefore, the idem, but the tantundem, or aquivalens; not the very debt which we owed and the law required, but the value: (else it were not strictly satisfaction, which is redditio aquivalentis: [the rendering of an equivalent :] and (it being improperly called the paying of a@ debi, but properly a suffering for the guilty) the idem is nothing but suppliciwm delinguentis. [The punishment of the guilty individual.] n criminals, dum alius solvet simul aliud sol- vilur. [When another suffers, it is another thing also that is suffered.] The law knoweth no vicarius pene ; [substitute in punishment ;] though the law maker may admit it, as he is above law; else there were no place for par- don, if the proper debt be paid and the law not relaxed, but fulfilled. Christ did neither obey nor suffer in any man’s stead, by a slrict, pro- per representation of his person in point of law; so as that the law should take it, as done or suffered by the partly himself. But only asa third person, as a mediator, he voluntarily bore what else the sinner should have borne. To assert the contrary (especially as to particular persons considered in actual sin) is to over- throw all Scripture theology, and to introduce all Antinomianism; to overthrow all possi- bility of pardon, and assert justification before we sinned or were born, and to make ourselves to have satisfied God. Therefore, we must hot say that Christ died nostro loco, [in our stead,] so as to personate us, or represent our persons in law sense; but only to bear what else we must have borne.” This system explicitly asserts, that Christ made a satisfaction by his death equally for the sins of every man; and thus Baxter essen- tially differs both from the higher Calvinists, and, also, from the Sublapsarians, who, though they may allow that the reprobate derive some benefits from Christ’s death, so that there is a vague sense in which he may be said to have died for all men, yet they, of course, deny to such the benefit of Christ’s satisfaction or atonement which Baxter contends for :— “ Neither the law, whose curse Christ bore, nor God, as the legislator to be satisfied, did distinguish between men as elect and reprobate, or as believers and unbelievers, de presenty vel de futuro; [with regard to the present or the future ;] and to impose upon Christ, or require from him satisfaction for the sins of one sort more than of another, but for mankind in 139 BAX general. God the Father, and Christ the Me- diator, ow dealeth with no man upon the mere rigorous terms of the first law ; (obey per- fectly and live, else thow shalt die ;) but giveth to all much mercy, which, according to the tenor of that violated law, they could not re- ceive, and calleth them to repentance, in order to their receiving farther mercy offered them. And accordingly he will not judge any at last according to the mere law of works, but as they have obeyed or not obeyed his conditions or terms of grace. It was not the sins of the elect only, but of all mankind fallen, which lay upon Christ satisfying. And to assert the contrary, iniuriously diminisheth the honour of his sufferings ; and hath other desperate ill consequences.” The benefits derived to all men equaily, from the satisfaction of Christ, he thus states :— “All mankind, immediately upon Christ’s satisfaction, are redeemed and delivered from that legal necessity of perishing which they were under, (not by remitting sin or punish- ment directly to them, but by giving up God’s jus puniendi [right of punishing] into the hands of the Redeemer; nor by giving any right directly to them, but per meram vresultantiam [by mere consequence} this happy change is made for them in their relation, upon the said remitting of God’s right and advantage of jus- tice against them,] and they are given up to the Redeemer as their owner and ruler, to be dealt with upon terms of mercy which have a tendency to their recovery. God the Father and Christ the Mediator hath freely, without any prerequisite condition on man’s part, en- acted a law of grace of universal extent, in regard of its tenor, by which he giveth, asa deed or gift, Christ himself, with all his follow- ing benefits which he bestoweth: (as benefac- tor and legislator ;) and this to all alike, with- out excluding any; upon condition they believe and accept the offer. By this law, testament, or covenant, all men are conditionally pardoned, justified, and reconciled to God already, and no man absolutely ; nor doth it make a difference, nor take notice of any, till men’s performance or non-performance, of the condition makes a difference. Inthe new law, Christ hath trul given himself with a conditional pardon, puslife cation, and conditional right to salvation, to all men in the world, without exception.” But the peculiarity of Baxter’s scheme will be seen from the following farther extracts :— “Though Christ died equally for all men, in the aforesaid law sense, as he satisfied the offended legislator, and as giving himself to all alike in the conditional covenant ; yet he never properly intended or purposed the actual justify- ing and saving of all, nor of any but those that come to be justified and saved; he did not, therefore, die for aj], nor for any that perish, with a decree or resolution to save them, much less did he die for all alike, as to this in- tent. Christ hath given faith to none by his law or testament, though he hath revealed that to some he will, as benefactor and Domin- us Absolutus, [absolute Lord,] give that grace which shall infallibly produce it; and God BAX hath given some to Christ that he might pre- vail with them accordingly; yet this is no giving it to the person, nor hath he in himself ever the more title to it, nor can any lay claim to it as their due. It belongeth not to Christ as satisfier, nor yet as legislator, to make wick- ed refusers to become willing, and receive him and the benefits which he offers; therefore he may do all for them that is fore-expressed, though he cure not their unbelief. Faith is a fruit of the death of Christ, (and so is all the good which we do enjoy,) but not directly, as it is satisfaction to justice ; but only remotely, as it proceedeth from that jus dominii [right of dominion] which Christ has received to send the Spirit in what measure and TO WHOM HE WILL, and to succeed it accordingly ; and as it is necessary to the attainment of the farther ends of his death in the certain gathering and saving of THE ELECT.” Thus the whole theory amounts to this, that, although a conditional salvation has been pur- chased by Christ for all men, and is offered to them, and all legal difficulties are removed out of the way of their pardon as sinners by the atonement, yet Christ hath not purchased for any man the gift of Farru, or the power of per- forming the condition of salvation required ; but. gives this to some, and does not give it to others, by virtue of that absolute dominion over men which he has purchased for himself, so that, as the Calvinists refer the decree of election to the sovereignty of the Father, Baxter refers it to the sovereignty of the Son; one makes the decree of reprobation to issue from the Creator and Judge, the other, from the Redeemer himself. If, however, any one expects to find some- thing in the form of system in Baxter’s opinions on the five disputed points, he will be much dis- appointed. The parties to whom he refers as the authors of this supposed “ middle way,” differ as much among themselves as Baxter oc- casionally does from himself. Bishop D venant and Dr. g Ward differed from Amyraut, Mar- tinius, and others of that school, on the topic of baptismal regencration ; and, as the subjects of baptism, according to the sentiments of the two former, are invested with invisible grace, and are regenerated in virtue of the ordinance when canonically performed, such divines far more easily disposed of their baptized converts in the ranks of strict predestination, than the others could who did not hold those sentiments. But they exhibited much ingenuity in not suf fering it to ‘“intrench upon the question of perseverance.” Their friend Bishop Bedell, however, maintained, that ‘‘reprobates coming to years of discretion, after baptism, shall be condemned for original sin; for their absolu- tion and washing in baptism was but condi- tional and expectative ; which doth truly inte- rest them in all the promises of God, but under the condition of repenting, believing and obey- ing, which they never perform, and therefore never attain the promise.” Bishop Overal has also been claimed as a patron of this diversifi- ed “ middle system ;” but it will be evident to every one who peruses his productions, that his chief endeavour was to display the doctrines of 140 BAX the English church as identical with those of St. Augustine, yet basing them upon the ante- cedent will of God and conditional decrees, After all the refined distinctions which Baxter employed to render the theory of common and special grace plausible and popular, the real meaning of the inventors was frequently elicit. ed when such a question as this was asked, “ Have any men in the world grace sufficient to repent and believe savingly who do not?” After asserting that he knows. nothing about the matter, the reply of Baxter is, “ If we may conjecture upon probabilities, it seemeth most likely that there is such a sufficient grace, or power, to repent and believe savingly, in some that use it not, but perish.” ‘“ This,” says one of Baxter’s apologists, “seems to me very in- explicable!” and in the same light it wall be viewed by all who recollect that this “ sufficient grace or power” is that “ portion of special grace which never fails to accomplish its de- sign,—the salvation of the individual on whom it is bestowed!” Baxter’s celebrated “ Apho- risms of Justification,” published in 1649, afforded employment to himself and his theo- logical critics till near the close of his life; and in the many modifications, concessions, and alterations which were extorted from him by men of different religious tenets, he sometimes incautiously proved himself to be more Calvin- istic than Calvin, and at others more Arminian than Arminius. The following observations, from “ Orme’s Life of Baxter,” are on the whole just and instructive :— “ Thus did Baxter, at a very early period of his life, launch into the ocean of controversy, on some of the most interesting subjects that can engage the human mind. The manner in which he began to treat them was little favour- able to arriving at correct and satisfactory con- clusions. Possessed of a mind uncommonly penetrating, he yet seems not to have had the faculty of compressing within narrow limits his own views, or the accounts he was dispos- ed to give of the views of others. All this arose, not from any indisposition to be explicit, but from the peculiar character of his mind. He is perpetually distinguishing things into physi- cal and moral, real and nominal, material and formal. However important these distinctions are, they often render his writings tiresome to the reader, and his reasonings more frequently perplexing than satisfactory. Baxter is gene- rally understood to have pursued a middle course between Calvinism and Arminianism. That he tried to hold and adjust the balance between the two parties, and that he was most anxious to reconcile them, are very certain. But it seems scarcely less evident, that he was much more a Calvinist than he was an Arminian. While this seems to me very apparent, it must be acknowledged, that if certain views which have often been given of Calvinism are neces- sary to constitute a Calvinist, Richard Baxter was no believer in that creed. “While satisfied that among Baxter’s senti- ments, no important or vital error will be found, yet in the style and method in which he too generally advocated or defended them, there is BAX much to censure. The wrangling and disputa- tious manner in which he presented many of his views, was calculated to gender an unsanc- tified state of mind in persons who either abet- ted or opposed his sentiments. His scholastic and metaphysical style of arguing is unbefit- ting the simplicity of the Gospel, and cannot fail to injure it wherever such is employed. It not only savours too much of the spirit of the schools, and the philosophy of this world; but places the truths of revelation on a level with therudiments of human science. I am not sure whether certain effects which began early in the last century to appear among the Pres- byterian part of the Nonconformists, may not be traced, in some degree, to the speculative and argumentative writings of Baxter. Hisin- fluence over this class of his brethren was evi- dently very great. He contributed more than any other man to mitigate the harsh and forbid- ding aspect which the Presbyterians presented during the civil wars and the commonwealth. This was well, but hedid not stop here. He was inimical to all the existing systems of doc- trine and discipline then contended for, or ever before known in the world; while he did not pee any precisely defined system as his own. e opposed Calvinism; he opposed Arminian- ism; he would not allow himself to be consider- ed an Episcopalian, in the ordinary acceptation of the word; he denied that he was a Presby- terian, and scorned to be thought an Independ- ent. He held something in common with them all, and yet he was somewhat different from all. He contended for a system more general, and more liberal, than was then approved; and, as we have stated, wished to place a variety of the- ological truths on grounds belonging rather to philosophy or metaphysics, than to revelation. “On himself, this species of latitudinarian- ism produced little injurious effect, but I fear it had a baneful influence on others. The re- jection of all human authority and influence in religion, requires to be balanced by a very strong sense of the divine authority, to prevent its ge- nerating a state of mind more characterized by pride of intellect, and independence of spirit, than by the humility and diffidence which are essential features in the Christian character. It is a singular fact, that the Presbyterians, though at first more rigid in their doctrinal views, and more exclusive in their spirit and system of church government, than the Independents, became before the death of Baxter the more liberal party. High views began to be asecrib- ed by them to their now moderate brethren; and to avoid the charge of Antinomianism, which Baxter was too ready to prefer against such as differed from some of his views, the Presbyterians seem gradually to have sunk into a state of low, moderate orthodoxy, in which there was little of the warmth or vitality of evangelical religion. “Tn farther illustration of the influence now adverted to, it must be remarked, that the first stage in that process of deterioration which took place among the Presbyterian Dissenters, was generally characterized by the term Bax- terianism; a word to which it is difficult to 141 bAX attach a definite meaning. It denotes no sepa- rate sect or party, but rather a system of opi- nions on doctrinal points, verging toward Arminianism, and which ultimately passed to Arianism and Socinianism. Even during Bax- ter’s own life, while the Presbyterians taxed the Independents with Antinomianism, the latter retorted the charge of Socinianism, or at least of a tendency toward it, in some of the opinions maintained both by Baxter and others of that party. To whatever cause it is to be attribut- ed, it is a melancholy fact, that the deelensior which began even at this early period in the Presbyterian body, went on slowly, but surely, till, from the most fervid orthodoxy, it finally arrived at the frigid zone of Unitarianism. “J wish not to be understood as stating that Baxter either held any opinions of this descrip- tion, or was conscious of a tendency in his sentiments toward such a fearful consumma- tion; but, that there was an injurious tendency in his manner of discussing certain-important subjects. It was subtle, and fullof logomachy ; it tended to unsettle, rather than to fix and de- termine ; it gendered strife, rather than godly edifying. It is not possible to study such books as his ‘ Methodus,’ and his ‘ Catholic Theology,’ without experiencing that we are brought into a different region from Apostolic Christianity ; aregion of fierce debate and altercation about words, and names, and opinions; in which all that can be said for error is largely dwelt upon, as well as what can be said for truth. The am- biguities of language, the diversities of sects, the uncertainties of human perception and ar- gument are urged, till the force of revealed truth is considerably weakened, and confidence in our own judgment of its meaning greatly im- paired. Erroneous language is maintained tc be capable of sound meaning, and the most Benue phrases to be susceptible of unscrip- tural interpretation, till truth and error almost change places, and the mind is bewildered, confounded, and paralyzed. Into this mode of discussing such subjects, was this most excel- lent man led, partly by the natural constitution of his mind, which has often been adverted to; partly by his ardent desire of putting an end to the divisions of the Christian world, and pro- ducing universal concord and harmony. He failed where success was impossible, however plausible might have been the means which he employed. e understood the causes of differ- ence and contention better than their remedies ; hence the measures which he used frequent.y aggravated instead of curing the disease. While a portion of evil, however, probably resulted from Baxter’s mode of conducting controversy, and no great light was thrown by him on some of the dark and difficult subjects which he so keenly discussed, I have no doubt he contribut- ed considerably to produce a more moderate spirit toward each other, between Calvinists and rminians, than had long prevailed. Though he satisfied neither party, he must have con- vinced both, that great difficulties exist on the subjects in debate, if pursued beyond a certain length; that allowance ought to be made by each, for the weakness or prejudices of the BEA ether; and that genuine religion is compatible with some diversity of opinion respecting one or all of the five points.” A similar effect as that which Mr. Orme ascribes to Baxter’s writ- ings on the English Presbyterians, followed also, on the continent among the reformed churches. It was the same middle system with its philosophical subtleties, which Camero and Amyraut taught abroad, and which produced in them those effects that have been falsely as- cribed, both in England and abroad, to Armi- nianism. See AmyrauT and CaMERON. BAY-TREE, mx. It is mentioned only in Psalm xxxvii, 35, 36: “I have seen the un- godly in great power, and flourishing like a green bay-tree. Yet he passed away, and lo, he was not. Yea, I sought him, but he could not be found.” Aben Ezra, Jarchi, Kimchi, Jerom, and some others say that the original may mean only anative tree; a tree growing in its native soil, not having suffered by trans- plantation. Such a tree spreads itself luxu- riantly. The Septuagint and Vulgate render it cedars; but the high Dutch of Luther’s Bi- ble, the old Saxon, the French, the Spanish, the Italian of Diodati, and the version of Ains- worth, make it the laurel. BDELLIUM, nbns, occurs Gen. ii, 12, and Num. xi, 7. Interpreters seem at a loss to know what to do with this word, and have ren- dered it variously. Many suppose it a mineral production. The Septuagint translates in the first place, dvOpaxa, a@ carbuncle, and in the second, xpicraddov, a crystal. The rabbins are followed by Reland in calling it a crystal; but some, instead of bedolah, read berolah, chang- ing the + into», which are not always easily distinguished, and are often mistaken by trans- cribers; and so render it the Jeryl, which, say they, is the prime kind of crystal. The dedoleh, in Genesis, is undoubtedly some precious stone ; and its colour, mentioned in Numbers, where the manna is spoken of as of the colour of bdelliwm, is explained by a reference to Exod. xvi, 14, 31, where it is likened to hoar frost, which being like little fragments of ice, may confirm the opinion that the bdellium is the beryl, perhaps that pellucid kind, called by Dr. Hill the eldipomocrostyla, or beryl crystal. BEAN, 5», occurs 2 Sam. xvii, 28, and Erek. iv,9. A common legume. Those most usually cultivated in Syria are the white horse- bean, faba rotunda oblonga, and the kidney- bean, phaseolis minimus, fructu viridi ovato, called by the natives masch. The Arabic ban, the name of the coffee berry, corresponds with our bean, and is probably its etymon. BEAR. That bears were common in Pales- tine appears from several passages of the Old Testament. Their strength, rapacity, and fierceness, furnish many expressive metaphors to the Hebrew poets. The Hebrew name of this animal is taken from his growling ; so Varro deduces his Latin name ursus by an onomatopzia from the noise which he makes ; “wrst Lucana origo, vel unde illi, nostri ab ipsius voce :” [the origin of the term ursus (bear) is Lucanian, (whence also the bears them- selves,) from the noise made by the animal.] 142 BEA David had to defend his flock against bears as well as lions, 1 Sam. xvii, 34. And Dr. Shaw gives us to understand that these rugged ani- mals are not peculiar to the bleak regions of the north, being found in Barbary ; and Thevenot * informs us that they inhabit the wilderness ad- joining the Holy Land, and that he saw one near the northern extremities of the Red Sea. The ferocity of the bear, especially when hungry or robbed of its whelps, has been mentioned by many authors. The Scripture alludes in three places to this furious disposition. The first is, 2 Sam. xvii, 8, “They be mighty men, and they be chafed in their minds as a bear robbed of her whelps in the field.” The second, Prov xvii, 12, “Let abear robbed of her whelps meet a man rather than a fool in his folly.” And the third, Hosea xiii, 8, ‘‘ 1 will meet them as a bear that is bereaved of her whelps, and will rend the caul of their heart.” BEARD. The Hebrews wore their beards, but had, doubtless, in common with other Asiatic nations, several fashions in this, as in all other parts of dress. Moses forbids them, Lev. xix, 27, ‘to cut off entirely the angle, or extremity of their beard;” that 1s, to avoid the manner of the Egyptians, who left only a little tuft of beard at the extremity of their chins. The Jews, in some places, at this day suffer a little fillet of hair to grow from below the ears to the chin: where, as well as upon their lower lips, their beards are long. When they mourn- ed, they entirely shaved the hair of their heads and beards, and neglected to trim their beards, to regulate them into neat order, or to remove what grew on their upper lips and cheeks, Jer. xli, 5; xlviii, 37. In times of grief and afflic- tion, they plucked away the hair of their heads and beards, a mode of expression common to other nations under great calamities. The king of the Ammonites, designing to insult David in the person of his ambassadors, cut away half of their beards, and half of their clothes; that is, he cut off all their beard on one side of their faces, 2Sam. x, 4, 5; 1 Chron. xix, 5. To avoid ridicule, David did not wish them to appear at his court till their beards were grown again. When a leper was cured of his leprosy, he washed himself in a bath, and shaved off all the hair of his body; after which, he returned into the camp, or city; seven days afterward, he washed himself and his clothes again, shaved off all his hair, and offered the sacrifices appointed for his purifica- tion, Lev. xiv, 9. The Levites, at their con- secration, were purified by bathing, and wash- ing their bodies and clothes; after which, they shaved off all the hair of their bodies, and then offered the sacrifices appointed for their con- secration, Num. viii, 7. Nothing has been more fluctuating in the different ages of the world and countries than the fashion of wearing the beard. Some have cultivated one part and some another; some have endeavoured to extirpate it entirely, while others have almost idolized it; the revolutions of countries have scarcely been more famous than the revolutions of beards. It is a great mark of infamy among the Arabs to cut off the BED beard. Many people would prefer death to this kind of treatment. As they would think it a grievous punishment to lose it, they carry things so far as to beg for the sake of it: “By your beard, by the life of your beard, God pre- serve your blessed beard.” When they would ope their value for any thing, they say, “Tt is worth more than a man’s beard.” And hence we may easily learn the magnitude of the offence of the Ammonites in their treat- ment of David’s ambassadors, as above men- tioned; and also the force of the emblem used Ezek. v, 1-5, where the inhabitants of Jerusa- lem are compared to the hair of his head and beard. Though they had been dear to God as the hair of an eastern beard to its owner, they should be taken away and consumed, one part by pestilence and famine, another by the sword, another by the calamities incident on exile. BEASTS. When this word is used in op- position to man, as Psalm xxxvi, 5, any brute creature is signified; when to creeping things, as Lev. xi, 2, 7; xxix, 30, four-footed animals, from the size of the hare and upward, are in- tended; and when to wild creatures, as Gen. i, 25, cattle, or tame animals, are spoken of. In Isaiah xiii, 21, several wild animals are mentioned as dwelling among the ruins of Babylon: “Wild beasts of the desert,” mvs, those of the dry wilderness, as the root of the word implies, “shall dwell there. Their houses shall be full of doleful creatures,” mmx, marsh animals. “ Owls shall dwell there,” ostriches, “and satyrs,” oye, shaggy ones, “ shall dance there. And the wild beasts of the isl- ands,” ovr, oases of the desert, “shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons,” Dn, cro- codiles, or amphibious animals, “shall be in their desolate places.” St. Paul, 1 Cor. xv, 32, speaks of fighting with beasts, &c: by which he does not mean his having been exposed in the amphitheatre to fight as a gladiator, as some have conjectured, but that he had to contend at Ephesus with the fierce uproar of Demetrius and his associates. Ignatius uses the same figure in his epistle to the Romans: “ From Syria even unto Rome I fight with wild beasts, both by sea and land, both night and day, being bound to ten leopards;” that is, to a band of soldiers. So Lucian, in like manner, says, “For I am not to fight with ordinary wild beasts, but with men, insolent and hard to be convinced.” In Rev. iv, v, vi, mention is made of four beasts, or rather, as the word (da signifies, living creatures, as in Ezek, i; and so the word might have been less harshly translated. Wild beasts are used in Scripture as emblems of tyrannical and persecuting pow- ers. The most illustrious conquerors of anti- ply alse have not a more honourable emblem. BED. Mattresses, or thick cotton quilts folded, were used for sleeping upon. These were laid upon the duan, or divan, a part of the room elevated above the level of the rest, covered with a carpet in winter, a fine mat in summer. (See Accubation and Banquets.) A divan cushion serves for a pillow and bolster. They do not keep their beds made; the mat- tresses are rolled up, carried away, and placed 143 BEE in a cupboard till they are wanted at night, And hence the propriety of our Lord’s address to the paralytic, “ Arise, take up thy bed,” or mattress, ‘and walk,” Matt. ix, 6. The dutn on which these mattresses are placed, is at the end of the chamber, and has an ascent of seve- ral steps. Hence Hezekiah is said to turn his face to the wall when he prayed, that is, from his attendants. In the day the duan was used as a seat, and the place of honour was the corner, Amos iii, 12. BEELZEBUB, Matt. x,25. See BaaLzesus. BEERSHEBA, or the well of the oath; so named from a well which Abraham dug in this place, and the covenant which he here made with Abimelech, king of Gerar, Gen. xx, 31. Here also he planted a grove, as it would ap- pear, for the purpose of retirement for religious worship. In process of time, a considerable town was built on the same spot, which retain- ed the same name. Beersheba was given by Joshua to the tribe of Judah, and afterward transferred to Simeon, Joshua xv, 28. It was situated twenty miles south of Hebron, in the extreme south of the land of Israel, as Dan was on the north. The two places are fre- quently thus mentioned in Scripture, as “ from Dan to Beersheba,” to denote the whole length of the country. BEE, 735, occurs Deut. i, 44; Judges xiv, 8; Psalm eviii, 12; Isa. vii, 18. A well known, small, industrious insect; whose form, propa- gation, economy, and singular instinct and ingenuity, have attracted the attention of the most inquisitive and laborious inquirers into nature. Bees were very numerous in the east. Serid, or Seriad, means “the land of the hive ;” and Canaan was celebrated as “a land flowing with milk and honey.” The wild bees formed their comb in the crevices of the rocks, and in the hollows of decayed trees. ‘The passage in Isa. vii, 8, which mentions the “hissing for the bee,” is supposed to involve an allusion to the practice of calling out the bees from their hives, by a hissing or whistling sound, to their labour in the fields, and summoning them again to return when the heavens begin to lower, or the shadows of evening to fall. In this man- ner Jehovah threatens to rouse the enemies of Judah, and lead them to the prey. However widely scattered, or far remote from the scene of action, they should hear his voice, and with as much promptitude as the bee that has been taught to recognise the signal of its owner and obey his call, they should assemble their forces; and although weak and insignificant as a swarm of bees, in the estimation of a proud and infatuated people, they should come, with irresistible might, and take possession of the rich and beautiful region which had been aban- doned by its terrified inhabitants. The bee is represented by the ancients as a vexatious and even a formidable enemy; and the experience of every person who turns his attention to the temper and habits of this in- sect attests the truth of their assertion. The allusion, therefore, of Moses to their fierce hos- tility, Deut. i, 44, is both just and beautiful: “The Amorites, which dwelt in that mount- BEH ain, came out against you, and chased you as bees do, and destroyed you in Seir even unto Hormah.” The Amorites, it appears, were the mst bitter adversaries to Israel of all the na- tions of Canaan. Like bees that are easily irritated, that attack with great fury and in- creasing numbers the person that dares to mo- lest their hive, and persecute him in his flight to a considerable distance, the incensed Amo- rites had collected their hostile bands, and chased the Israelites from their territory. The Psalmist also complains that his enemies com- assed him about like bees; fiercely attacking him on every side. From these allusions it would however appear, that the bees of the east were of a more quarrelsome temper than ours, which exist chiefly in a domesticated state. BEETLE. $n. It occurs only Lev. xi, 22. A species of locust is thought to be there spoken of. The word still remains in the Arabic, and is derived from an original, alluding to the vast number of their swarms. Golius explains it of the locust without wings. The Egyptians paid a superstitious worship to the beetle. Mr. Molyneaux, in the ‘“ Philosophical Transac- tions,” says, “It is more than probable that this destructive beetle we are speaking of was that very kind of scarabzus, which the idola- trous Egyptians of old had in such high vene- ration as to pay divine worship unto it, and so frequently engrave its image upon their obe- lisks, &c, as we see at thisday. For nothing can be supposed more natural than to imagine a nation, addicted to polytheism, as the Egyp- tians were, in a country frequently suffering great mischief and scarcity from swarms of devouring insects, should, from a strange sense and fear of evil to come, (the common princi- ple of superstition and idolatry,) give sacred worship to the visible authors of these their sufferings, in hopes to render them more pro- pitious for the future. See Fry and Locusr. BEHEMOTH. mona. This term has greatly tried the ingenuity of the critics. By some, among whom are Bythner and Reiske, it is regarded in Job xl, 16, as a plural noun for beasts in general: the peculiar name of the animal immediately described not being men- tioned, as unnecessary, on account of the de- scription itself being so easily applied at the time. In this sense it is translated in various passages in the Psalms. Thus, 1, 10,in which it is usually rendered cattle, as the plural of non> it means unquestionably a beast or brute, in the general signification of these words: “For every beast of the field is mine, and the cattle,” behemoth, “upon a_ thousand hills.” So again, Isa. Ixxiii, 22: “So foolish was I, and ignorant; I was as a beast,” behemoth, “before thee.” It is also used in the same sense in chap. xxxv, ll, of the book of Job: “Who teacheth us more than the beasts,” be- hemoth, “of the earth.” The greater number of critics, however, have understood the word behemoth, in the singular number, as the pe- culiar name of the quadruped described, Job x1, of whatever kind or nature it may be; although they have materially differed upon this last point, some regarding it as the hippopotamus, 144 BEH or river horse, and others as the elephant, The evidence in favour of the hippopotamus appears, however, to predominate. The hip- popotamus is nearly as large as the rhinoceros, The male has been found seventeen feet in length, fifteen in circumference, and seven in height. The head is enormously large, and the jaws extend upwards two feet, and are armed with four cutting teeth, each of which is twelve inches in length. The body is of a lightish colour, thinly covered with hair. The legs are three fect long. Though amphibious, the hoofs, which are quadrifid, are not con- nected by membranes. The hide is so thick and tough as to resist the edge of a sword or sabre. Although an inhabitant of the waters, the hippopotamus is well known to breathe air like land animals. On land, indeed, he finds the chief part of his food. It has been pre- tended that he devours vast quantities of fish: but it appears with the fullest evidence, both from the relations of many travellers, and from the structure of the stomach, in specimens that have been dissected, that he is nourished solely, or almost solely, on vegetable food. Though he feeds upon aquatic plants, yet he very often leaves the waters, and commits wide devasta- tions through all the cultivated fields adjacent to the river. Unless when accidentally pro- voked, or wounded, he is never offensive; but when he is assaulted or hurt, his fury against the assailants is terrible. He will attack a boat, break it in pieces with his teeth; or, where the river is not too deep, he will raise it on his back and overset it. If he be irritated when on shore, he will immediately betake himself to the water; and there, in his native element, shows all his strength and resolution. BEHMENISTS, a name given to those mystics who adopted the explication of the mysteries of nature and grace, as given by Ja- cob Behmen. This writer was born in the ear 1675, at Old Siedenburg, near Gorlitz, in pper Lusatia. He was a shoemaker by trade, and is described as having been thoughtful and religious from his youth up, taking peculiar pleasure in frequenting the public worship. At length, seriously considering within himself that speech of our Saviour, “ Your heavenly Father will give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him,” he was thereby awakened to desire that promised Comforter; and, continuing in that earnestness, he was at last, to use his own expression, “surrounded with a divine light for seven days, and stood in the highest con- templation and kingdom of joys!” After this, about the year 1600, he was again surrounded with a divine light and replenished with the heavenly knowledge; insomuch as, going abroad into the fields, and viewing the herbs and grass, by his inward light, he saw into their essences, uses, and properties, which were dis- covered to him by their lineaments, figures, and signatures. In the year 1610, he had a third special illumination, wherein still farther mysteries were revealed to him; but it was not till the year 1612 that Behmen committed these revelations to writing. His first treatise is en- titled, “ Aurora,” which was seized by the BEH senate of Gorlitz before it was completed. His next production is called, “‘ The Three Princi- les,” by which he means the dark world, or hell? the light world, or heaven; and the ex- ternal, or visible world, which we inhabit. In . this work he more fully illustrates the subjects treated of in the former, and supplies what is wanting in that work, showing, 1. How all things came from a working will of the holy, triune, incomprehensible God, manifesting him- self as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, through an outward, perceptible, working, triune power of fire, light, and spirit, in the kingdom of neaven. 2. How and what angels and men were in their creation; that they are in and from God, his real offspring; that their life begun in and from this divine fire, which is the Father of Light, generating a birth of light in their souls; from both which proceeds the Holy Spirit, or breath of divine love, in the triune creature, as it does in the triune Creator. 3. How some angels, and all men, are fallen from God, and their first state of a divine triune life in him ; what they are in their fallen state, and the difference between the fall of angels and that of man. 4. How the earth, stars, and elements were created in consequence of the fall of angels. 5. Whence there is good and evil in all this temporal world; and what is meant by the curse that dwells in it. 6. Of the kingdom of Christ, how it is set in opposi- tion to the kingdom of hell. 7. How man, through faith in Christ, is able to overcome the kingdom of hell, and thereby obtain eternal salvation. 8. Hdéw and why sin and misery shall only reign for atime, until God shall, in a supernatural way, make fallen man rise to the glory of angels, and this material system shake off its curse, and enter into an everlast- ing union with that heaven from whence it fell. The next year, Behmen produced his “ Three- fold Life of Man,” according to the three prin- ciples above mentioned. In this work he treats more largely of the state of man in this world: that he "has, 1, That immortal spark of life, which is common to angels and devils. 2. That divine life of the light and Spirit of God, which makes the essential difference between an an- gel and a devil; and, 3. The life of this exter- nal and visible world. The first and last are common to all men; but the second only to a true Christian, or child of God. Behmen wrote several other treatises; but these are the basis of all his other writings. His conceptions are often clothed under allegorical symbols; and, in his later works, he Sataeld adopted che- mical and Latin phrases, which he borrowed from conversation with learned men. But as to the matter contained in his writings, he dis- claims having borrowed it either from men or books. He died in the year 1624; and his last words were, “ Now I go hence into paradise !” Behmen’s principles were adopted by Mr. Law, who clothed them in a more modern dress, and in a style less obscure. The essential obscurity of the subjects indeed he could not remedy. If they were understood by the author himself, he is probably the only one who ever made that attainment. ‘i 145 BEL BEL, or Betvs, a name by which many Heathens, and particularly the Babylonians, called their chief idol. But whether under this appellation they worshipped Nimrod, their first Baal, or lord, or Pul, king of Assyria, or some other monarch, or the sun, or all in one, is un- certain. It is, however, probable, that Bel is the same as the Phenician Baal, and that the worship of the same deity passed over to the Carthaginians, who were a colony of Pheni- cians. Hence the names Hannibal, Asdrubal, &c, compounded with Bel or Baal, according to the custom of the east, where great men added the names of the gods to their own. Bel had a temple erected to him in the city of Babylon, on the very uppermost range of the famous tower of Babel, wherein were many statues of this pretended deity ; and one, among the rest, of massy gold, forty feet high. The whole furniture of this magnificent temple was of the same metal, and valued at eight hundred talents of gold. This temple, with its riches, was in being till the time of: Xerxes, who, re- turning from his unfortunate expedition into Greece, demolished it, and carried off the im- mense wealth which it contained. It was, probably, the statue of this god which Nebu- chadnezzar, being returned to Babylon after the end of the Jewish war, set up and dedicated in the plain of Dura; the story of which is re- lated at large, Dan iii. See Basen. Bex anp THe Dragon, an apocryphal and un- canonical book. It was always rejected by the Jewish church, and is extant neither in the He- brew, nor in the Chaldee languages; nor is there any proof that it ever was so, although the council of Trent allowed it to be part of the canonical book of Daniel, in which it stands in the Latin Vulgate. There are two Greek texts of this fragment, that of the Sep- tuagint, and that found in Theodotion’s Greek version of Daniel. The Latin and Arabic ver- sions are from the text of Theodotion. Da- niel probably, by detecting the mercenary con- trivances of the idolatrous priests of Babylon, and by opening the eyes of the people to the follies of superstition, might furnish some foundation for the story ; but the whole is evi- dently charged with fiction, though introduced with a pious intent. St. Jerom gives it no bet- ter title than, ‘‘ The fable of Bel and the Dra- gon.” Selden thinks that this history ought rather to be considered as a poem or fiction, than a true account: as to the dragon, he ob- serves, that serpents, dracones, made a part of the hidden mysteries of the Pagan religion, as appears from Clemens Alexandrinus, Julius Firmicus, Justin Martyr, and others. See SERPENT. BELIAL. The phrase, ‘ sons of Belial,” sig- nifies wicked, worthless men. It was given to the inhabitants of Gibeah, who abused the Le- vite’s wife, Judges xix, 22; and to Hophniand . Phineas, the wicked and profane sons of Eli, 1 Samuel ii, 12. In later times the name Be- lial denoted the devil: ‘What concord hath Christ with Belial?” 2 Cor. vi, 15; for as the word literally imports “ one who will do no one good,” the positive sense of a doer of evil was BEL apphed to Satan, who isthe author of evil, and, eminently, “the Evil One.” BELLS. Moses ordered that the lower part of the blue robe, which the high priest wore in religious ceremonies, should be adorned with pomegranates and bells, intermixed alternately, at equal distances. The pomegranates were of wool, and in colour, blue purple, and crimson ; the bells were of gold. Moses adds, “ And it shall be upon Aaron to minister; and his sound shall be heard when he goeth in unto the hol place before the Lord, and when he cometh out; that he die not.” Some of the Hebrews believe that these little bells are round; others, that they were such as were commonly in use. The ancient kings of Persia are said to have had the hem of their robes adorned like that of the Jewish high priest, with pomegranates and golden bells. The Arabian ladies, who are about the king’s person, have little gold bells fastened to their legs, their neck, and elbows, which, when they dance, make a very agree- able harmony. The Arabian women of rank, generally, wear on their legs large hollow gold rings, containing small flints, that sound like little bells when they walk; or they are large circles, with little rings hung all round, which _produce the same effect. These, when they ‘walk, give notice that the mistress of the house ‘18 passing, that so the servants of the family -may behave themselves respectfully, and stran- gers may retire, to avoid seeing the person who advances. It was, in all probability, with some such designof giving notice that the high priest was passing, that he also wore little bells at the hem of his robe. Their sound intimated also when he was about to enter the sanctuary, and served to keep up the attention of the people. ‘A reverential respect for the Divine Inhabitant was also indicated. The palace of kings was : Not to be entered without due notice, by striking some sonorous body, much less the sanctuary of God; andthe high priest did, by the sound of his bells at the bottom of his robe, ask leave to enter. ‘And his sound shall be heard when he goeth into the holy place before the Lord, and when he cometh out; that he die not.” Bells were a part of the martial furniture of horses employed in war. the Jewish warrior adorned his charger with these ornaments ; and the prophet foretels that these in future times should be consecrated to the service of God: “In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, Holiness unto the Lord.” Chardin observes that something like this is seen in several places of the east; in Persia, and in Turkey, the reins of their bridles are of silk, of the thickness of a finger, on which are wrought the name of God, or other inscriptions. A horse which had not been trained was by the ‘Greeks called, “one that had never heard the noise of bells.” BELLY is .uséd in Scripture for gluttony, Titus i, 12; Philip iii, 16; Rom. xvi, 18. For the heart, or the secrets of the mind, Prov. xx, 27, 30; xxii, 18. The “belly of hell” signifies the grave, or some imminent danger, or deep -flistress, Jonah ii, 2; Ecclus. ii, 5. ‘BELSHAZZAR, the last king of Babylon, 146 BEL and, according to Hales and others, the grand- son of Nebuchadnezzar, Dan. v, 18. Durin; the period that the Jews were in captivity at Babylon, a variety of singular events concurred to prove that the sins which brought desolation on their country, and subjected them for a period of seventy years to the Babylonish yoke, had not dissolved that covenant relation which, as the God of Abraham, Jehovah had entered into with them; and that any act of indignity perpetrated against an afilicted people, or any msult cast upon the service of their temple, would be regarded as an affront to the Majest of heaven, and not suffered to pass with impunity, though the perpetrators were the princes and potentates of the earth. Belshaz- zar was a remarkable instance of this. He had an opportunity of seeing, in the case of his ancestor, how hateful pride is, even in royalty itself; how instantly God can blast the dignity of the brightest crown, and reduce him that wears it to a level with the beasts of the field; and consequently how much the pospeuy of kings and the stability of their thrones depend upon acknowledging that “the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.” But all these awful lessons were lost upon Belshazzar. The only circumstances of his reign, re corded, are the visions of the Prophet Daniel, in the first and third years, Dan. vii, 1; viii, 1; and his sacrilegious feast and violent death, Dan. v, 1-30. Isaiah, who represents the Ba- bylonian dynasty as “the scourge of Palestine,” styles Nebuchadnezzar “a serpent,” Evil Me- rodach “ a cockatrice,” and Belshazzar “a fiery flying serpent,” the worst of all, Isaiah xiv, 4-29. And Xenophon confirms this prophetic character by two atrocious instances of cruelty and barbarity, exercised by Belshazzar upon some of his chief and most deserving nobles. He slew the only son of Gobryas, in a trans- port of rage, because at a hunting match he hit with his spear a bear, and afterward a lion, when the king had missed both; and in a fit of jealousy, he brutally castrated Gadatus, because one of his concubines had commended him as a handsome man. His last and most heinous offence was the profanation of the sacred ves- sels belonging to the temple of Jerusalem, which his wise grandfather, and even his fool- ish father Evil Merodach, had _ respected. Having made a great feast for a thousand of his lords, he ordered those vessels to be brought during the banquet, that he, his princes, ie wives, and his concubines, might drink out of them, which they did; and to aggravate sacri- lege by apostasy and rebellion, and ingrati- tude against the Supreme Author of all their enjoyments, “they praised the gods of gold, silver, brass, iron, and stone, but the God in whose hand was their breath, and whose were all their ways, they praised or glorified not.” For these voniphested crimes his doom was denounced in the midst of the entertainment; a divine hand appeared, which wrote on the laister of the wall, opposite to the king, and ull in his view, a mysterious inscription. This tremendous apparition struck Belshazzar with BEL the greatest terror and agony: “his counte- nance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote against each other.” This is one of the liveliest and finest amplifications of dismay to be found throughout the sacred classics, and infinitely exceeds, both in accu- racy and force, the most admired of the Hea- then; such as “et corde et genibus tremit,” of pone and “tarda trementi genua labant,” of irgil. nable himself to decypher the watine Bel- shazzar cried aloud to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers, promising that whosoever should read the writing, and explain to him its meaning, should be clothed with scarlet, have a chain of gold about his neck, and be the third ruler in his kingdom. But the writing was too difficult for the Magi; at which the king was still more greatly trou- bled. In this crisis, and at the instance of the queen mother, the Prophet Daniel was sent for, to whom honours were promised, on condition of his explaining the writing. Daniel refused the honours held out to him; but having with great faithfulness pointedly reproved the mo- narch for his ingratitude to God who had con- ferred on him such dignity, and particularly for his profanation of the vessels which were con- secrated to his service, he proceeded to the in- terpretation of the words which had been writ- ten, and still stood visible on the wall. They were, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin. ‘“ This is the interpretation of the thing, Mene, ‘God hath numbered thy kingdom and finished it;’ Tekel, ‘thou art weighed in the balances and art found wanting ;’ Peres, ‘thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.’” In that very night, in the midst of their mirth and_re- velling, the city was taken by surprise, Bel- shazzar himself put to death, and the kingdom transferred to Darius the Mede. If the cha- racter of the hand-writing was known to the Magi of Babylon, the meaning could not be conjectured. Perhaps, however, the character was that of the ancient Hebrew, or what we now call the Samaritan; and in that case it would be familiar to Daniel, though rude and unintelligible to the Chaldeans. But even if Daniel could read the words, the import of this solemn graphic message to the proud and im- pious monarch could only have been made known to the prophet by God. All the ideas the three words convey, are numbering, weigh- ing, and dividing. It was only for the power which sent the omen to unfold, not in equivo- cal terms, like the responses of Heathen ora- cles, but in explicit language, the decision of the righteous Judge, the termination of his long suffering, and the instant visitation of judg- ment. Ben BaByLon. BELUS, a river of Palestine. On leaving Acre, and turning towards the south-east, the traveller crosses the river Belus, near its mouth, where the stream is shallow enough to be easily forded on horseback. This river rises out of a lake, computed to be about six miles distant toward the south-east, called by the ancients Pelus Cendovia. Of the sand of this river, ac- 147 BEN cording to Pliny, glass was first made; and ships from Italy continued to convey it to the glass houses of Venice and Genoa, so late as the middle of the seventeenth century. BENEDICTION, in a general sense, the act of blessing in the name of God, or of giving praise to God, or returning thanks for his fa- vours. Hence benediction is the act of saying grace before or after meals. Neither the an- cient Jews, nor Christians, ever ate without a short prayer. The Jews are obliged to rehearse a hundred benedictions every day; of which, eighty are to be spoken inthe morning. Rabbi Nehemiah Baruch, in 1688, published a dis- course on the manner wherein the sacerdotal benediction is to be pronounced. In the syna- gogue of Ferrara, it 1s rather sung than spoken. Among the ancient Jews, as well as Christians, benedictions were attended with the imposition of hands; and Christians, in process of time, added the sign of the cross, which was made with the same hand, elevated or extended. Hence, in the Romish church, benediction was used to denote the sign of the cross, made by a bishop or prelate, from an idea that it confer red some grace on the people. The custom of receiving benediction by bowing the head before the bishops, is very ancient; and was so universal, that emperors themselves did not decline this mark of submission. Under the name benediction the Hebrews also frequently understood the presents which friends made to one another; in all probability because they were generally attended with blessings and prayers, both from those who gave and those who received them. The solemn blessing pro- nounced by the Jewish high priest upon the people, is recorded Num. vi, 22, &c: “The Lord bless thee, and keep thee: the Lord make his face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: the Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.” The great hristian benediction is, ‘The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God the Father, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with youalways.” See Buessina. BENHADAD, the son of Tibrimon, king of Syria, came to the assistance of Asa, king of Judah, against Baasha, king of Israel, obliging the latter to return home and succour his own country, and to abandon Ramah, which he had undertaken to fortify, 1 Kings xv, 18. This Benhadad is thought by some to have been the same person with Hadad the Edomite, who rebelled against Solomon toward the end of that prince’s reign, 1 Kings xi, 25. 2. Bennapap, king of Syria, son of the pre- ceding, made war upon Ahab, king of Israel, but was defeated. In the following year, how- ever, he came with a most powerful army to Aphek, where Ahab again engaged him, killed a hundred thousand of his men, and the re- mainder endeavouring to take refuge in Aphek, the walls of the city fell upon them, and killed twenty-seven thousand more. Thus completely defeated, Benhadad submitted to beg his life of the king of Israel, who not only granted his request, but gave him his liberty, and restored him to his crown upon certain conditions BEN 1 Kings xx. Twelve years afterward, A. M. 3115, Benhadad declared war against Jehoram, the son and successor of Ahab, 2 Kings vi, 8; but his designs were made known to Jehoram by the Prophet Elisha, and they were accordingly frustrated. Suspecting some treachery in this affair, Benhadad was informed that all his pro- jects were revealed to his enemy by Elisha, and getting intelligence that the latter was at Dothan, he sent a detachment of his best troops to invest the city and apprehend the prophet ; but they were struck with blindness at Elisha’s prayer, so that they were unable to distiaguish him, when he was in the midst of them and held a conversation with them. He then led hem into the city of Samaria, and having con- ducted them safely there, he prayed to God again to open their eyes, and induced Jehoram to dis- miss them without violence. Generous as this conduct was, it produced no salutary effect on the infatuated Benhadad ; for about four years afterward, he laid close siege to Samaria, and reduced the city to such distress that the read of an ass, which the Israelites considered .o be an unclean animal, was sold for fourscore pieces of silver, about 2/. 9s. sterling; and the fourth part of a cab of dove’s dung, or rather three quarters of a pint of chick pease, as Bo- chart understands the word, for five pieces of silver. In fact, such was the pressure of the ‘amine at this time in Samaria, that mothers were constrained to eat their own children. "ehoram, hearing of these calamities, attributed hem to Elisha, and sent orders to have him put todeath; but before his messengers could reach he prophet’s house, he came thither himself. Elisha predicted that the next day, about the same hour, a measure of fine flour would be sold at the gate of Samaria for a shekel, which, however incredible at the moment, proved to be the case ; for in the night, a general panic, supernaturally induced, pervaded the Syrian camp; they imagined that Jehoram had pro- cured an army of Egyptians to come to his assistance, and, abandoning their horses, tents, and provisions, they all took to flight. Four lepers, whose disease did not permit them to live within the city, and being ready to perish with hunger, ventured into the Syrian camp; and finding it deserted, and at the same time abounding with all sorts of provisions, commu- nicated the information to Jehoram. The king immediately rose, though in the middle of the night; but reflecting that probably it was only a stratagem of Benhadad to draw his people out of the town, he first sent parties to recon- noitre. They, however, speedily returned, and informed him that the enemy was fled, and that the roads were every where strewed with arms and garments which the Syrians had aban- doned to facilitate their flight. As soon as the news was confirmed, the Samaritans went out, pillaged the Syrian camp, and brought in such quantities of provisions, that a measure of fine flour was, at the time specified by Eli- sha, sold at the gate of Samaria for a shekel, 2 Kings vii. The following year, A. M. 3120, Benhadad fell sick, and sent Hazael, one of his officers, 148 BEN with forty camels, loaded with valuable pre sents, to the Prophet Elisha, to interrogate him, whether or not he should recover of hig indisposition. Elisha fixed his eyes steadfastly on Hazael, and then burst into tears: “Go, said he, “and tell Benhaded, Thou mayest certainly recover ; though the Lord hath show- ed me that he shall assuredly die.” He at the same time apprised Hazael that he himself would reign in Syria, and do infinite mischief to Israel. Hazael on this returned and told Benhadad that his health should be restored, But on the next day he took a thick cloth which having dipped in water, he spread over the king’s face and stifled him, He then took possession of the kingdom of Syria, according to the prediction of Elisha, 2 Kings viii. 3. BennapaD, the son of Hazael, mentioned in the preceding article, succeeded his father as king of Syria, 2 Kings xii, 24. During his reign, Jehoash, king of Israel, recovered from him all that his father Hazael had taken from Jehoahaz, his predecessor. He defeated him in three several engagements, and compelled him to surrender all the country beyond Jordan, 2 Kings xiii, 25. BENI KELAIBIR, sons of Keber, the de- scendants of the Rechabites, to whom it was romised, Jer. xxxv, 19, “ Thus saith the Lord, canada the son of Rechab, shall not want a man to stand before me for ever.” They were first brought into notice in modern times by Mr. Samuel Brett, who wrote a narrative of the proceedings of the great council of the Jews in Hungary, A. D. 1650. He says of the sect of the Rechabites, ‘‘that they observe their old rules and customs, and neither sow, nor plant, nor build nouses; but live in tents, and often remove from one place to another with their whole property and families.” They are also mentioned in Neibuhr’s travels. Mr. Wolff, a converted Jew, gives the following account in a late journal. He inquired of the rabbins at Jerusalem, relative to these wander- ing Jews, and received the following informa- tion: “Rabbi Mose Secot is quite certain that the Beni Khaibir are descendants of the Re- chabites ; at this present moment they drink no wine, and have neither vineyard, nor field, nor seed; but dwell, like Arabs, in tents, and are wandering nomades. They receive and ob- serve the law of Moses by tradition, for they are not in possession of the written law.” Mr. Wolff afterward himself visited this peopie, who have remained, amidst all the changes of nations, a most remarkable monument of the exact fulfilment of a minute, and apparently at first sight an unimportant, prophecy. So true is it, that not one jot or tittle of the word of God shall Dass away! See RecuagitEs. BENJAMIN, the youngest son of Jacob and Rachel, who was born, A. M. 2272. Jacob, being on his journey from Mesopotamia, as he was proceeding southward with Rachel in the company, Gen. xxxv, 16, 17, &c, the pains of child-bearing came upon her, about a quarter of a league from Bethlehem, and she died after the delivery of a son, whom, with her last breath, she named Benoni, that is, “the son of BET my sorrow ;” but soon afterward Jacob changed his name, and called him Benjamin, that is, “the son of my right hand.” See Joseru. BEREA, a city of Macedonia, where St. Paul preached the Gospel with great success, and where his hearers were careful to compare what they heard with the scriptures of the Old Testament, Acts, xvii, 10; for which they are commended, and held out to us as an example of subjecting every doctrine to the sole test of the word of God. BERNICE, the daughter of Agrippa, sur- named the Great, king of the Jews, and sister to young Agrippa, also king of the Jews. This lady was first betrothed to Mark, the son of Alexander Lysimachus, albarach of Alexan- dria; afterward she married Herod, king of Chalcis, her own uncle by the father’s side. After the death of Herod, which happened A.D. 48, she was married to Polemon, king of Pontus, but did not long continue with him. She returned to her brother Agrippa, and with him heard the discourse which Paul delivered before Festus, Acts xxv. BERYL, ww, a pellucid gem of a bluish green colour, whence it is called by the lapi- daries, agua marina. Its Hebrew name isa word also for the same reason given to the sea, Psalm xlviii, 7. It is found in the East In- dies, Peru, Siberia, and Tartary. It has a brilliant appearance, and is generally transpar- ent. It was the tenth stone belonging to the high priest’s pectoral, Exod. xxviii, 10, 20; Rev. xxi, 20. BETHABARA, or BETHBARAH,, signi- fies in the Hebrew aplace of passage, because of its ford over the river Jordan, on the east bank of which river it stood over against Jericho, Joshua ii, 7; iii, 15,16. To this place Gideon sent a party to secure the passage of the river, pre- vious to his attack on the Midianites, Judges vii, 24. Here John commenced his baptizing, and here Christ himself was baptized, John 1, 28. To this place, also, Jesus retired, when the Jews sought to take him at the feast of dedication ; and many who resorted there to him believed on him, John x, 39-42. BETHANY, a considerable place, situated on the ascent of the mount of Olives, about two miles from Jerusalem, John xi, 18; Matt. xxi, 17; xxvi, 6, &c. Hereit was that Mar- thaand Mary lived, with their brother Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from the dead; and it was here that Mary poured the perfume on our Sa- viour’s head. Bethany at present is but a very small village. One of our modern travellers tells us, that, at the entrance into it, there is an old ruin, called the castle of Lazarus, supposed to have been the mansion house where he and his sisters resided. At the bottom of a descent, not far from the castle, you see his sepulchre, which the Turks hold in great veneration, and use it for an oratory, or place for prayer. Here going down by twenty-five steps, you come at first into a small square room, and from thence creep into another that is smaller, about ayard and a half deep, in which the body is said to have been laid. About a bow-shot from nence you pass by the place which they say M49 BET was Mary Magdalene’s house; and thence de scending a steep hill, you come to the fountain of the Apostles, which is so called because, as the tradition gees, these holy persons were wont to refresh tnemselves there between Jeru- salem and Jericho,—as it is very probable they might, because the fountain is close to the road side, and is inviting to the thirsty traveller. Bethany is now a poor village, but pleasantly situated, says Dr. Richardson, on the shady side of the mount of Olives, and abounds in trees and long grass. BETHAVEN, the same with Bethel. This city, upon the revolt of the ten tribes, belong- ed to the kingdom of Israel, and was therefore one of the cities in which Jeroboam set up his golden calves. Whence the prophet in derision calls it, “ Bethaven,” the house of vanity or idols, Hosea iv, 15, instead of “‘ Bethel,” the house of God, the name which Jacob formerly gave it, when he had the vision of the myste- rious ladder, reaching from earth to heaven, Gen. xxviii, 19. BETHEL, a city which lay to the west of Ai, about eight miles to the north of Jerusa- lem, in the confines of the tribe of Ephraim and Benjamin. Here Jacob slept and had his vision. The name of this city had formerly been Luz, which signifies an almond, and was probably so called fron the number of almond trees which grew in those parts. See Jacoz. BETHESDA. This word signifies the house of mercy, and was the name of a pool, or pub- lic bath, at Jerusalem, which had five porticos, piazzas, or covered walks around it. This bath was called Bethesda, because, as some observe, the erecting of baths was an act of reat kindness to the common people, whose infirmities in hot countries required frequent bathing ; but the generality of expositors think it had this name rather trom the great good- ness of God manifested to his people, in be- stowing healing virtues upon its waters. The account of the evangelist is, ‘‘ Now there was at Jerusalem, by the sheep market, a pool, which is called inthe Hebrew tongue, Bethes- da, having five porches. In these ey a multi- tude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water; for an angel went down at a certain season into the pool: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had,” John v, 2-4. The genuineness of the fourth verse has been dis- puted, because it is wanting in some ancient MSS, and is written in the margin of another as ascholion ; but even were the spuriousness of this verse allowed, for which, however, the evidence is by no means satisfactory, the su- pernatural character of the account, as it is indicated by the other parts of the narrative, remains unaffected. he agitation of the water: its suddenly healing virtue as to all diseases ; and the limitation to the first that should go in, are all miraculous circumstances, Commentators have however resorted to vari- ous hypotheses to account for the whole with- out divine agency. Dr. Hammond says, “The sacrifices were exceedingly numerous at the BET passover, xaré xarpav, (once a year, Chrysostom, ) when the pool being warm from the immediate washing of the blood and entrails, and thus adapted to the cure of the blind, the withered, the lame, and perhaps the paralytic, was yet farther troubled, and the congelations and grosser parts stirred up by an officer or mes- senger, dyyedos, to give it the fulleffect.” To this hypothesis Whitby acutely replies, 1. How could this natural virtue be adapted to, and cure, all kinds of diseases? 2. How could the virtue only extend to the cure of one man, several probably entering at the same instant 7 3. How unlikely is it, if natural, to take place only at one certain time, at the passover ? for there was a multitude of sacrifices slain at other of the feasts. 4. Lastly, and decisively, Light- foot shows that there was a laver in the temple for washing the entrails; therefore they were not washed in this pool at all. Others, however, suppose that the blood of the victims was conveyed from the temple to this pool by pipes; and Kuinoel thinks that it cannot be denied that the blood of animals recently slaughtered may impart a medicinal property to water; and he refers to Richter’s “ Dissertat, de Balneo Animali,” and Michaelis in loc. But he admits that it cannot be proved whether the pool was situated out of the city at the sheep gate, or in the city, and in the vicinity of the temple ; nor that the blood of the victims was ever conveyed thither by ca- nals. Kuinoel justly observes, that though in Josephus no mention is made of the baths here described, yet this silence ought not to induce us to question the truth of this transaction; since the historian omits to record many other circumstances which cannot be doubted ; as, for instance, the census of Augustus, and the murder of the infants. This critic also sup- pose that St. John only acts the part of an istorian, and gives the account as it was cur- rent among the Jews, without vouching for its truth, or interposing his own judgment. Mede follows in the track of absurdly attempting to account for the phenomenon on natural prin- ciples :— “I think the water of this puck ac- quired a medicinal property from the mud at its bottom, which was heavy with metallic salts—sulphur perhaps, or alum, or nitre. Now this would, from the water being per- turbed from the bottom by some natural cause, perhaps subterranean heat, or storms, rise up- ward and be mingled with it, and so impart a sanative property to those who bathed in it be- fore the metallic particles had subsided to the bottom. That it should have done so, kari xatpdv, is not strange, since Bartholin has, b many examples shown, that it is usual wrth many medicinal baths, to exert a singular force and sanative power at stated times, and at periodical, but uncertain, intervals.” Dod- dridge combines the common hypothesis with that of Mede; namely, that the water had at all times more or less of a medicinal property ; but at some period, not far distant from that in which the transaction here recorded took place, it was endued with a miraculous power; an extraordinary commotion being probably ob- 150 BET served in the water, and Providence so order. ing it, that the next person who accidentally bathed here, being under some great disorder, found an immediate and unexpected cure: the like phenomenon in some other desperate case, was probably observed on a second commo- tion: and these commotions and cures might happen periodically. All those Tepothasel which exclude miracle in this case are very unsatisfactory, nor is there any reason whatever to resort to them; for, when rightly viewed, there appears a mercy and a wisdom in this miracle which must strike every one who attentively considers the ac- count, unless he be a determined unbeliever in miraculous interposition. For, 1. The miracle occurred xara xaipov, from time to time, that is, occasionally, perhaps frequently. 2. Though but one at a time was healed, yet, as this might often occur, a singularly gracious provision was made for the relief of the sick inhabitants of Jerusalem in desperate cases. 3. The angel probably acted invisibly, but the commotion in the waters was so strong and peculiar as to mark a supernatural agent. 4. There is great probability in what Doddridge, following Ter- tullian, supposes, that the waters obtained their healing property not long before the ministry of Christ, and lost it after his rejec- tion and crucifixion by the Jews. In this case a connection was established between the heal- ing virtue of the pool and the presence of Christ on earth, indicating HIM to be the source of this benefit, and the true agent in conferring it; and thus it became, afterward at least, a confirmation of his mission. 5. The whole might also be emblematical, “ intended,” says Macknight, “ to show that Ezekiel’s vision of waters issuing out of the sanctuary was about to be fulfilled, of which waters it is said, They shall be healed, and every thing shall live where the river cometh.” It cannot be object- ed that this was not an age of miracles ; and if miracles be allowed, we see in this particu- lar supernatural visitation obvious reasons of fitness, as well as a divine compassion. If however the ends to be accomplished by so public and notable a miraculous interposition were less obvious, still we must admit the fact, or either force absurd interpretations upon the text, or make the evangelist carelessly give his sanction to an instance of vulgar credulity and superstition. . Maundrell and Chateaubriand both describe a bason or reservoir, near St. Stephen’s gate, and bounding the temple on the north, as the identical pool of Bethesda; which, if it really be what it is represented to be, is all that now remains of the primitive architecture of the Jews at Jerusalem. The latter says, “ It isa reservoir, a hundred and fifty feet long and forty wide.. The sides are walled, and these walls are composed of a bed of large stones joined together by iron cramps; a wall of mixed materials runs up on these large stones ; a layer of flints is stuck upon the surface of this wall; and a coating is laid over these flmts. The four beds are perpendicular with the bottom, and not horizontal: the coating BET was on the side next to the water; and the large stones rested, as they still do, against the ground. This pool is now dry, and half filled up. Here grow some pomegranate trees, and a species of wild tamarind of a bluish colour: the western angle is quite full of nopals. On the west side may also be seen two arches, which probably led to an aqueduct that carried the water intc the interior of the temple.” BETH-HORON, About twelve miles from Jerusalem, lies the Arab village of Bethoor, where Dy. E. D. Clarke was by accident com- pelled to pass a night. It is noticed by no other traveller; and yet, there is the highest eee that this 1s the Beth-horon of the criptures. St. Jerom associates it with Rama, in the remark that they were in his time, to- gether with other noble cities built by Solomon, only poor villages. Beth-horon stood on the confines of Ephraim and Benjamin; which, according to tie learned traveller, exactly an- swers to the situation of Bethoor. He sup- oses it, from its situation on a hill, to be eth-horon the upper, the Beth-horon superior of Eusebius, of which frequent notice occurs in the apocryphal writings. Josephus men- tions that Cestius, the Roman general, march- fe upon Jerusalem by way of Lydda and Beth- oron. BETHLEHEM, a city in the tribe of Judah, Judges xvii, 7; and likewise called Ephrath, Gen. xlvili, 7; or Ephratah, Micah v, 2; and the inhabitants of it, Ephrathites, Ruth i, 2; 1 Sam. xvii, 12. Here David was born, and spent his early years as a shepherd. And here also the scene of the beautiful narrative of Ruth is supposed to be laid. But its highest honour is, that here our divine Lord condescended to be born of woman :—‘ And thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me, that is to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting.” Travellers describe the first view of Bethlehem as imposing. The town appears covering the ridge of a hill on the southern side of a deep and extensive valley, and reaching from east to west. The most conspicuous object is the monastery erected over the supposed “ Cave of the Nativity ;” its walls and battlements have the air of a large fortress. From this same point, the Dead Sea is seen below on the left, seemingly very near, “ but,” says Sandys, “‘ not so found by the tra- veller ; for these high, declining mountains are not to be directly descended.” The road winds round the top of a valley which tradition has fixed on as the scene of the angelic vision which announced the birth of our Low to the shep- herds; but different spots have been selected, the Romish authorities not being agreed on this head. Bethlehem (called in the New Tes- tament Bethlehem Ephrata and Bethlehem of Judea, to distinguish it from Bethlehem of Zabulon) is situated on a rising ground, about two hours’ distance, or not quite six miles from Jerusalem. Here the traveller meets with a repetition of the same puerilities and disgusting mummery which he has witnessed 151 BET at the church of the sepulchre. “The stable,” to use the words of Pococke, “in which our Lord was born, is a grotto cut out of the rock, according to the eastern custom.” It is as- tonishing to find so intelligent a writer as Dr. E. D. Clarke gravely citing St. Jerom, who wrote in the fifth century, as an authority for the truth of the absurd legend by which the cave of the nativity is supposed to be identified. The ancient tombs and excavations are occa- sionally used by the Arabs as places of shelter ; but the Gospel narrative affords no counte- nance to the notion that the Virgin took refuge in any cave of this description. On the con- trary, it was evidently a manger belonging to the inn or khan: in other words, the upper rooms being wholly occupied, the holy family were compelled to take up their abode in the court allotted to the mules and horses, or other animals. But the New Testament was not the guide which was followed by the mother of Constantine, to whom the original church owed its foundation. The present edifice is repre- sented by Chateaubriand as of undoubtedly high antiquity ; yet Doubdan, an old traveller, says that the monastery was destroyed in the year 1263 by the Moslems; and in its present state, at all events, it cannot lay claim to a higher date. The convent is divided among the Greek, Roman, and Armenian Christians, to each of whom separate parts are assigned as eee of worship and habitations for the monks , ut, on certain days, all may perform their de- votions at the altars erected over the conse- crated spots. The church is built in the form of a cross; the nave being adorned with forty- eight Corinthian columns in four rows, each column being two feet six inches in diameter, and eighteen feet high, including the base and the capital. The nave, which is in possession of the Armenians, is separated from the three other branches of the cross by a wall, so that the unity of the edifice is destroyed. The top of the cross is occupied by the choir, which be- longs to the Greeks. Here is an altar dedi- cated to the wise men of the east, at the foot of which is a marble star, correspoxding, as the monks say, to the point of the heavens where the miraculous meteor became stationary, and directly over the spot where the Saviour was born in the subterranean church below! A flight of fifteen steps, and a long narrow passage, conduct to the sacred crypt or grotto of the nativity, which is thirty-seven feet six inches long, by eleven feet three inches in breadth, and nine feet high. It is lined and floored with marble, and provided on each side with five oratories, ‘‘ answering precisely to the ten cribs. or stalls for horses that the stable in which our Saviour was born contained !” The precise spot of the birth is marked by a glory in the floor, composed of marble and jasper encircled with silver, around which are inscribed the words, Hic de Virgine Maria Jesus Christus natus est Here Jesus Christ was born ofthe Virgin Mary., ver it is a marble table or altar, which rests against the side of the rock, here cut into an arcade. The manger is at the distance of seven, paces from the altar; it is in a low recess hewn BET out of the rock, to which you descend by two steps, and consists of a block of marble, raised about a foot and a half above the floor, and hollowed out in the form of a manger. Before it is the altar of the Magi. The chapel is illuminated by thirty-two lamps, presented by different princes of Christendom. Chateau- briand has described the scene in his usual florid and imaginative style: “ Nothing can be more pleasing, or better calculated to excite devotional sentiments, than this subterraneous church. It is adorned with pictures of the Italian and Spanish schools, which represent the mysteries of the place. The usual orna- ments of the manger are of blue satin, em- broidered with silver. Incense is continually burning before the cradle of our Saviour. I have heard an organ, touched by no ordinary hand, play, during mass, the sweetest and most tender tunes of the best Italian composers. These concerts charm the Christian Arab, who, leaving his camels to feed, repairs, like the shepherds of old, to Bethlehem, to adore the King of kings in the manger. I have seen this inhabitant of the desert communicate at the altar of the Magi, with a fervour, a piety, a devotion, unknown among the Christians of the west. The continual arrival of caravans from all the nations of Christendom ; the pub- lic prayers; the prostrations; nay, even the richness of the presents sent here by the Chris- tian princes, altogether produce feelings in the soul, which it is much easier to conceive than to describe.” Such are the illusions which the Roman superstition casts over this extraordinary scene! In another subterraneous chapel, tradition Places the sepulchre of the Innocents. From this, the pilgrim is conducted to the grotto of St. Jerom, where they show the tomb of that father, who passed great part of his life in this place; and who, in the grotto shown as his oratory, is said to have translated that version of the Bible which has been adopted by the church of Rome, and is called the Vulgate. He died at the advanced age of ninety-one, A. D, 422. The village of Bethlehem contains about three hundred inhabitants, the greater part of whom gain their livelihood by making beads, carving mother-of-pearl shells with sa- cred subjects, and manufacturing small tables and crucifixes, all which are eagerly purchased by the pilgrims. Bethlehem has been visited by many modern travellers. The following notice of it by Dr. E. D. Clarke will be read with interest: “ After travelling for about an hour from the time of our leaving Jerusalem, we came in view of Bethlehem, and halted to enjoy the interesting sight. The town appeared covering the ridge of a hill on the southern side of a deep and extensive valley, and reaching from east to west; the most conspicuous object being the monastery, erected over the cave of the na- tivity, in the suburbs, and upon the eastern side. The battlements and walls of this build- ing seemed like those of a vast fortress. The Dead Sea below, upon our left, appeared so near to us that we thought we could have rode 152 BET thither in a very short space of time. Still nearer stood a mountain upon its western shore, resembling in its form the cone of Vesuvius near Naples, and having also a crater upon its top which was plainly discernible. The dis- tance, however, is much greater than it ap- pears to be; the magnitude of the objects beheld in this fine prospect causing them to appear less remote than they really are. The atmosphere was remarkably clear and serene; but we saw none of those clouds of smoke, which, by some writers, are said to exhale from the surface of the lake, nor from any neigh. bouring’ mountain. Every thing about it was in the highest degree grand and awful. Beth- lehem is six miles from Jerusalem. Josephus describes the interval between the two cities as equal only to twenty stadia ; and in the pas- sage referred to, he makes an allusion to a celebrated well, which, both from the account given by him of its situation, and more espe- cially from the text of the sacred Scriptures, 2 Sam. xxiii, 15, seems to have contained the identical fountain, of whose pure and delicious water we were now drinking. Considered merely in point of interest, the narrative is not likely to be surpassed by any circumstance of Pagan history. David, being a native of Beth- lehem, calls to mind, during the sultry days of harvest, verse 13, a well near the gate of the town, the delicious waters of which he had often tasted; and expresses an earnest desire to assuage his thirst by drinking of that limpid spring. ‘And David longed, and said, O that one would give me to drink of the water of the well of Bethlehem, which is by the gate! The exclamation is overheard by ‘three of the mighty men whom David had,’ namely, Adino, Eleazar, and Shamnah, verses 8, 9, 11. These men sallied forth, and having fought their way through the garrison of the Philis- tines at Bethlehem, verse 14, ‘drew water from the well that was by the gate,’ on the other side of the town, and brought it to David. Coming into his presence, they present to him the surprising testimony of their valour and affection. The aged monarch receives from their hands a pledge they had so dearly earned, but refuses to drink of water every drop of which had been purchased with blood, 2 Sam. xxiii, 17. He retwmns thanks to the Almighty, who had vouchsafed the deliverance of his warriors from the jeopardy they had en- countered; and pouring out the water as aliba-- °° tion on the ground, makes an offering of it to the Lord. ‘The well still retains its pristine renown ; and raany an expatriated Bethlehem- ite has made it the theme of his longing and regret.” ‘BETHPHAGE, so called from its producing figs, a small village situated in Mount Olivet, and, as it seems, somewhat nearer Jerusalem than Bethany. Jesus being come from Beth- any to Bethphage, commanded his disciples to seek out an ass for him that he might ride, in his triumphant entrance into Jerusalem, Matt. xxi, 1, &c. The distance between Bethphage and Jerusalem is about fifteen furlongs. BETHSAIDA, a city whose name in He- BET brew imports a place of fishing or of hunting, and for both of these exercises it was well situated. As it belonged to the tribe of Naph- tali, it was in a country remarkable for plenty of deer; and as it lay on the north end of the lake Gennesareth, just where the river Jordan runs into it, it became the residence of fisher- men. Three of the Apostles, Philip, Andrew, and Peter, were born in this city. It is not mentioned in the Old Testament, though it frequently occurs in the New: the reason is, that it was but a village, as Josephus tells us, till Philip the tetrarch enlarged it, making it a magnificent city, and gave it the name of Julias, out of respect to Julia, the daughther of Augus- tus Cosar. The evangelists speak of Bethsaida; and yet it then possessed that name no longer: it was enlarged and beautified nearly at the same time as Cesarea, and called Julias. Thus was it called in the days of our Lord, and so would the sacred historians have been accustomed to call it. But if they knew nothing of this, what shall we say of iets age? In other respects they evince the most accurate knowledge of the circumstances of the time. The solution is, that, though Philip had exalted it to the rank of a city, to which he gave the name of Julias, yet, not long afterward, this Julia, in whose ho- nour the city received its name, was banished from the country by her own father. The leeply, wounded honour of Augustus was 2ven anxious that the world might forget that she was his daughter. Tiberius, whose wife she had been, consigned the unfortunate prin- cess, after the death of Augustus, to the most abject poverty, under which she sank with- out assistance. Thus adulation must under swo reigns have suppressed a name, from which otherwise the city might have wished to derive benefit to itself; and for some time it was called by its ancient name Bethsaida in- stead of Julias. Ata later period this name again came into circulation, and appears in the catalogue of Jewish cities by Pliny. By such incidents, which are so easily overlooked, and the knowledge of which is afterward lost, do those who are really acquainted with an age disclose their authenticity. “ But it is strange,” some one will say, “that John reckons this Bethsaida, or Julias, where he was born, in Galilee, John xii, 21. Should he not know to what province his birthplace belonged?” Phi- lip only governed the eastern districts by the sea of Tiberias; but Galilee was the portion of his brother Antipas. Bethsaida or Julias could therefore not have been built by Philip, as the case is; or it did not belong to Galilee, as John alleges. In fact, such an error were sufficient to prove that this Gospel was not written b John. Julias, however, was situated in Gaul- onitis, which district was, for deep political reasons, divided from Galilee; but the ordinary language of the time asserted its own opinion, and still reckoned the Gaulonitish province in Galilee. When, therefore, John does the same, he proves, that the peculiarity of those days was not unknown to him; for he expresses himself after the ordinary manner of the period. 153 BET Thus Josephus informs us of Judas the Gaule- nite from Gamala, and also calls him in the following chapters, the Galilean; and then in. another work he applies the same expression to him; from whence we may be convinced that the custom of those days paid respect to a more ancient division of the country, and bade de- fiance, in the present case, to the then existing political geography. Is it possible that histo- rians who, as it is evident from such examples, discover throughout so nice a knowledge of geographical arrangements and local and even temporary circumstances, should have written at a time when the theatre of events was un- known to them, when not only their native country was destroyed, but their nation scatter- ed, and the national existence of the Jews extin- guished and extirpated? On the contrary, all this is in proof that they wrote at the very pe- riod which they profess, and it also proves the usual antiquity assigned to the Gospels. BETHSHAN, a city belonging to the half tribe of Manasseh, on the west of Jordan, and not far from the river. It was a considerable city in the time of Eusebius and St. Jerom, and was then, as it had been for several ages before, called Scythopolis, or the city of the Scythians, from some remarkable occurrence when the Scythians made an irruption into Syria. It is said to be six hundred furlongs from Jerusa- lem, 2 Mace. xii, 29. After the battle of Mount Gilboa, the Philistines took the body of Saul, and hung it against the wall of Bethshan, 1 Sam. xxxi, 10. Bethshan is now called By- san, and is described by Burckhardt as situated on rising ground on the west of the Ghor, or valley of Jordan. BETHSHEMESH, a city of the tribe of Ju- dah, belonging to the priests, Joshua xxi, 16. The Philistines having sent back the ark of the Lord, it was brought to Bethshemesh, 1 Sam. vi, 12, where some of the people out of curiosity having looked into it, the Lord de stroyed seventy of the principal men belonging to the city, and fifty thousand of the common people, verse 19. It is here to be observed that it was solemnly enjoined, Num. iv, 20, that not only the common people but that even the Le- vites themselves should not dare to look into the ark, upon pain of death. “It is a fearful thing,” says Bishop Hall, ‘‘to use the holy ordinances of God with an irreverent boldness; fear and trembling become us in our access to the majes- ty of the Almighty.” BETHUEL, the son of Nahor and Mileah. He was Abraham’s nephew, and father to La- ban and Rebekah, the wife of Isaac, Genesis xxii, 20, 23. BETROTHMENT, a mutual promise or compact between two parties for a future mar- riage. The word imports as much as giving one’s troth; that is, true faith, or promise. Among the ancient Jews, the bethrothing was performed either by a writing, or by a piece of silver given to the bride. After the marriage was contracted, the young people had the liber- ty of seeing each other, which was not allowed them before. If, after the betrothment, the bride should trespass against that fidelity she BIB owed to her bridegroom she was treated as an adulteress. See Marriace. BEZER, or Bozra, or Bostra, a city beyond Jordan, given by Moses to Reuben: this town was designed by Joshua to be a city of refuge; it was given to the Levites of Gershom’s family, Deut. iv, 43. When Scripture mentions Bezer, it adds, “in the wilderness,” because it lay in Arabia Deserta, and the eastern part of Edom, encompassed with deserts. Eusebius places Bozra twenty-four miles from Adraa, or Edrai. This city is sometimes said to belong to Reu- ben, sometimes to Moab, and sometimes again to Edom; because, as it was a frontier town to these three provinces, it was occasionally in the hands of one party, and then was taken by an- other. The bishops of Bostra subscribed the decrees of several councils. BIBLE, the book, by way of eminence so call- ed, as containing the sacred Scriptures, that is, the inspired writings of the Old and New Tes- tament; or the whole collection of those which are received among Christians as of divine au- thority. The word Bible comes from the Greek BiBros, or BiBdiov, and is used to denote any book; but is emphatically applied to the book of inspired Scripture, which is “the book” as being superior in excellence to all other books. Bidiov again comes from Bé@os, the Egyptian reed, from which the ancient paper was pro- cured. The word Bible seems to be used in the particular sense just given by Chrysostom: “T therefore exhort all of you to procure to yourselves Bibles, BiSAta. If you have nothing else, take care to have the New Testament, particularly the Acts of the Apostles and the Gospels, for your constant instructers.” And Jerome says, “that the Scriptures being all written by one Spirit, are one book.” Augustine also informs us, “that some called all the ca- nonical Scriptures one book, on account of their wonderful harmony and unity of design throughout.” It is not improbable that this mode of speaking gradually introduced the general use of the word Bible for the whole collection of the Scriptures, or the books of the Old and New Testament. By the Jews the Bible, that is, the Old Testament, is called Mikra, that is, “lecture, or reading.” By Christians the Bible, comprehending the Old and New Testament, is usually denominated “Scripture;” sometimes also the “Sacred Ca- non,” which signifies the rule of faith and prac- tice. These, and similar appellations, are de- rived from the divine original and authority of the Bible. As it contains an authentic and connected history of the divine dispensations with regard to mankind; as it was given by divine inspiration; as its chief subject is reli- gion; and as the doctrines it teaches, and the duties it inculcates, pertain to the conduct of men, as rational, moral, and accountable beings, and conduce by a divine constitution and pro- mise, to their present and future happiness; the Bible deserves to be held in the highest estima- tion, and amply justifies the sentiments of vene- ration with which it has been regarded, and the peculiar and honourable appellations by which it has been denominated. 154 BIB 2. The list of the books contained in the Bible constitutes what is called the canon of Scripture. Those books that are contained in the catalogue to which the name of canon has been appropriated, are called canonical, by way of contradistinction from others called deutero- canonical, apocryphal, pseudo-apocryphal, &c, which either are not acknowledged as divine books, or are rejected as heretical and spurious. (See Apocrypha.) The first canon or catalogue of the sacred books was made by the Jews; but the original author of it is not satisfactorily ascertained. It is certain, however, that the five books of Moses, called the Pentateuch, were collected into one body within a short time after hisdeath; since Deuteronomy, which is, as it were, the abridgment and recapitulation of the other four, was laid in the tabernacle near the ark, according to the order which he gave to the Levites, Deut. xxxi, 24. Hence the first canon of the sacred writings consist- ed of the five books of Moses; for a farther ac- count of which see Pentateuch. It does not appear that any other books were added to these, till the division of the ten tribes, as the Samaritans acknowledged no others. How- ever, after the time of Moses, several prophets, and other writers divinely inspired, composed either the history of their own times, or pro- phetical books and divine writings, or psalms appropriated to the praise of God. But these books do not seem to have been collected into one body, or comprised under one and the same canon, before the Babylonish captivity. This was not done till after their return from the captivity, about which time the Jews had a cer- tain number of books digested into a canon, which comprehended none of those books that were written since the time of Nehemiah. The book of Ecclesiasticus affords sufficient evidence that the canon of the sacred books was comple- ted when that tract was composed; for that au- thor, in chapter xlix, having mentioned among the famous men and sacred writers, Isaiah, Je- remiah, Ezekiel, adds the twelve minor prophets who follow those three in the Jewish canon; and from this circumstance we may infer that the prophecies of these twelve men were already collected and digested into one body. It is far- ther evident, that in the time of our Saviour the canon of the Holy Scriptures was drawn up, since he cites the law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms, which are the three kinds of books of which that canon is composed, and which he often styles, “the Scriptures,” or, “the Holy Scripture,” Matt. xxi, 42; xxii, 29; xxvi, 54; John v, 39; and by him therefore the Jew- ish canon, as it existed in his day, was fully authenticated, by whomsoever or at what time it had been formed. 3. The person who compiled this canon is generally allowed to be Ezra. According to the invariable tradition of Jews and Christians, the honour is ascribed to him of having collect- ed together and perfected a complete edition of the Holy Scriptures. The original of the Pen- tateuch had been carefully preserved in the side of the ark, and had been probably introduced with the ark into the temple at Jerusalem. BIB After having been concealed in the dangerous days of the idolatrous kings of Judah, and par- ticularly in the impious reigns of Manasseh and Amon, it was found in the days of Josiah, the ee by Hilkiah the priest, in the temple. Prideaux thinks, that during the pre- ceding reigns the book of the law was so de- stroyed and lost, that, beside this copy of it, there was then no other to be obtained. To this purpose he adds, that the surprise mani- fested by Hilkiah, on the discovery of it, and the grief expressed by Josiah when he heard it read, plainly show that neither of them had seen it before. On the other hand, Dr. Kenni- cott, with better reason, supposes, that long be- fore this time there were several copies of the law in Israel, during the separation of the ten tribes, and that there were some copies of it also among the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, par- ticularly in the hands of the prophets, priests, and Levites; and that by the instruction and authority of these MSS, the various services in the temple were regulated, during the reigns of the good kings of Judah. He adds, that the surprise expressed by Josiah and the people, at his reading the copy found by Hilkiah, may be accounted for by adverting to the history of the preceding reigns, and by recollecting how idolatrous a fling Mirigaseh had been for fifty- five years, and that he wanted neither power nor inclination to destroy the copies of the law, if they had not been secreted by the servants of God. The law, after being so long conceal- ed, would be unknown almost to all the Jews; and thus the solemn reading of it by Josiah would awaken his own and the people’s earnest attention; more eapeetays as the copy pro- duced was probably the original written by Moses. From this time copies of the law were extensively multiplied among the people; and though, within a few years, the autograph, or original copy of the law, was burnt with the. city and temple by the Babylonians, yet many copies of the law and the prophets, and of all the other sacred writings, were circulated in the hands of private persons, who carried them with them into their captivity. It is certain that Daniel had a copy of the Holy Scriptures with him at Babylon; for he quotes the law, and men- tions the prophecies of Jeremiah, Dan. ix, 2, 11, 13. It appears also, from the sixth chap. of Ezra, and from the ninth chap. of Nehemiah, that co- ee of the law were dispersed among the people. he whole which Ezra did may be comprised in the following particulars: He collected as many copies of the sacred writings as he could find, and compared them together, and, out of them all, formed one complete copy, adjusted the va- rious readings, and corrected the errors of transcribers. He likewise made additions in several parts of the different books, which ap- peared to be necessary for the illustration, cor- rection, and completion of them. To this class of additions we may refer the last chapter of Deuteronomy, which, as it gives an account of the death and burial of Moses, and of the suc- cession of Joshua after him, could not have been written by Moses himself. Under the same head have also been included some other 155 BIB interpolations in the Bible, which create diffi- culties that can only be solved by allowing them; as in Gen. xii, 6; xxii, 14; xxxvi, 3; Exodus xvi, 35; Deut. ii, 12; ini, 11,14; Prov. xxv, 1. The interpolations in these passages are ascribed by Prideaux to Ezra; and others which were afterward added, he attributes to Simon the Just. Ezra also changed the old names of several places that were become ob- solete, putting instead of them the new names by which they were at that time called; in- stances of which occur in Genesis xiv, 4, where Dan is substituted for Laish, and in several places in Genesis, and also in Numbers, where Hebron is put for Kirjath Arba, &c. He like- wise wrote out the whole in the Chaldee charac- ter, changing for it the old Hebrew character, which has since that time been retained only by the Samaritans, and among whom it is preserv- ed even to this day. The canon of the whole Hebrew Bible seems, says Kennicott, to have been closed by Malachi, the latest of the Jew- ish prophets, about fifty years after Ezra had collected together alf the sacred books which had been composed before and during his time. Prideaux supposes the canon was completed by Simon the Just, about one hundyed and fifty years after Malachi: but, as his opinion is founded merely on a few proper names at the end of the two genealogies, 1 Chron. iii, 19; Nehem. xii, 22, which few names might very easily be added by a transcriber afterward, it is more probable, as Kennicott thinks, that the canon was finished by the last of the prophets, about four hundred years before Christ. 4. It is an inquiry of considerable import- ance, in its relation to the subject of this arti- cle, what books were contained in the canor of the Jews. The Old Testament, according to our Bibles, comprises thirty-nine books, viz. the Pentateuch or five books of Moses, called Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, the books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremlah with his Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. But, among the ancient Jews, they formed only twenty-two books, according to the letters of their alphabet, which were twenty-two in number; reckoning Judges and Ruth, Ezra and Nehemiah, Jeremiah and his Lamentations, and the twelve minor prophets, (so called from the comparative brevity of their ponte ens) ere as one book. Jose- phus says, “ We have not thousands of books, discordant, and contradicting each other: but we have only twenty-two, which comprehend the history of all former ages, and are justly regarded as divine. JF %ve of them proceed from oses; they include as well the laws, as ar. account of the creation of man, extending to the time of his (Moses) death. This period comprehends nearly three thousand years. From the death of Moses to that of Artaxerxes, who was king of Persia after Xerxes, the pro- BIB pluis, who succeeded Moses, committed to writ- ing, In thirteen books, what was done in their days. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, (the Eee and instructions of life for man.” The threefold division of the Old Testament into the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, mentioned by Josephus, was ex- ressly recognised before his time by Jesus Christ, as well as by the subsequent writers of the New Testament. We have therefore suffi- cient evidence that the Old Testament existed at that time; and if it be only allowed that Jesus Christ was a teacher of a fearless and irreproachable character, it must be acknow- ledged that we draw a fair conclusion, when we assert that the Scriptures were not corrupted in his time: for, when he accused the Pharisees of making the law of no effect by their tradi- tions, and when he enjoined his hearers to search the Scriptures, he could not have failed to mention the corruptions or forgeries of Scripture, if any had existed in that age. About fifty years before the time of Christ were written the Targunfs of Onkelos on the Pentateuch, and of Jonathan Ben-Uzziel on the Prophets ; (according to the Jewish classifica- tion of the books of the Old Testament ;) which are evidence of the genuineness of those books at that time. We have, however, unquestion- able testimony of the genuineness of the Old Testament, in the fact that its canon was fixed some centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ. Jesus the son of Sirach, author of the book of Ecclesiasticus, makes evident references to the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and mentions these prophets by name: he speaks also of the twelve minor prophets. It likewise appears from the prologue to that book, that the law and the prophets, and other ancient books, were extant at the same period. The book of Ecclesiasticus, according to the best chronologers, was written in the Syro- Chaldaic dialect A. M. 3772, that is, two hun- dred and thirty-two years before the Christian wera, and was translated by the grandson of Jesus into Greek, for the use of the Alexan- drian Jews. The prologue was added by the translator ; but this circumstance does not di- minish the evidence for the antiquity of the Old Testament: for he informs us, that the law and the prophets, and the other books of their fathers, were studied by his grandfather ; a suf- ficient proof that they were extant in his time. Fifty years, indeed, before the age of the au- thor of Ecclesiasticus, or two hundred and eighty-two years before the Christian era, the Greek version of the Old Testament, usually called the Septuagint, was executed at Alex- andria, the books of which are the same as in our Bibles; whence it is evident that we still have those identical books, which the most an- cient Jews attested to be genuine. The Chris- tian fathers too, Origen, Athanasius, Hilary, Gregory, Nazianzen, Epiphanius, and Jerom, speaking of the books that are allowed by the Jews as sacred and canonical, agree in saying that they are the same in number with the let- ters in the Hebrew alphabet, that is, twenty- two, and reckon particularly those books which 154 BIB we have already mentioned. Nothing can be more satisfactory and conclusive than all the parts of the evidence for the authenticity and in- tegrity of the canon of the Old Testament scrip- tures. The Jews, to whom they were first com- mitted, never varied respecting them; while they were fully recognised by our Lord and his Apostles; and, consequently, their authenticity is established by express revelation. And that we now possess them as thus delivered and au- thenticated, we have the concurrent testimony of the whole succession of the most distin- guished early Christian writers, as well as of the Jews to this day, who, in every age, and in all countries, the most remote from one another, have constantly been in the habit of reading them in their synagogues. 5. The five books of the law are divided into fifty-four sections, which division is attributed to Ezra, and was intended for the use of their synagogues, and for the better instruction of the people in the law of God. For, one of these sections was read every Sabbath in their synagogues. They ended the last section with the last words of Deuteronomy on the Sabbath of the feast of the tabernacles, and then began anew with the first section from the beginning of Genesis the next Sabbath after, and so went round in this circle every year. The number of these sections was fifty-four, because in their intercalated years (a month being then added) there were fifty-four Sabbaths. On other years they reduced them to the number of the Sab- baths which were in those years, by joining two short ones several times into one. For they held themselves obliged to have the whole law thus read over in their synagogues every year. Till the time of the persecution of An- tiochus Epiphanes, they read only the law; but being then prohibited from reading it any more, they substituted in the room of the fifty-four sections of the law, fifty-four sections out of the prophets, the reading of which they ever after continued. ‘Thus, when the reading of the law was restored by the Maccabees, the section which was read every Sabbath out of the law served for their first lesson, and the section out of the prophets for their second les- son; and this practice was continued to -the times of the Apostles, Acts xiii, 15, 27. These sections were divided into verses, called by the Jews pesukim, and they are marked out in the Hebrew Bible by two great points at the end of them, called from hence, soph-pasuk, that is, the end of the verse. This division, if not made by Ezra, is very ancient; for when the Chal- dee came into use in the room of the Hebrew language, after the return of the Jews from their captivity in Babylon, the law was read to the people first in the Hebrew language, and then rendered by an interpreter into the Chal- dee language; and this was done period by period. The division of the Holy Beriptures into chapters is of a much later date. The Psalms, indeed, appear to have been always di- vided as they are at present, Acts xiii, 33; but as to the rest of the Bible, the present division into chapters was unknown to the ancients. 6. From the time when the Old Testament BIB was completed by Malachi, the last of the pro- phets, it the publication of the New Testa- ment, about four hundred and sixty years elapsed. During the life of Jesus Christ, and for some time after his ascension, nothing on the subject of his mission was committed to writing. The period of his remaining upon earth may be regarded as an intermediate state between the old and new dispensations. His ak ministry was confined to the land of udea; and, by means of his miracles and dis- courses, together with those of his disciples, the attention of men, in that country, was suffi- ciently directed to his doctrine. They were also in possession of the Old Testament scriptures ; which, at that season, it was of the greatest importance they should consult, in order to compare the ancient predictions with what was then taking place. Immediately after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, his disciples, in the most public manner, and in the place where he had been crucified, proclaimed that event, and the whole of the doctrine which he had commanded them to preach. In this service they continued personally to labour for a con- siderable time, first among their countrymen the Jews, and then among the other nations. Dur- ing the period between the resurrection and the publication of the New Testament, the churches possessed miraculous gifts, and the prophets were enabled to explain the predictions of the Old Testament, and to show their fulfilment. After their doctrine had every where attracted attention, and, in spite of the most violent opposition, had forced its way through the civilized world; and when churches or socie- ties of Christians were collected, not only in Judea, but in the most celebrated cities of Italy, Greece, and Asia Minor, the scriptures of the New Testament were written by the Apostles, and other inspired men, and intrusted to the keeping of these churches. he whole of the New Testament was not written at once, but in different parts, and on various occasions. Six of the Aponles and two inspired disciples who accompanied them In their journeys, were employed in this work. The histories which it contains of the life of Christ, known by the name of the Gospels, were composed by four of his contemporaries, two of whom had been constant attendants on his public ministry. The first of these was published within a few years after his death, in that very country where he had lived, and among the people who had seen him and ob- served his conduct. The history called the Acts of the Apostles, which contains an ac- count of their proceedings, and of the progress of the Gospel, from Jerusalem, among the Gentile nations, was published about the year 64, being thirty years after our Lord’s cruci- fixion, by one who, though not an Apostle, declares that he had “ perfect understanding of all things, from the very first,” and who had written one of the Gospels. This book, com- mencing with a detail of proceedings, from the resurrection of Jesus Christ, carries down the evangelical history till the arrival of Paul as a vrisoner at Rome. The Epistles, addressed to 157 BIB churches in particular places, to believers scat- tered up and down in different countries, or tc individuals, in all twenty-one in number, were separately written, by five of the Apostles, from seventeen, to twenty, thirty, and thirty- five years after the death of Christ. Four of these writers had accompanied the Lord Jesus during his life, and had been “eye witnesses of his majesty.” The fifth was the Apostle Paul, who, as he expresses it, was “one born out of due time,” but. who had likewise seen Jesus Christ, and had been empowered by him to work miracles, which were “the signs of an Apostle.” One of these five also wrote the book of Revelation, about the year A. D. 96, addressed to seven churches in Asia, contain- ing tae to these churches from Jesus Christ himself, with various instructions for the im- mediate use of all Christians, together with a propheticql view of the kingdom of God till the end of time. These several pieces, which compose the scriptures of the New Testament, were received by the churches with the highest veneration; and, as the instructions they con- tain, though partially addressed, were equally intended for all, they were immediately copied, and handed about from one church io another, till each was in possession of the whole. The volume of the New Testament was thus com- pleted before the death of the last of the Apos- tles, most of whom had sealed their testimon with their blood. From the manner in whic these scriptures were at first circulated, some of their parts were necessarily longer in reach- ing certain places than others. These, of course, could not be so soon received into the canon asthe rest. Owing to this circumstance, and to that of a few of the books being address- ed to individual believers, or to their not having the names of their writers affixed, or the de signation of Apostle added, a doubt for a time existed among some respecting the genuineness of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of James, the second Epistle of Peter, the second and third Epistles of John, the Epistle of Jude, and the book of Revelation. These, however, though not universally, were generally acknow- ledged; while all the other books of the New- Testament were without dispute received from the beginning. This discrimination proves the scrupulous care of the first churches on this highly important subject. At length these books, which had not at first been admitted, were, like the rest, universally received, not by the votes of a council, as is sometimes asserted, but after deliberate and free inquiry by many separate churches, under the superintending providence of God, in dif- ferent parts of the world. It is at the same time a certain fact, that no other books beside those which at present compose the volume of the New Testament, were admitted by the churches. Several apocryphal writings were published under the name of Jesus Christ and his Apostles, which are mentioned by the writ- ers of the first four centuries, most of which have perished, though some are still extant. Few or none of them were composed before the second centurv, and several of them were BIB forged as late as the third century. But they were not acknowledged as authentic by the first Christians; and were rejected by those who have noticed them, as spurious and he- retical. Histories, too, as might have been expected, were written of the life of Christ ; and one forgery was attempted, of a letter said to have been written by Jesus himself to Abgarus, king of Edessa; but of the first, none were received as of any authority, and the last was universally rejected. “ Beside our Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles,” says Paley, “no Christian history claiming to be written by an Apostle, or Apostolical man, is quoted within three hundred years after the hirth of Christ, by any writer now extant or known, or, if quoted, is quoted with marks of censure and rejection.” This agreement of Christians respecting the Scriptures, when we consider their many differences in ,other re- spects, is the more remarkable, since it took place without any public authority being inter- posed. “We have no knowledge,” says the above author, “‘of any interference of authority in the question before the council of Laodicea, in the year 363. Probably the decree of this council rather declared than regulated the public judgment, or, more properly speaking, the judgment of some neighbouring churches, the council itself consisting of no more than thirty or forty bishops of Lydia and the adjoin- ing countries. Nor does its authority seem to have extended farther.” But the fact, that no public authority was interposed, does not re- quire to be supported by the above reasoning. The churches at the beginning, being widely separated from each other, necessarily judged for themselves in this matter, and the decree of the council was founded on the coincidence of their judgment. In delivering this part of his written revelation, God proceeded as he had done in the publication of the Old Testa- ment scriptures. For a considerable time, his will was declared to mankind through the me- dium of oral tradition. At length he saw meet, in his wisdom, to give it a more permanent form. But this did not take place till a nation, separated from all others, was provided for its reception. In the same manner, when Jesus Christ set up his kingdom in the world, of which the nation of Israel was a type, he first made known his will by means of verbal com- munication, through his servants whom he commissioned and sent out for that purpose ; and when, through their means, he had pre- pared his subjects and_ collected them into churches, to be the depositaries of his word, he caused it to be delivered to them in writing. His kingdom was not to consist of any particu- lar nation, like that of Israel, but of all those individuals, in every part of the world, who should believe in his name. It was to be ruled, not by means of human authority, or compul- sion of any kind, but solely by his authority. These sacred writings were thus intrusted to a people prepared for their reception—a nation among the nations, but singularly distinct from all the rest, who guarded and preserved them with the same inviolable attachment as the 158 BIB Old Testament scriptures had experienced from the Jews. 7. Respecting the lateness of the time when the scriptures of the New Testament were written, no objection can be offered, since they were published before that generation passed away which had witnessed the transactions: they record. The dates of these writings fall within the period of the lives of many who were in full mar-hood when the Lord Jesus was upon earth; and the facts detailed in the his- tories, and referred to in the Epistles, being of the most public nature, were still open to full investigation. It must also be recollected, that the Apostles and disciples, during the whole intermediate period, were publicly proclaiming to the world the same things which were after- ward recorded in their writings. Thus were the Scriptures, as we now possess them, deli- vered to the first churches. By the concurrent testimony of all antiquity, both of friends and foes, they were received by Christians of differ- ent sects, and were constantly appealed to on all hands, in the controversies that arose among them. Commentaries upon them were written at a very early period, and translations made into different languages. Formal catalogues of them were published, and they were attack- ed by the adversaries of Christianity, who not only did not question, but expressly admitted, the facts they contained, and that they were the genuine productions of the persons whose names they bore. In this manner the Scrip- tures were also secured from the danger of being in any respect altered or vitiated. “ The books of Scripture,” says Augustine, ‘could not have been corrupted. If such an attempt had been made by any one, his design would have been prevented and defeated. is alteration would have been immediately detected by many and more ancient copies.” The difficulty of succeeding in such an attempt is apparent hence, that the Scriptures were early translated into divers languages, and copies of them were numerous. The alterations which any one attempted to make would have been soon per- ceived; just even as now, in fact, lesser faults in some copies are amended by comparin ancient copies or those of the original. “If any one,” continues Augustine, “‘ should charge you with having interpolated some texts alleged by you as favourable to your cause, what would yousay? Would you not immediately answer that it is impossible for you to do such a thing in books read by all Christians; and that if any such attempt had been made by you, it would have been presently discerned and _de- feated by comparing the ancient copies? Well, then, for the same reason that the Scriptures cannot be corrupted by you, neither could they be corrupted by any other people.” Accord- ingly, the uniformity of the manuscripts of the Holy Scriptures that are extant, which are incomparably more numerous than those of any ancient author, and which are dispersed through so many countries, and in so great a variety of languages, is truly astonishing. It demonstrates both the veneration in which the Scriptures have been always held, and the sin: BIB ay care that has been taken in transcribing them. The number of various readings, that by the most minute and laborious investigation and collations of manuscripts have been dis- covered in them, are said to amount to one hundred and fifty thousand; though at first sight they may seem calculated to diminish confidence in the sacred text, yet in no degree whatever do they affect its credit and integrity. They consist almost wholly in palpable errors in transcription, grammatical and verbal differ- ences, such as the insertion or omission of a letter or article, the substitution of a word for its equivalent, or the transposition of a word or two in a sentence. Taken altogether, they neither change nor affect a single doctrine or duty announced or enjoined in the word of God. When, therefore, we consider the great antiquity of the sacred books, the almost infi- nite number of copies, of versions, and of edi- tions, which have been made of them in all languages, in languages which have not any analogy one with another, among nations differing so much in their customs and their religious opinions,—when we consider these things, it is truly astonishing, and can only be ascribed to the watchful providence of God over his own word, that, among the various readings, nothing truly essential can be dis- cerned, which relates to either precept or doc- trine, or which breaks that connection, that unity which subsists in all the various parts of divine revelation, and which demonstrates the whole to be the work of one and the same Spirit. 8. Having considered the appellations by which the Bible is distinguished, the books of which it consists, the time and manner in which they were collected, it may not be improper to subjoin a few observations on the genuineness and authenticity of the Scriptures, on their high original and divine authority, and on their great importance and utility. te should here be considered, that the genu- ineness of the Scriptures proves the truth of the principal facts contained in them; to which purpose we may observe that it is very rare to meet with any genuine writings of the historical kind, in which the principal facts are not true, unless it be in instances where both the motives which engaged the au- thor to falsify, and the circumstances which gave some plausibility to the fiction, are appar- ent; neither of which can be alleged in the present case with any colour of reason. As this is rare in general, it is more rare when the writer treats of things that happened in his own time, and under his own cognizance and direction, and communicates his history to per- sons under the same circumstances; all which may be said of the writers of the Scripture his- tory. Beside, the great importance of the facts mentioned in the Scriptures makes it more im- robable, that the several authors should either favs attempted to falsify, or have succeeded in such an attempt. The same observation may be applied to the great number of particular cir- cumstances of time, place, persons, &c, men- tioned in the Scriptures, and to the harmony of the books with themselves, and with each other. 159 BIB These are arguments both for the genuineness of the books, and truth of the facts distinctly considered, and also arguments for deducing the truth from the genumeness. Moreover, if the books of the Old and New Testaments were written by the persons to whom they have been ascribed, that is, if they be genuine, the moral characters of these writers afford the strongest assurance, that the facts asserted by them are true. The sufferings which several of the writers underwent both in life and in death, in attestation of the facts delivered by them, furnish a particular argument in favour of these facts. Again, the arguments here alleged for proving the truth of the Scripture history from the genuineness of the books, are as conclusive in respect to the miraculous facts, as of the common ones. It may also be ob- served, that if we allow the genuineness of the books to be a sufficient evidence of the com- mon facts which they record, the miraculous facts must also be allowed from their close con- nection with the others. It is necessary to admit both or neither. We cannot conceive that Moses should have delivered the Israelites from their slavery in Egypt, or conducted them through the wilderness for forty years, at all in such manner as the common history repre- sents, unless we suppose the miraculous facts intermixed with it to be truealso. In like man- ner, the fame of Christ’s miracles, the multi- tudes which followed him, the adherence of his disciples, the jealousy and hatred of the chief priests, scribes, and Pharisees, with many other facts of a common nature, are impossible to be accounted for, unless we allow that he did real- ly work miracles. And the same observations hold, in general, of the other parts of the Scrip- ture history. We might urge that a particular argument in favour of the miraculous part of the Scripture history, may be deduced from the reluctance of mankind to receive miraculous facts; which would put the writers and readers very much upon their guard, and would ope- rate as a strong check upon the publication of a miraculous history at or near the time when the miracles were said to be performed; and thus it would serve as a strong confirmation of such a history, if its genuineness be previously granted. 9. In connection with the preceding propo- sition we may observe, that the genuineness of the Scriptures proves their divine authority. Porphyry in effect acknowledges the truth of this proposition, in its reference to the book of Daniel, by being unable to devise a method of invalidating its divine authority implied in the accomplishment of the prophecies which it con- tains, without asserting that they were written after the event, or that they were forgeries. Many of the other books of the Old and New Testaments have unquestionable evidences of the divine foreknowledge, if they be allowed genuine; such are those supplied by Moses’s prophecy concerning the captivity of the Israel- ites, or of a state not yet erected; Isaiah’s con- cerning Cyrus; Jeremiah’s concerning the du- ration of the Babylonish captivity ; Christ’s concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, and BIB the captivity that was to follow; St. John’s con- cerning the great corruption of the Christian church; and Daniel’s concerning the fourth empire in its declension; which last was ex- tant in the time of Porphyry, at least ; that is, before the events which it represents. The truth of the proposition might also be argued from the sublimity and excellence of the doctrines con- tained in the Scriptures; in no respect suiting the supposed authors, or the ages in which they lived, their education or occupation; so that, if they were the real authors, we are under the necessity of admitting the divine assistance. The converse of this proposition, namely, that the divine authority of the Scriptures infers their genuineness, will be readily and univer- sally acknowledged. Moreover, the truth of the principal facts contained in the Scriptures proves their divine authority. Such is the frame of the human mind, that the Scripture history, allowed to be true, must convince us that Christ, the Prophets, and the Apostles, were endued with a power greater than human, and acted by the authority of a Being of the high- est wisdom and goodness. By such mode of reasoning it is shown that the genuineness of the Scriptures, the truth of the principal facts contained in them, and their divine authority, appear to be so connected with each other, that, any one being established upon independ- ent penis the other two may be inferred from it. On the subject of the inspiration of the Scriptures, see INsPiraTION. 10. Another argument in favour of the genu- ineness of the books of the Old and New Testa- ments, and of the truth of the principal facts contained in them, may be deduced from the nanner in which they have been transmitted down from one age to another; resembling that in which all other genuine books and true histories have been conveyed down to posterity. As the works of the Greek and Roman writers were considered by these nations as having been transmitted to them by their ancestors in a continued succession from the times when the respective authors lived, so have the books of the Old Testament been accounted by the Jews, and those of the New by the Christians ; and it is an additional evidence in the last case, that the primitive Christians were not a distinct nation, but a great multitude of people dispers- ed through all the nations of the Roman em- pire, and even extending itself beyond the bounds of that empire. As the Greeks and Romans always believed the principal facts of their historical books, so the Jews and Chris- tians did more, and never seem to have doubt- ed of the truth of any part of theirs. In short —whatever can be said of the traditional au- thority due to the Greek and Roman writers— something analogous to this, and for the most part of greater weight, may be urged for the Jewish and Christian. Now, as all sober mind- ed persons admit the books usually ascribed to the Gieek and Roman historians, philosophers, &c, to be genuine, and the principal facts re- lated or alluded to in them to be true, and that one chief evidence for this is the general tradi- tionary one here recited, they ought. therefore, 160 BIB to pay the same regard to the books of the Old and New Testaments, since there are the same, or even greater, reasons for it. Beside, these traditionary evidences are sufficient; and we thus obtain a real argument, as well as one ad hominem, for receiving books thus handed down to us. For it is not conceivable, that whole nations should either be imposed upon them- selves, or concur to deceive others by forgeries of books or of facts. These books and facts must therefore, in general, be genuine and true; and it is a strong additional evidence of this, that all nations must be jealous of forgeries for the same reasons that we are. 11. We may proceed to state farther, that the great importance of the histories, precepts, promises, threatenings, and prophecies con- tained in the Scriptures, is in evidence both of their genuineness, and of the truth of the prin- cipal facts mentioned in them. The history of the creation, fall, deluge, longevity of the patriarchs, dispersion of mankind, calling of Abraham, descent of Jacob with his family into Egypt, and the precepts of abstaining from blood, and of circumcision, were of such con- cern, either to mankind in general, or to the Israelites in particular, and some of them of so extraordinary a nature, as that it could not be a matter of indifference to the people among whom the account given of them in Genesis was first published, whether they received them or not. bn the supposition that this account was first published among the Israelites b Moses, and then confirmed by clear, universal, uninterrupted tradition, it will be easy to con- ceive how it should be handed down from age to age among the Jews, and received by them as indubitable. But, supposing the account to be false, or that there was no such vestiges and evidences of these histories and precepts, it will be difficult to conceive how this could have happened, let the time of pebhention be what it may. If early, the people would reject at once the account, for want of a clear tra- dition; if late, it would be natural to inquire how the author was informed of things never known before to others. As to other cosmo- gonies and theogonies current among Pagans, which are evident fictions, they furnish no just objection against the Mosaic history, because they were generaliy regarded merely as amus- ing fictions; and yet they concealed in figures, or expressed in plain words, some truths which agree with the book of Genesis, and afford a strong presumptive evidence in favour of this book. ith respect to the law of Moses, this was extremely burdensome, expensive, and severe, particularly in its reference to the erime of idolatry, to which mankind were then extravagantly prone; and it was absurd, ac- cording to human judgment, in the instances of prohibiting their furnishing themselves with horses for war, and of commanding all the males of the whole nation to appear at Jerusa- lem three times a year. Nevertheless, it claims a divine authority, and appeals to facts of the Most notorious kind, and to customs and cere- monies of the most peculiar nature, as ths memorials of these facts. Can we then con BIB ceive that any nation, with such motives to reject, and such opportunities of detecting, the forgery of the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, should yet receive them, and submit to this heavy yoke? That the Jews did submit to the law of Moses in these circumstances, is evident from the books of the Old and New Testaments, if we allow them the least truth and genuineness, or even from profane writers, and from the present observance of it by the Jews scattered through all the kingdoms of the world. Should it be said that other nations have ascribed divine authority to their lawgivers, and submitted to very severe laws, it may be alleged in reply to this, that the pretences of lawgivers among the Pagans to inspiration, and the submission of the people, may be accounted for from their peculiar circumstances at the time, without recurring to real inspiration; and more espe- cially if we admit the patriarchal revelations related by Moses, and his own divine legation, as Heathen lawgivers copied after these, and hence we derive a strong argument in their favour. Beside, no instance occurs among the Pagans of a body of laws framed at once and remaining invariable; whereas the body politic of the Israelites assumed a complete form at once, and has preserved it, with little variation, to the present time, and under aly external disadvantages; thus supplying us wit an instance altogether without parallel, and showing the high opinion which they enter- tained of the great importance of their law. In short, of all the fictions or forgeries: that can happen among any people, the most im- rebate is that of the Jewish body of civil aws, and seems to be utterly impossible. 12. If we farther examine the history _con- tained in the books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehe- miah, and extending from the death of Moses to the reéstablishment of the Jews after the Babylonish captivity by Ezra and Nehemiah, we shall find a variety of important facts, most of which must be supposed to leave such ves- tiges of themselves, either external and visible, or internal in the minds and memories of the people, as would verify them if true, or cause them to be rejected if false. The conquest of the land of Canaan, the division of it, and the appointment of cities for the priests and Le- vites by Joshua; the frequent slaveries of the Israelites to the neighbouring kings, and their deliverance by the judges; the creation of a kingdom by Samuel; the translation of this kingdom from Saul’s family to David, with his conquests ; the glory of Solomon’s kingdom ; the building of the temple; the division of the kingdom ; the idolatrous worship set up at Dan and Bethel; the captivity of the Israelites by the kings of Assyria; the captivity of the Jews by Nebuchadnezzar; the destruction of their temple; their return under Cyrus, rebuilding the temple under Darius Piystespes, and re- establishment under Artaxerxes Longimanus, by Ezra and Nehemiah:—these events are some of them the most glorious, and some of them the most reprenchin that can happen ‘o 2 161 BIB any people. How can we reconcile forgeries of such opposite kinds, and especially as they are interwoven together by various complicated and necessary connections, which do not ad- mit of separation? The facts, indeed, are of such importance, notoriety, and permanency in their effects, that no particular persons among the Israelites could first project the design of feigning them, that their own people would not concur with such a design, and that neighbouring nations would not permit the fic- tion to pass. Nothing but the invincible evi- dence of the facts here alleged, could induce a jealous multitude among the Israelites or. neighbouring nations to acquiesce. This must be acknowledged upon the supposition that the several books were published in or near the times when the facts that are recorded in them happened. But suppose all these historical books forged by Ezra; the hypothesis is evi- dently impossible. Things so important and notorious, so honourable and so reproachful to the people for whose sake they were forged, would have been rejected with the utmost in- dignation, unless there were the strongest and most genuine traces of these things already among the people. They must therefore, in part at least, be true. If it be said that addi- tions were made by Ezra, these additions must have been either of important or trivial mat- ters. On the first supposition, the difficulty already stated recurs; and if the important facts are true, what possible motive could have induced Ezra to make additions of no impor- tance? Beside, if any ancient writings were extant, Ezra must either copy after them, which destroys the present supposition, or differ from and oppose them, which would betray him. If there were no such ancient writings, the peo- ple would be led to inquire with regard to mat- ters of importance, for what reason Ezra was so particular in things of which there was neither any memory, nor account in writing. Should it be said that the people did not regard what Ezra had thus forged, this reduces the subject in question to matters of small or of no importance. Beside, why should Ezra write if no one would read or regard? Farther: Ezra must have had, like other men, friends, ene- mies, and rivals; and some, or all of these, would have been a check upon him, and a se- curity against him, in matters of importance. If we suppose these books, instead of having been forged at once, to have been forged suc- cessively, at the interval of one, two, or three centuries after the facts related, we shall in- volve ourselves in the same or similar difficul- ties. Upon the whole, then, we may conclude, that the forgery of the annals of the Israelites appears to be impossible, as well as that of the body of their civil laws. It is needless to ex- amine the books of Esther, Job, the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles; and we might proceed to the Prophecies; but this will be resumed under the article Prophecy. For the subjects comprehended in the books of the New Testament. See Gosprn, and Caris- TIANITY. 13. We shall here subjoin some general evi-. BIB dences in attestation of the truth of the books of Scripture. That Jews and Christians have thought their sacred books very highly impor- tant, most genuine, and true, appears from the persecutions and sufferings which they have undergone on account of their attachment to them, and because they would not be prevailed upon to surrender them. The preservation of the law of Moses, probably the first book writ- ten in any language, whilst many others of a later date have been lost, shows the great re- gard that has been paid to it; and from this circumstance we may infer that this and the other books of the Old Testament have been Preserved on account of their importance, or from some other cause, equally evincing their genuineness and truth. The great value set upon these books appears also from the many early translations and paraphrases of them; and these translations and paraphrases serve to cor- rect errors that are unavoidable in the lapse of time, and to secure their integrity and purity. The hesitation and difficulty with which some few books of the New Testament were received into the canon, show the great care and con- cern of the primitive Christians about the canon, and the high importance of the books admitted into it: and afford a strong evidence of their genuineness and truth. The same observation is in a degree applicable to the Jewish canon. Moreover, the religious hatred and animosity which subsisted between the Jews and Samaritans, and between several of the ancient sects among the Christians, con- vince us of what importance they all thought their sacred books, and disposed them to watch over one another with a jealous eye. Farther: vue genuineness of the books of the Old and- New Testaments may be evinced from the lan- guage, style, and manner of writing used in them. The Hebrew language, in which the Old Testament was written, being the language of an ancient people, who had little intercourse with their neighbours, would not change so fast as modern languages have done, since dif- ferent nations have been variously blended with one another by the extension of trade, arts, and sciences ; and yet some changes must have oc- curred in the interval that elapsed between the time of Moses and that of Malachi. The bib- lical Hebrew corresponds so exactly to this cri- terion, as to afford a considerable argument in favour of the genuineness of the books of the Old Testament. Beside, these books have too great a diversity of style to be the work of either one Jew, or of any set of contemporary Jews. If they be forgeries, there must have been a succession of impostors in different ages, who concurred in the same iniquitous design. Again: the Hebrew language ceased to be spoken, as _a living language, soon after the time of the Babylonish captivity; and it would be difficult or impossible to forge any thing in it after it became a dead language. Hence it appears, that all the books of the Old Testa- ment must at least be nearly as ancient as the Babylonish captivity; and as they could not all be written in tne same age, some must be much more ancient, and this would reduce us 162 BIB to the necessity of supposing a succession 01 conspiring impostors. Moreover, there is, as we have already observed, a simplicity of style, and an unaffected manner of writing, in all the books of the Old Testament, which is a strong evidence of their genuineness. The style of the New Testament, in particular, is not only simple and unaffected, but is Greek influenced by the Hebrew idiom, and exactly answers to the circumstances of time, places, and persons. To which we may add, that the narrations and precepts of both the Old and New Testament are delivered without hesitation; the writers teaching as having authority : and this circum- stance is peculiar to those who unite, with a clear knowledge of what they deliver, a perfect integrity of heart. But a farther argument for the genuineness and truth of the Scriptures is supplied by the very great number of particu- lar circumstances of time, place, persons, &c, mentioned in them. It is needless to recount these; but they are incompatible with forged and false accounts, that do not abound in such particularities, and the want of which furnishes a suspicion to their discredit. Compare, in this respect, Manetho’s account of the dynas- ties of Egypt, Ctesias’s of the Assyrian kings, and those which the technical chronologers have given of the ancient kingdoms of Greece. which are defective in such particulars, with the history by Thucydides of the Peloponne- sian war, and with Cesar’s of the war in Gaul, and the difference will be ea apparent. Dy. Paley’s admirable treatise, entitled, “ Hore Pauline,” affords very valuable illustrations of this argument as it respects the genuineness of the books of the New Testament. The agree- ment of the Scriptures with history, natural and civil, isa farther proof of their genuine- ness and truth. The history of the fall agrees in an eminent manner both with the obvious facts of labour, sorrow, pain, and death, with what we seeand feel every day, and with all our philosophical inquiries into the frame of the human mind, the nature of social life, and the origin of evil. Natural history bears a strong testimony to Moses’s account of the deluge. Civil history affords many evidences which corroborate the same account. (See Deluge.) The Mosaic account of the confusion of languages, of the dispersion of Noah’s sons, and of the state of religion in the ancient post- diluvian world, is not only rendered probable, but is in a very high degree established, by many collateral arguments. See Conrusion oP Lancuaces, and Division of rue Earra. 14. The agreement of the books of the Old and New Testaments with themselves and with each other, affords another argument both of their genuineness and truth. The laws of the Israelites are contained in the Pentateuch, and referred to, ina great variety of ways, direct and indirect, in the historical books, in the Psalms, and in the Prophecies. The histo- rical facts also in the preceding books are often referred to in those that succeed, and iv the Psalms and Prophecies. In like manner, the Gospels have the greatest harmony with each other, and the Epistles of St. Paul with BIB the Acts of the Apostles; and, indeed, there is scarcely any book of either the Old or New Testament, which may not be shown to refer to many of the rest, in one way or other. For the illustration of this argument, let us suppose that no more remained of the Roman writers than Livy, Tully, and Horace; would they not, by their references to the same facts and cus- toms, by the sameness of style in the same writer, and difference in the different ones, and numberless other such like circumstances of cri- tical consideration, prove themselves, and one another to be genuine, and the principal facts related, or alluded to, to be true? Whoever will apply this reasoning to the present case will perceive, that the numberless minute, di- rect, and indirect agreements and _ coincidences, that present themselves to all diligent readers of the Scriptures, prove their truth and genu- ineness beyond all contradiction. The harmony and agreement of the several writers of the Old and New Testament appear the more remarkable, when it is considered that their various parts were penned by several hands in very different conditions of life, from the throne and sceptre down to the lowest de- gree, and in very distant ages, through a long interval of time; which would naturally have led a spirit of imposture to have varied its schemes, and to have adapted them to different stations in the world, and to the different vicis- situdes of every age. David wrote about four hundred years after Moses, and Isaiah about two hundred and fifty after David, and Matthew more than seven hundred years after Isaiah; and yet these authors, with all the other Pro- phets and Apostles, write in perfect harmony, confirming the authority of their predecessors, labouring to reduce the people to the observ- ance of their instructions, and loudly exclaim- ing against the neglect and contempt of them, and denouncing the severest judgments against such as continued disobedient. Consequently, as the writers of the Holy Scriptures, though they all claim a divine authority, yet write in perfect connection and harmony, mutually con- firming the doctrine and testimony of each other, and concurring to establish the very same reli- gious truths and principles, it is a strong proof that they all derived their instructions from the same fountain, the wisdom of God, and were in- deed under the direction and illumination of the same Spirit. ‘This leads us to add, that the unity of design, which appears in the dispensa- tions recorded in the Scriptures, is an argument not only of their truth and genuineness, but also of their divine authority. In order to perceive the force of this argument, it is only necessary to inquire what this design is, and how it is pursued by the series of events and divine in- terpositions recorded in the Scriptures. (See Dispensation.) It should also be considered, that the historical evidences in favour of the enuineness, truth, and divine authority of the Scriptures, do not become less from age to age; but, on the contrary, it may rather be presumed that they increase. Since the three great con- curring events of printing, the reformation of religion in these western parts, and the restora- 163 BIB tion of letters, so many more evidences and co- incidences have been discovered in favour of the Jewish and Christian histories, as may serve, in some measure, to supply the want of those that have been lost in the preceding times; and as this accumulation of evidences is likely to continue, there is great reason to hope that it will at length become irresistible to all and silence even every gainsayer. 15. The moral characters of the Prophets and the Apostles, prove the truth and divine authority of the Seriptures. The characters of the persons who are said in the Scriptures to have had divine communications, and a divine mission, are so much superior to the charac ters that occur in common life, that we ca: scarcely account for the more eminent indivi. duals, and much less so for so large a succes» sion of them, continued through so many ages, without allowing the divine communications and assistance which they allege. Notwith- standing considerable imperfections that per- tained to many of these eminent persons, and the occasional, offences chargeable upon one or two of them, yet the impartial reader should consider whether the Prophets, Apostles, &c, were not so much superior, not only to man- kind at an average, but even to the best men among the Greeks and Romans, as is not fair- ly to be accounted for by the mere powers of human nature. If this statement should not be conceded, their characters, however, are too good to allow the supposition ofan impious fraud and imposture, which must have been the case if they had not divine authority. Beside, it should be recollected, that the undisguised and impartial manner in which the imperfections and faults of the eminent persons mentioned in Scripture are related, furnishes a remarkable additional evidence for the truth of those parts of the Scripture history in which such rela- tions occur, beside such evidences as extend to the whole. 16. The excellence of the doctrine contain- ed in the Scriptures is an additional evidence of their authority. This argument has great force independently of all other considerations. Suppose, for instance, that the author of the Gospel, which goes under the name of St. Mat- thew, was not known, and that it was unsup- ported by the writers of the primitive times ; yet such are the unaffected simplicity of the narrations, the purity of the doctrine, and the sincere piety and goodness of the sentiments, that it carries its own authority with it. The same observation is applicable in general to all the books of the Old and New Testaments; so that if there was no other book in the world beside the Bible, a man could not see doubt of the truth of revealed religion. If all other arguments were set aside, we may con- clude from this single consideration, that the authors of the books of the Old and New Tes- taments, whoever they were, cannot have made a false claim to divine authority. The Scrip- tures contain doctrines concerning God, pro- vidence, a future state, the duty of man, &c, far more pure and sublime than can in any way be eccounted for from the natural powers BIR of men, so circumstanced as the sacred writers were. Let the reader consider whether it can be reasonably supposed, that Jewish shepherds, fishermen, &c, should, both before and after the rise of the Heathen philosophy, so far exceed men of the greatest abilities and accomplish- ments in other nations, by any other means than divine communications. Indeed, no writ- ers, from the invention of letters to the present times, are equal to the penmen of the books of the Old and New Testaments in true excel- lence, utility and dignity; and this is surely such an internal criterion of their divine au- thority, as ought not to be resisted. 17. The many and great advantages which have accrued to the world from the patriarchal, Judaical, and Christian revelations, confirm the whole. These advantages relate partly to the knowledge, and partly to the practice, of reli- gion. The internal worth and excellence of the Scriptures, as containing the best princi- Le of knowledge, holiness, consolation, and ope, and their consequent utility and import- ance in a moral and practical view, fully and directly demonstrate their divine original. For an enlarged view of this branch of evidence see CunisTIaNITy. BIBLISTS, or BIBLICI, a term applied to certain doctors in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, who expounded the sacred writings in their public schools, and endeavoured to es- tablish their doctrines by the authority of Scrip- ture, in opposition to uncertain traditions, or the speculations of the schools. Upon the same principle, the Pietists of the seventeenth cen- tury formed what they called Biblical colleges, for expounding the Scriptures. BIER. See Boria. BILDAD, the Shuhite, one of Job’s friends, thought by some to have descended from Shuah, the son of Abraham, by Keturah, Job ii, 11; viii, xviii, xxv. BILHAH, Rachel's handmaid, given by her to Jacob her husband, as a concubinary wife, that, through her she might have a son, Gen. xxx, 3,4, &. See BarReNNEss. BIND. To bind and loose are taken for condemning and absolving: “ And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,” Matt. xvi, 19. By-binding and loosing, in the language of the Jews, is understood, likewise, permitting and forbidding; or declaring any thing in a judicial manner to be permitted or forbidden; and on the promotion of their doc- tors, they put the keys into their hands with these words, “Receive the power of binding and loosing.” So our Lord says, “I am not come to destroy,” to unloose or dissolve, ‘“ the law, but to fulfil,” that is, to confirm and es- tablish it, Matt. v, 17. See Keys. BIRD, ~2s, a common name for all birds, but is sometimes used for the sparrow in par- ticular. Birds are distinguished by the Jewish legis- lator into clean and unclean. Such as fed upon grain and seeds were allowed for food, 164 BIR and such as devoured flesh and carrion were prohibited. aos . Moses, to inspire the Israelites with senti- ments of tenderness toward the brute creation, commands them, if they find a bird’s nest, not to take the dam with the young, but to suffer the old one to fly away, and to take the young only, Deut. xxii, 6. ‘This is one of those mer- ciful constitutions in the law of Moses which respect the animal creation, and tended to hu- manize the heart of that people, to excite in them a sense of the divine providence extend- ing itself to all creatures, and to teach them to exercise their dominion over them with gentle- ness. Beside, the young never knew the sweets of liberty ; the dam did: they might be taken and used for any lawful purpose; but the dam must not be brought into a state of captivity. The poet Phocylides has a maxim, in his ad- monitory poem, very similar to that in the sacred texts :— Mndé ris boviBas Kartiis dpa mavras bhécbw Mnrépa 0 éxmpodtrns, wv éyns TAL Tiode vEeorrods, Nor from a nest take all the birds away, The mother spare, she’ll breed a future day. It appears that the ancients hunted birds. Baruch, iii, 17, speaking of the kings of Baby- lon, says, ‘“ They had their pastime with the fowls of the air;” and Daniel, ili, 38, tells Nebuchadnezzar that God had made the fowls of the air subject to him. Birds were offered in sacrifice on many oc- casions. In the sacrifices for sin, he who had not a lamb, or a kid, “ might offer two turtles, or two young pigeons; one for a sin-offering, the other for a burnt-offering. These he pre- sented to the priest, who offered that first which was for the sin-offering, and wrung off the head from the neck, but did not divide it asunder; the other he was to offer for a burnt- offering,” Lev. v, ‘7, 8. When a man who haa been smitten with a leprosy was healed, he came to the entrance of the camp of Israel, and the priest went out to inspect him, whether he were entirely cured, Lev. xiv, 5,6. After this inspection, the leprous person came to the door of the tabernacle, and offered two livin sparrows, or two birds; (pure birds, those o which it was lawful to eat;) he made a wisp with branches of cedar and hyssop, tied to ane with a thread, or scarlet mbbon; he led an earthen pot with running water, that the blood of the bird might be mingled with it; then the priest, dipping the bunch of hyssop and cedar into the water, sprinkled with it the Teper who was healed; after which he let loose the living bird, to fly where it would. In Pales- tine dead bodies were sometimes left exposed to birds of prey, as appears from Scripture; but, generally, they were buried in the even- ing: even criminals were taken down from the allows. BIRTHRIGHT, or PRIMOGENITURE, the right of the first-born or eldest son. The birthright, or right of primogeniture, had many privileges annexed to it. The first-born was consecrated to the Lord, Exod. xxii, 29; had a double portion of the estate allotted him, Deut. xxi, 17; had a dignity and authority over his BIT brethren, Gen. xlix,3; succeeded in the govern- ment of the family or kingdom, 2 Chron. xxi, 3; and, as some with good reason suppose, in an- cient times to the priesthood or chief govern- ment in matters ecclesiastical. Jacob, having bought Esau’s birthright, acquired a title to the particular blessing of ae dying father ; and, ac- cordingly, he had consigned to him the privi- lege of the covenant which God made with Abraham, that from his loins the Messiah should spring; a prerogative which descended to his posterity. Reuben forfeited the blessings of his birthright, as we see by the express declaration of his father Jacob, in his benedic- tion of his children, Gen. xlix, 1, &c, for the crime of incest with his father’s concubine, on account of which his tribe continued all along in obscurity ; while the priesthood was confer- red on Levi, the government on Judah, and the double portion on Joseph, to descend to their respective tribes. And this preéminence of the first born took place from the beginning, and as much belonged to Cain, before his for- feiture of it, as it did to Reuben before his. See Genesis iv,'7; xlix, % Thus the patri- archs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, offered sacrifices, and were priests as well as kings in their respective families, Gen. xii, 7,83 xiii, 18; xvii, 7; xxvi,25; xxxi, 54; xxxv, 7. Job, in Arabia, acted in the same capacity, Job i, 5; and it is highly probable that, among the ancient Heathen nations in general, the first- born were entitled not only to the civil autho- rity, but also to the priesthood. This seems to have been the case in Egypt, in the time of Moses: and hence Jehovah’s destroying their first-born, as it was the last miracle wrought in that country before the Exodus, so was it the most dreadful, and most effectual in prevailing on Pharaoh and the Egyptians to dismiss the Israelites. BISHOP, pa, éricxomos, signifies an overseer, or one who has the inspection and direction of any thing. Nehemiah speaks of the overseer of the Levites at Jerusalem, Neh. xi, 22. The most common acceptation of the word bishop is that in Acts xx, op, and in St. Paul’s Epistles, Philip. i, 1, where it signifies the pastor of a church. St. Peter calls Jesus Christ “ the Shep- herd and Bishop of our souls,” 1 Peter ii, 25; and St. Paul describes the qualities requisite in a bishop, 1 Tim. iii, 2; Titus 1, 2, &c. It is not improbable that the overseers of Christ’s church are in the New Testament called émoxé- xot, from the following passage in Isaiah: “I will also make thy officers peace, and thine overseers” (éntcxémovs,) ‘ righteousness,” Isa. 1x, 17. The word, as used by the Apostolic writ- ers, when referring to the pastors of Christian churches, is evidently of the same import as presbyter or elder ; for the terms, as they occur inthe New Testament, oe to be synony- mous, and are used indifferently. Thus the same persons that are called émonéro:, bishops are also called Speafsrepot, elders. Hence, when St. Paul came to Miletus, he sent to Ephesus for the presbyters of the church, and thus ad- dressed them: “Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost 165 BIT hath made you” (the presbyters) “trioxémovs, bishops,” or overseers, Res xx, 17. “Here,” says Dr. Campbell, “there can be no question that the same persons are denominated pres- byters and bishops.” Nor is this the only pas- sage in which we find the terms used converti- bly. In Titus i, 5, it is said, ‘‘For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders” (Greek, zpecBurépovs) “in every city ;” and then it follows in verse 7, “ For a bishop” (éricxorov) ‘must be blameless.” In like man- ner, the Apostle Peter, 1 Peter v, 1: “ The elders” (mpecBurépovs) “ which are among you [ exhort ; feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof ; imcxonodvres, that is, discharging the office of bishops.” See Episcopacy. BITHYNIA, a country of Asia Minor, stretching along the shore of the Pontus Euxi- nus, or Black Sea, from Mysia to Paphlagonia ; having Phrygia and Galatia on the south. In it are the two cities of Nicwa, or Nice, and Chalcedon: both celebrated in ecclesiastical history, on account of the general councils held in them, and called after their names. The former city is at present called Is-Nick, and the latter Kadi-Keni. Within this country, also, are the celebrated mountains of Olympus. St. Peter addressed his first Epistle to the He- brew Christians who were scattered through this‘and the neighbouring countries. BITTER HERBS. oy. Exod. xii, 8, and Num. ix, ld. The Jews were commanded to eat their passover with a sallad of bitter herbs; but whether one particular plant was intended, or any kind of bitter herbs, has been made a question. By the Septuagint it is ren- dered exe mxpidwv; by Jerom, “cum lactucis agrestibus ;” and by the Gr. Venet., emt mexptow. Dr. Geddes remarks, that “it is highly proba- ble that the succory or wild lettuce is meant.” The Mischna in Pesachim, cap. 2, reckons five species of these bitter herbs: 1. Chazareth, taken for lettuce: 2. Ulsin, supposed to be endive or succory: 3. Tamca, probably tansy : 4. Charubbinim, which Bochart thought might be the nettle, but Scheuchzer shows to be the camomile: 5. Meror, the sow-thistle, or dent- de-lion, or wild lettuce. Mr. Forskal says, “the Jews in Sana and in Egypt eat the let- tuce with the paschal lamb.” “He also remarks, that moru is centaury, of which the young stems are eaten in February and March. BITTERN. ‘wp. Isa. xiv, 23: xxxiv, 11; and Zephaniah ii, 14. Interpreters have ren- dered this word variously: an owl, an osprey, a tortoise, a porcupine, and even an otter. ‘‘ How unhappy,” says Mr. Harmer, “that a word which occurs but three times in the Hebrew Bible should be translated by three different words, and that one of them should be otter!” Isaiah, prophesying the destruction of Babylon, says that “the Lord will make it a possession for the bittern, and pools of water;” and Zepha- niah, ii, 14, prophesying against Nineveh, says that “the cormorant and bittern shall lodge in the upper lintels of it: their voice shall sing in the windows.” The Arabic version reads “ al- BLA houbara.” According to Dr. Shaw, the hou- bara is “of.the bigness of a capon, but of a longer body. It feeds on little shrubs and insects, like the graab el Sahara; frequenting, in like manner, the confines of the desert.” Golius interprets it the bustard; and Dr. Russel says that the Arabic name of the bustard is “ houbry.” BITTERNESS, waters of. See ADULTERY. BLASPHEMY, Adacgnpia, properly denotes calumny, detraction, reproachful or abusive lan- guage, against whomsoever it be vented. That Bdacpnpia and its conjugates are very often ap- plied, says Dr. Campbell, to reproaches not aimed against God, is evident from the follow- ms passages: Matt. xii, 31, 32; xxvii, 39; ark xv, 29; Luke xxii, 65; xxiii, 39; Rom. iii, 8; xiv, 16; 1 Cor. iv, 18; x, 30; Eph. iv, 31; 1 Tim. vi, 4; Titus iii, 2; 1 Pet. iv, 14; Jude 9,10; Acts vi, 11,13; 2 Pet. ii, 10, 11; in the much greater part of which the English translators, sensible that they could admit no such application, have not used the words dlas- pheme or blasphemy, but rail, revile, speak evil, &c. In one of the passages quoted, a reproach- ful charge brought even against the devil is called xpiots Bdacpnpias, Jude 9; and rendered by them, “railing accusation.” The import of the word Pdacgnpia is maledicentia, in the largest acceptation; comprehending all sorts of verbal abuse, imprecation, reviling, and ca- lumny. And let it be observed, that when such abuse is mentioned as uttered against God, there is probably no change made in the signification of the word: the change is only in the application; that is, in the reference to a different object. The idea conveyed in the explanation now given is always included, against whomsoever the crime be committed. In this manner every term is understood that is applicable to both God and man. Thus the meaning of the word disobey is the same, whether we speak of disobeying God or of disobeying man. The same may be said of believe, honour, fear, &c. As, therefore, the sense of the term is the same, though differ- ently applied, what is essential to constitute the crime of detraction in the one case, is es- sential also in the other. But it is essential to this crime, as commonly understood, when committed by one man against another, that there be in the injurious person the will or disposition to detract from the person abused. Mere mistake in regard to character, especially when the mistake is not conceived by him who entertains it to lessen the character, nay, is supposed, however erroneously, to exalt it, is never construed by any into the crime of de- famation. Now, as blasphemy is in its essence the same crime, but immensely aggravated by being committed against an object infinitely superior to man, what is fundamental to the very existence of the crime will be found in this, as in every other species which comes under the general name. There can be no blasphemy, therefore, where there is not an impious purpose to derogate from the Divine Majesty, and to alienate the minds of: others from the love and reverence of God. The 166 BLA blasphemer is no other than the calumniator of Almighty God. To constitute the crime, it is as necessary that this species of calumny be intentional. e must be one, therefore, who by his impious talk endeavours to inspire others with the same irreverence towards the Deity, or perhaps, abhorrence of him, which he in- dulges in himself. And though, for the honour of human nature, it is to be hoped that very few arrive at this enormous guilt, it ought not to be dissembled, that the habitual profanation of the name and attributes of God by common swearing, is but too manifest an approach to- ward it. There is not an entire coincidence. the latter of these vices may be considered as resulting solely from the defect of what is good in principle and disposition ; the former from the acquisition of what is evil in the extreme: but there is a close connection between them, and an insensible gradation from the one to the other. To accustom one’s self to treat the Sovereign of the universe with irreverent fa- miliarity, is the first step; malignly to arraign his attributes, and revile his providence, is the last. The first divfhe law published against it, “He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord,” (or Jehovah, as it is in the Hebrew) “ shall be put to death,” Lev. xxiv, 16, when considered along with the incidents that occasioned it, suggests a very atrocious offence in words, no less than abuse or imprecations vented against the Deity. For, in what way soever the crime of the man there mentioned be interpreted — whether as committed against the true God, the God of Israel, or against any of the false gods whom his Egyptian father worshipped,—the law in the words now quoted is sufficiently explicit ; and the circumstances of the story plainly show, that the words which he had used were deroga- tory from the Godhead, and shocking to the hearers. And if we add to this the only other memorable instance in sacred history, namely, that of Rabshakeh, it will lead us to conclude that itis solely a malignant attempt, in words, to lessen men’s reverence of the true God, and, by vilifying his perfections, to prevent their pms confidence in him, which is called in eripture blasphemy, when the word is em- ployed to denote a sin committed directly against God. This was manifestly the attempt of Rabshakeh, when he said, “Neither let Hezekiah make you trust in the Lord,” (the word is Jehovah,) “saying, Jehovah will surely deliver us. ath any of the gods of the nations delivered his land out of the hand of the king of Assyria? Where are the gods of Hamath and of Arpad? Where are the gods of Sepharvaim, Hena, and Iva? Have they delivered Samaria out of my hand? Who are they, among all the gods of the countries, that have delivered their country out of mine hand, that Jehovah should deliver Jerusalem out of mine hand?” 2 Kings xviii, 30, 33-35. 2. It will naturally occur to inquire, what that is, in particular, which our Lord denomi- nates “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit,” Matt. xii, 31, 32; Mark iii, 28, 29; Luke xii, 10. But without entering minutely into the discussion of this question, it may suffice BLA here to observe, that this blasphemy is certainly not of the constructive kind, but direct, mani- fest, and malignant. First, it is mentioned as comprehended under the same genus with abuse against men, and contradistinguished only by the object. Secondly, it is farther ex- pe by being called speaking against in oth cases: ds dy éimn Abyov Kara Tot bod rod dy- Oodnov,—bs 0 dy diy kara Tod mvebparos Tod dyiov, “Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man.”—‘ Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost.” The expressions are the same, in effect, in all the Evangelists who mention it, and imply such an opposition as is both in- tentional and malevolent. This cannot have been the case of all who disbelieved the mis- sion of Jesus, and even decried his miracles; many of whom, we have reason to think, were afterward converted by the Apostles. But it was the wretched case of some who, instigated by worldly ambition and avarice, slandered what they knew to be the cause of God; and, against conviction, reviled his work as the operation of evil spirits. This view of the sin against the Holy Ghost is confirmed by the circumstances under which our Lord spoke. If we consider the Scripture account of this sin, nothing can be plainer than that it is to be understood of the Pharisees’ imputing the miracles wrought by the power of the Holy Ghost to the power of the devil; for our Lord had just healed one possessed of a devil, and upon this the Pharisees gave this malicious turn to the miracle. This led our Saviour to discourse on the sin of blasphemy. The Pharisees were the persons charged with the crime: thé sin itself manifestly consisted in ascribing what was done by the finger of God tothe agency of the devil; and the reason, therefore, why our Lord pronounced it unpar- donable, is plain; because, by withstanding the evidence of miracles, they resisted the strong- est means of conviction, and that ae and lignantly ; and, giving way to their pas- foe, opprourioushy treated that Holy Spirit whom they ought to have adored. From all which it will probably follow, that no person can now be guilty of the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, in the sense in which our Saviour originally intended it; but there may be sins which bear a very near resemblance to it. This appears from the case of the apos- tates mentioned in the Epistle to the Hebrews, to whom “no more sacrifice for sins” is said to remain; whose defection, however, is not represented so much as a direct sin against the Holy Ghost as against Christ, whom the apostate Jews blasphemed inthe synagogues. It implied, however, a high offence against the Holy Spirit also, with whose gifts they had, probably, been endowed, and their conduct must be considered, if not the same sin as that committed by the Pharisees, yet as a consent- ing with it, and thus as placing them in nearly, if not altogether, the same desperate condition. Even apostacy in the present day, although a most aggravated and perilous offence, cannot be committed with circumstances of equal aggravation to those which were found in the 167 BLE case of the persons mentioned by St, Paul; and it may be laid down as certain, for the relief of those who may be tempted to think that they have committed the unpardonable sin, that their horror of it, and the trouble which the very apprehension causes them, are the sure proofs that they are mistaken. But although there may be now fearful approaches to the unpardonable offence, it is to be remem- bered that there may be many dangerous and fatal sins against the Holy Ghost, which are not the sin against him, which has no for- giveness. BLEMISH, whatever renders a person o1 thing imperfect or uncomely. The Jewish law required the priests to be free from blemishes of person, Lev. xxi, 17-23; xxii, 20-24. Scan- dalous professors are blemishes to the church of God, 2 Peter ii, 13; Jude 12, and therefore ought to be put away from it, in the exercise of a godly discipline. BLESS, BLESSING. There are three points of view in which the acts of blessing may be considered. The first is, when men are said to bless God, as in Psalm ciii, 1, 2. ‘We are then not to suppose that the divine Being, whois over all, and, in himself, blessed for evermore, is capable of receiving any aug- mentation of his happiness, from all the crea- tures which he has made: such a supposition, as it would imply something of imperfection in the divine nature, must ever be rejected with abhorrence; and, therefore, when the creatures bless the adorable Creator, they only ascribe to him that praise, and dominion, and honour, and glory, and blessing, which it is equally the duty and joy of his creatures to render. But when God is said to bless his people, Gen. i, 22; Eph. i,3; the meaning is, that he confers benefits upon them, either temporal or spiritual, and so communicates to them some portion of that blessedness which, in infinite fulness, dwells in himself, James i, 17; Psalm civ, 24, 28; Luke xi, 9-13. In the third place men are said to bless their fellow creatures. From the time that God entered into covenant with Abraham, and promised extraordinary bless- ings to his posterity, it appears to have been customary for the father of each family, in the direct line, or line of promise, previous to his death, to call his children around him, and to inform them, according to the knowledge which it pleased God then to give him, how, and in what manner, the divine blessing con- ferred upon Abraham was to descend among them. Upon these occasions, the patriarchs enjoyed a divine illumination; and under its influence, their benediction was deemed a prophetic oracle, foretelling events with the utmost certainty, and extending to the remot- est period of time. Thus Jacob blessed his sons, Gen. xlix; and Moses, the children of Israel, Deut. xxxiii, When Melchizedeck blessed Abraham, the act of benediction in- cluded in it not merely the pronouncing solemn good wishes, but also a petitionary address to God that he would be pleased to ratify the benediction by his concurrence with what was prayed for. Thus Moses instructed Aaron, BLI and _ his descendants, to bless the congregation, “Tn this wise shall ye bless the children of Israel, saying unto them, The Lord bless thee, and keep thee; the Lord make his face to shine upon thee; the Lord lift up his counte- nance upon thee, and give thee peace,” Num. iv, 23. David says, “Iwill take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the Lord,” Psalm cxvi, 13. This phrase appears to be taken from the practice of the Jews in their thank-offerings, in which a feast was made of the remainder of their sacrifices, and the offer- ers, together with the priests, did eat and drink before the Lord ; when, among other rites, the master of the feast took a cup of wine in his hand and solemnly blessed God for it, and for the mercies which were then acknowledged, and gave it to all the guests, every one of whom drank in his turn. ‘To this custom it is supposed our blessed Lord alludes in the insti- tution of the cup, which also is called, 1 Cor. x, 16, “ the cup of blessing.” At the family feasts also, and especially that of the passover, ooth wine and bread were in this solemn and religious manner distributed, and God was blessed, and his mercies acknowledged. They blessed God for their present refreshment, for their deliverance out of Egypt, for the cove- nant of circumcision, and for the law given by Moses ; and prayed that God would be merci- ful to his people Israel, that he would send the Prophet Elijah, and that he would render them worthy of the kingdom of the Messiah. See also 1 Chron. xvi, 2,3. In the Mosaic law, the manner of blessing is appointed by the lifting up of hands. Our Lord lifted up his hands, and blessed his disciples. It is probable that this action was constantly used on such occasions. The palm of the hand held up was precatory ; and the palm turned outward or downward was benedictory. See BenepicTion and Lorp’s Suprer. : BLINDFOLDING. This is the treatmen which Christ received from his enemies. It refers to a sport which was common among children, called pvtvda, in which it was the man- ner first to blindfold, then to strike, and to ask who gave the blow, and not to let the person go till he had named the right man who had struck him. It was used in reproach of our blessed Lord as a Prophet, or divine instructer, and to expose him toridicule, Luke xxii, 63, 64. BLINDNESS is often used in Scripture to express ignorance or want of discernment in divine things, as well as the being destitute of natural sight. See Isa. xlii, 18, 19; vi, 10; Matt. xv, 14. “ Blindness of heart” is the want of understanding arising from the influence of vicious passions. ‘“‘ Hardness of heart” is stubbornness of will, and destitution of moral feeling. Moses says, ‘ Thou shalt not put a stumbling block before the blind,” Lev. xix, 14, which may be understood literally; or figura- tively, as if Moses recommended that charity and instruction should be shown to them who want light and counsel, or to those who are in danger of going wrong through their igno- rance. Moses says also, ‘Cursed be he who maketh the blind to wander out of his way,” 168 BLO Deut. xxvii, 18, which may also be taken in the same manner. An ignorant or errin teacher is compared by our Lord to a blind man leading a blind man;—a strong repre- sentation of the presumption of him that pro- fesses to teach the way of salvation without due qualifications, and of the danger of that impli- cit faith which is often placed by the people in the authority of man, to the neglect of the Holy Scriptures. BLOOD. Beside its proper sense, the fluid of the veins of men and animals, the term in Scripture is used, 1. For life. “God will re- quire the blood of a man,” he will punish mur- der in what manner soever committed. “ His blood be upon us,” let the guilt of his death be imputed to us. ‘The voice of thy brother's blood crieth ;” the murder committed on him crieth for vengeance. “ Theavenger of blood;” he who is to avenge the death of his relative, Num. xxxv, 24,27. 2. Blood means relation- ship, or consanguinity. 3. Flesh and blood are placed in opposition to a superior nature: “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven,” Matt. xvi, 17. 4. They are also opposed to the glo- rified body ; “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,” 1 Cor. xv, 50. 5. They are opposed also to evil spirits: ‘“‘ We wrestle not against flesh and blood,” against visible enemies composed of flesh and blood, “ but against principalities and powers,” &c, Eph. vi, 12. 6. Wine is called the pure blood of the grape: ‘“ Judah shall wash his garments in the blood of the grape,” Gen. xlix, 11; Deut. xxxii, 14. 17. The priests were established by God to judge between blood and blood; that is, in criminal matters, and where the life of man is at stake ;—to determine whether the murder be casual, or voluntary; whether a crime de- serve death, or admit of remission, &c. 8. In its most eminent sense blood is used for the sacrificial death of Christ; whose blood or death is the price of our salvation. His blood has “ purchased the church,” Acts xx, 28. “ We are justified by his blood,” Rem. v,9. “We have redemption through his blood,” Eph. i, 7, &c. See ATONEMENT. That singular and emphatic prohibition of blood for food from the earliest times, which we find in the Holy Scriptures, deserves par- ticular attention. God expressly forbade the eating of blood alone, or of blood mixed with the flesh of animals, as when any creature was suffocated, or strangled, or killed without draw- ing its blood from the carcass. For when the grant of animal food was made to Noah, in those comprehensive words, “Even as the green herb have I given you all things,” it was added, “ but flesh with the life thereof, namely, its blood, ye shall not eat,” Gen. ix, 4. And when the law was given to the children of Israel, we find the prohibition against the eating of blood still more explicitly enforced, both upon Jews and Gentiles, in the following words, ‘‘ Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth BLO olood, and will cut him off from among his people: for the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul,” Lev. xvii, 10,11. And to cut off all possibility of mistake upon this particular point, it is add- ed: ‘Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood; and whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that so- journ among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof and cover it with dust, for it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof; therefore [ said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof; whosoever eateth it shall be cut off,” verses 12-14. This restraint, than which nothing can be more express, was also, under the new covenant, enjoined upon be- lieving Gentiles, as “a burden” which “ it seemed necessary to the Holy Spirit to impose upon them,” Acts xv, 28, 29. For this pro- hibition no moral reason seems capable of be- ing offered; nor does it clearly appear that blood is an unwholesome aliment, which some think was the physical reason of its being in- hibited; and if, in fact, blood is deleterious as food, there seems no greater reason why this should be pointed out by special revelation to man, to guard him against injury, than many other unwholesome aliments. "Tiere is little force in the remark, that the eating of blood produces a ferocious disposition; for those na- tions that eat strangled things, or blood cooked with other aliments, do not exhibit more fero- city than others... The true reason was, no doubt, a sacrificial one. When animals were granted to Noah for food, the blood was re- served; and when the same law was reénacted among the Israelites, the original prohibition is repeated, with an explanation which at once shows the original: ground upon which it rest- ed: “I have given it upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls.” From this “additional reason,” as it has been called, it has been argued, that the doctrine of the aton- ing power of blood was new, and was, then, for the first time, announced by Moses, or the same cause for the prohibition would have been as- signedto Noah. Tothis we may reply, 1. That unless the same reason be supposed _as the ground of the prohibition of blood to Noah, as that given by Moses to the Jews, no reason at all can be conceived for this restraint being put upon the appetite-of mankind from Noah to Moses; and yet we have a prohibition of a most solemn kind, which in itself could have no reason, enjoined without any external reason being either given or conceivable. 2. That it is a mistake to suppose that the declaration of Moses to the Jews, that God had “ given them the blood for an atonement,” is an “ additional veason” for the interdict, not to be found in the original prohibition to Noah. The whole pas- sage occurs in Lev. xvii; and the great reason 169 BOA there given of the prohibition of blood is, that it is ‘the life;” and what follows respecting “atonement,” is exegetical of this reason ;- the life is in the blood, and the blood or life is given as an atonement. Now, by turning to the original prohibition in Genesis, we find that precisely the same reason is given: “But the flesh with the blood, which is the life thereof, shall ye not eat.” The reason, then, being the same, the question is, whether the exegesis added by Moses must not necessarily be under- stood in the general reason given for the re- straint to Noah. Blood is prohibited because it is the “fe; and Moses adds, that it is “the blood,” or life, “ which makes atonement.” Let any one attempt to discover any reason for the prohibition of blood to Noah, in the mere circumstance that it is ‘the life,” and he will find it impossible. It is no reason at all, moral or instituted, except that as it was LIFE SUBSTI- TUTED FOR LIFE, the life of the animal in sacri- fice for the life of man, and that, therefore, blood had a sacred appropriation. The man- ner, too, in which Moses introduces the sub- ject, is indicative that, though he was renew- ing a prohibition, he was not publishing a new doctrine; he does not teach his people that God had then given, or appointed, blood to make atonement; but he prohibits them from eating it, because he had already made this ap- pointment, without reference to time, and as a subject with which they were familiar. Be- cause the blood was the life, it was sprinkled upon, and poured out at, the altar: and we have in the sacrifice of the paschal lamb, and the sprinkling of its blood, a sufficient proor that, before the giving of the law, not only was blood not eaten, but was appropriated to a sacred sacrificial purpose. Nor was this con- fined to the Jews; it was customary with the Romans and Greeks, who, in like manner, poured out and sprinkled the blood of victims at their altars; a rite derived, probably, from the Egyptians, who deduced it, not from Moses, but from the sons of Noah. The notion, in- deed, that the blood of the victims was pecu- liarly sacred to the gods, is impressed upon all ancient Pagan mythology. BOANERGES. This word is neither He- brew nor Syriac, and some have thought that the transcribers have not exactly copied it, and that the word was benereen GBevepetv, which ex- presses the sound of the Hebrew of the phrase, “sons of thunder.” Parkhurst judges the word to be the Galilean pronunciation of the He- brew wy> 3 expressed in Greek letters. Now, wyn properly signifies a violent trembling or commotion, and may therefore be well render- ed by Bpovri, thunder, which is a violent com- motion in the air; so, vice versa, any violent commotion is figuratively, and not unusually, in all languages, called thunder. When our Saviour named the sons of Zebedee, Boanerges, he perhaps had an eye to that prophecy of Hag- gai, “Yet once, and I will shake the heavens and the earth,” ii, 6; which is, by the Apostle to the Hebrews, xii, 26, applied to the great alteration made in the economy of the Jews by the publication of the Gospel. The name BON Boanerges, therefore, given to James and John, imports that they should be eminent instru- ments in accomplishing the wondrous change, and should, like an earthquake or thunder, mightily bear down all opposition, by their inspired preaching and miraculous powers. That it does not relate to their mode of preach- ing is certain; for that clearly appears to have been calmly argumentative, and sweetly per- suasive—the very reverse of what is usually called a thundering ministry. BOAR, -wn. The wild boar is considered as the parent stock of our domestic hog. He is smaller, but at the same time stronger and more undaunted, than the hog. In his own defence, he will turn on men or dogs; and scarcely shuns any denizen of the forests, in the haunts where he ranges. His colour _is always an iron grey, inclining to black. His snout is longer than that of the common breed, and his ears are comparatively short. His tusks are very formidable, and all his habits are fierce and savage. It should seem, from the accounts of ancient authors, that the ravages of the wild boar were considered as more formi- dable than those of other savage animals. The conquest of the Erymanthian boar was one of the fated labours of Hercules; and the story of the Calydonian boar is one of the most beauti- ful in Ovid. The destructive ravages of these animals are mentioned in Psalm Ixxx, 14. Dr. Pococke observed very large herds of wild boars on the side of Jordan, where it flows out of the sea of Tiberias; and saw several of them on the other side lying among the reeds by the sea. The wild boars of other countries delight in the like moist retreats. These shady marsh- es then, it should seem, are called in the Scrip- ture, ‘‘ woods;” for it calls these animals, “the wild boars of the woods.” BOHEMIAN BRETHREN, a sect of he- retics, according to the church of Rome; but, in truth, a race of early reformers, who preced- ed Luther. At first they were charged with so many heresies, that the great reformer was shy of them; but, upon receiving from them- selves an account of their tenets, in 1522, he readily acknowledged them as brethren, and received them into communion. Some time after this, they were driven by persecution from their native country, and entered into communion with the Swiss church, as reformed by Zuinglius; and from thence sprang the church of the United Brethren. BONDS were of two kinds, public and pri- vate; the former were employed to secure a prisoner in the public jail, after confession or conviction; the latter, when he was delivered to a magistrate, or even to private persons, to be kept at their houses till he should be tried. The Apostle Paul was subjected to private bonds by Felix, the Roman governor, who “commanded a centurion to keep him, and to let him have liberty, and that he should forbid none of his acquaintance to minister, or come unto him,” Acts xxiv, 23. And after he was carried prisoner to Rome, he “dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,” xxviii, 30. 170 BOO BONNET, was a covering for the head, worn by the Jewish priests. Josephus says, that the bonnet worn by the private priests was com- posed of several rounds of linen cloth, turned in and sewed together, so as to appear like a thick linen crown. The whole was entirely covered with another piece of linen, which came down as low as their forehead, and con. cealed the deformity of the seams. See Exo- dus xxviii, 40. The high priest’s bonnet was not much different from that which has beer. described. BOOK, a writing composed on some point of knowledge by a person intelligent therein, for the instruction or amusement of the reader, The word is formed from the Gothic oka, or Saxon boc, which comes from the Northern buech, of buechaus, a beech or service tree, on the bark of which our ancestors used to write. Book is distinguished from pamphlet, or single paper, by its greater length; and from tome or volume, by its containing the whole writing on the subject. Isidore makes this distinction between liber and codex; that the former de- notes a single book, the latter a collection of several; though, according to Scipio Maffei, codex signifies a book in the square form; liber, a book in the roll form. The primary distine- tion between liber and codex seems to have been derived, as Dr. Heylin has observed, from the different materials used for writing among the ancients: from the innerside of the bark of a tree, used for this purpose, and called in Latin lider, the name of liber applied to a book was deduced; and from that tablet, formed from the main body of a tree, called caudex, was derived the appellation of codex. 2. Several sorts of materials were formerly used in making books: stone and wood were the first materials employed to engrave such things upon as men were desirous of having transmitted to posterity. Porphyry makes men- tion of some pillars preserved in Crete, on which the ceremonies observed by the Cory- bantes in their sacrifices were recorded. The works of Hesiod were originally written on tables of lead, and deposited in the temple of the Muses in Beotia. The laws of Jehovah were written on tables of stone, and those of Solon on wooden planks. Tables of wood and ivory were common among the ancients: those of wood, were very frequently covered with wax, that persons might write on them with more ease, or blot out what they had written. And the instrument used to write with was a piece of iron, called a style; and hence the word “style” came to be taken for the compo- sition of the writing. The leaves of the palm- tree were afterward used instead of wooden pas and the finest and thinnest part of the ark of such trees as the lime, ash, maple, and elm; and especially the tilio, or phillyrea, and Egyptian papyrus. Hence came the word liber, (a book,) which signifies the inner bark of the trees. And as these barks were rolled up in order to be removed with greater ease, each roll was called volumen, a volume; a name afterward given to the like rolls of paper or parchment. From the Egyptian papyrus the BOO word paper is derived. After this, leather was introduced, especially the skins of goats and or For the king of Pergamus, in collect- ing his library, was led to the invention of archment made of those skins. The ancients ikewise wrote upon linen. Pliny says, the Parthians, even in his time, wrote upon their clothes; and ay speaks of certain books made of linen, lintet libri, upon which the names of magistrates, and the history of the Roman commonwealth, were written, and preserved in the temple of the goddess Moneta. The materials generally used by the ancients for their books, were liable to be easily destroyed by the damp, when hidden in the earth; and in times of war, devastation, and rapacity, it was necessary to bury in the earth whatever they wished to preserve from the attacks of fraud and violence. With this view, Jeremiah ordered the writings, which he delivered to Baruch, to be put in an earthen vessel, Jer. xxxii. In the same manner the ancient Egyptians made use of earthen urns, or pots of a proper shape, for containing what- ever they wanted to inter in the earth, and which, without such care, would have been soon destroyed. We need not wonder then, that the Prophet Jeremiah should think it necessary to inclose those writings in an earth- en pot, which were to be buried in Judea, in some place where they might be found without much difficulty on the return of the Jews from captivity. Accordingly two different writings, or small rolls of writing, called books in the original Hebrew, were designed to be inclosed in such an earthen vessel; but commentators have been much embarrassed in giving any probable account of the necessity of two writ- ings, one sealed, the other open; or, as the passage has been commonly understood, the one sealed up, the other left open for any one to read; more especially, as both were to be alike buried in the earth and concealed from every eye, and both were to be examined at the return from the captivity. But the word trans- lated open, in reference to the evidence, or book which was open, (1 Sam. iii, 7, 21; Dan. ii, 19, 30; x, 1,) signifies the revealing of future events to the minds of men by a divine agency ; and it is particularly used in the book of Esther, vili, 13, to express a book’s making known the decree of an earthly king. Consequently the open book of Jeremiah seems to signify, not its being then lying open or unrolled before them, while the other was sealed up; but the book that had revealed the will of God, to bring back Israel into their own country, and to cause buying and selling of houses and lands again to take place among them. This was a book of prophecy, opening and revealing the future return of Israel, and the other little book, which was ordered to be buried along with it, was the purchase deed. 4. By adverting to the different modes of writing in eastern countries, we obtain a satis- factory interpretation of a passage in the book of Job, xix, 23, 24, and a distinct view of the peautiful gradation which is lost in our trans- lation: ‘“ 6 that my words were now written! 171 BOO O that they were printed (written) in a boos! that they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever!” In the east there is a mode of writing, which is designed to fix words in the memory, but the writing is not intended for duration. Accordingly we are informed by Dr. Shaw, that children learn to write in Barbary by means of a smooth thin board, slightly covered with whiting, which may be wiped off or renewed at pleasure. Job expresses his wish not only that his words were written, but also written in a book, from which they should not be blotted out, nay, still farther, graven in a rock, the most permanent mode of recording them, and especially if the engraved letters were filled with lead; or the rock was made to receive leaden tablets, the use of which was known among the ancients. So Pliny, “‘ At first men wrote on the leaves of palm, and the bark of certain trees, but after- ward public documents were preserved on lead- en plates, and those of a private nature on wax, or linen.” 5. The first books were in the form of blocks and tables, of which we find frequent mention in Scripture, under the appellation sepher, which the Septuagint render déives, that is, square tables: of which form the book of the covenant, book of the law, book or bill of di- vorce, book of curses, &c, appear to have been. As flexible matters came to be written on, they found it more convenient to make their books _in form of rolls, called by the Greeks xoyrd«a, by the Latins volwmina, which appear to have been in use among the ancient Jews as well as the Grecians, Romans, Persians, and even In- dians; and of such did the libraries chiefly con- sist, till some centuries after Christ. The form which obtains among us is the square, compos- ed of separate leaves; which was also known, though little used, among the ancients; having been invented by Attalus, king of Pergamus, the same who also invented parchment: but it has now been so long in possession, that the oldest manuscripts are found in it. Montfau- con assures us, that of all the ancient Greek manuscripts he has seen, theregare but two in the roll form; the rest being made up much after the manner of the modern books. The rolls, or volumes, were composed of several sheets, fastened to each other, and rolled upon a stick, or wmbilicus ; the whole making a kind of column, or cylinder, which was to be man- aged by the wmbilicus, as a handle; it bein reputed a kind of crime to take hold of the rol itself. The outside of the volume was called frons; the ends of the umbilicus were called cornua, “horns ;” which were usually carved and adorned likewise with silver, ivory, or even gold and precious stones. Whilst the Egyp- tlan papyrus was in common use, its brittle na- ture made it proper to roll up what they wrote; and as this had been a customary practice many continued it when they used other mate- rials, which might very safely have been treat- ed ina different manner. To the form of books belongs the economy of the inside, or the order and arrangement of points and letters into lines and pages, with margins and other appurte- BOO nances. This has undergone many varieties: at first, the letters were only divided into lines, then into separate words; which, by degrees, were noted with accents, and distributed by points and stops into periods, paragraphs, chap- ters, and otherdivisions. In some countries, as among the orientals, the lines began from the right, and ran to the left; in others, as in north- ern and western nations, from the left to the right; others, as the Grecians, followed both directions alternately, going in the one and re- turning in the other, called boustrophedon, be- cause it was after the manner of oxen turning when at plough. In the Chinese books, the lines ran from top to bottom. Again: the page in some is entire, and uniform; in others, divid- ed into columns; in others distinguished into texts and notes, either marginal, or at the bot- tom: usually it is furnished with signatures and catch words; also with a register to discover whether the book be complete. To these are occasionally added the apparatus of summaries, or side notes; the embellishments of red, gold, or figured initial letters, head pieces, tail pieces, effigies, schemes, maps, and the like. The end of the book now denoted by finds, was ancient- ly marked with a <, called coronis, and the whole frequently washed with an oil drawn from cedar, or citron chips, strewed between the leaves to preserve it from rotting. There also occur certain formula at the beginning and end of books; as among the Jews, the word pin, esto fortis, which we find at the end of the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Eze- kiel, &c, to exhort the reader to be courageous, and proceed on to the following book. The conclusions were also often guarded with im- precations against such as should falsify them ; of which we have an instance in the Apoca- lypse. The Mohammedans, for the like rea- son, place the name of God at the beginning of all their books, which cannot fail to procure them protection, on account of the infinite re- gard which they pay to that name, wherever found. For the like reason it is, that divers of the laws of the ancient emperors begin with the formula, In nomine Dei. [In the name of God.] At the end of each book the Jews also added the number of verses contained in it, and at the end of the Pentateuch the number of sections; that it might be transmitted to poster- ity entire. The Masorites and Mohammedan doctors have gone farther; so as to number the several words and letters in each book, chap- ter, verse, &c, of the Old Testament and the Alcoran. The scarcity and high price of books in former ages, ought to render us the more grateful for the discovery of the great art of yeni as especially by that means the Holy ible, “the word of truth and Gospel of our salvation,” is made familiar to all classes. The universal ignorance that prevailed in Europe, from the seventh to the eleventh cen- tury, may be ascribed to the scarcity of books during that period, and the difficulty of render- ing them more common, concurring with other causes arising from the state of government and manners. The Romans wrote their books either on parchment, or on paper made of the 172 BOO Egyptian papyrus. The latter, being the cheap. est, was of course the most commonly used. But after the Saracens conquered Egypt, in the seventh century, the communication be- tween that country and the people settled in Italy, or in other parts of Europe, was almost entirely broken off, and the papyrus was no longer in use among them. hey were oblig- ed on that account to write all their books upon parchment; and as the price of that was high, books became extremely rare and of great value. We may judge of the scarcity of mate- rials for writing them from one circumstance, There still remain several manuscripts of the eighth, ninth, and following centuries, written on parchment, from which some former writing had been erased, in order to substitute a new composition in its place. Thus, it is probable, several of the works of the ancients perished. A book of Livy or of Tacitus might be erased, to make room for the legendary tale of a saint, or the superstitious prayers of a missal. Nay, worse instances are recorded, of obliterating copies of the Holy Scriptures to make room for the lucubrations of some of the more modem fathers of the church. Manuscripts thus de- faced, the vellum or parchment of which is oc- cupied with some other writings, are called ‘“palimpsests,” codices rescripti or palimpsesti, from nadipwnoros, “that which has been twice scraped.” As this want of materials for writ- ing will serve to account for the loss of man of the works of the ancients, and for the small number of MSS. previous to the eleventh century, many facts prove the scarcity of books at this period. Private persons seldom possess- ed any books whatever; and even monasteries of note had only one missal. In 1299, John de Pontissara, bishop of Winchester, borrows of his cathedral convent of St. Swithin, at Win- chester, “‘dibliam bene glossatam,” that is, the Bible, with marginal annotations, in two folio volumes; but gives a bond for the return of it, drawn up with great solemnity. For the be- quest of this Bible to the convent, and one hun- dred marks, the monks founded a daily mass fcr the soul of the donor. If any person gave a book to a religious house, he believed that so valuable a donation merited eternal salvation, and he offered it on the altar with great cere- mony. The prior and convent of Rochester declare, that they will every year pronounce the irrevocable sentence of damnation on him who shall purloin or conceal a Latin transla- tion of Aristotle’s Poetics, or even obliterate the title. Sometimes a book was given to a monastery, on condition that the donor should have the use of it for his life; and sometimes to a private person, with the reservation that he who receives it should pray for the soul of his benefactor. In the year 1225, Roger de In- sula, dean of York, gave several Latin Bibles to the university of Oxford, on condition that the students who perused them should de- posit a cautionary pledge. The library of that university, before the year 1300, consisted only of a few tracts, chained or kept in chests, in the choir of St. ie he church. The price of 7 books became so high, that persons of a mode BOO rate fortune could not afford to purchase them. In the year 1174, Walter, prior of St. Swithin’s at Winchester, purchased of the monks of Dor- chester, in Oxfordshire, Bede’s homilies, and St. Austin’s pestle for twelve measures of barley and a pall, on which was embroidered in silver the history of St. Birinus converting a Saxon king. About the year 1400, a copy of John of Meun’s “ Roman de la Rose” was sold before the alace gate at Paris for forty crowns, or 331. 6s. ad. The countess of Anjou paid, for a copy of the homilies of Haimon, bishop of Halberstadt, two hundred sheep, five quarters of wheat, and the same quantity of rye and millet. Even so late as the year 1471, when Louis XI. of France borrowed the works of Rhasis, the Ara- bian physician, from the faculty of medicine at Paris, he not only deposited by way of pledge a considerable quantity of plate, but he was obliged to procure a ablenien to join with him as surety in a deed, binding himself under a great forfeiture to restore it. But when, in the eleventh century, the art of making paper was invented, and more especially after the manufacture became a the number of MSS. increased, and the study of the sciences was wonderfully facilitated. Indeed, the inven- tion of the art of making paper, and the inven- tion of the art of printing, are two very memo- rable events in the history of literature and of human civilization. It is remarkable, that the former preceded the first dawning of letters and improvement in knowledge, toward the close of the eleventh century ; and the latter ushered in the light which spread over Europe at the era of the reformation. 6. If the ancient books were large, they were formed of a number of skins, of a number of pieces of linen and cotton cloth, or of papyrus, or parchment, connected together. The leaves were rarely written over on both sides, Ezek. 1,9; Zech. v,1. Books, when written upon very flexible materials, were, as stated above, rolled round a stick; and, if they were very long, round two, from the two extremities. The reader unrolled the book to the place which he wanted, dvanrigas ré BiBdiov, and rolled it up again, when he had read it, rrigas rd @rBriov, Luke iv, 17-20; whence the name nbn, a volume, or thing rolled up, Psalm xl, 7; Isaiah xxxiv, 4; Ezek. ii, 9; 2 Kings xix, 14; Ezra vi, 2. The leaves thus rolled round the stick, which has been mentioned, and bound with a string, could be easily sealed, Isaiah xxix, 11; Dan. xii, 4; Rev. v,1; vi, 7. Those books, which were inscribed on tablets of wood, lead, brass, or ivory, were connected together by rings at the back, through which a rod was passed to carry them by. The orientals ap- pear to have taken pleasure in giving tropical or enigmatical titles to their books. ‘The titles, prefixed to the fifty-sixth, sixtieth, and eightieth psalms, appear to be of this description. And there can be no doubt that David’s elegy upon Saul and Jonathan, 2 Sam. i, 18, is called nwp or the bow, in conformity with this peculiarity of taste. The book, or flying roll, spoken of in Zech. v, 1, 2, twenty cubits long, and ten wide, was 173 BOO one of the ancient rolls, composed of many skins, or parchments, glued or sewed together at the end. Though some of these rolls or volumes were very long, yet none, probably, was ever made of such a size as this. This contained the curses and calamities which should befal the Jews. The extreme length and breadth of it shows the excessive number and enormity of their sins, and the extent of their punishment. Isaiah, describing the effects of God’s wrath, says, “ The heavens shall be folded up like a book,” (scroll,) Isaiah xxxiv, 4. He alludes to the way among the ancients of rolling wu books, when they purposed to close them. B volume of several feet in length was suddenly rolled up into a very small compass. Thus the heavens should shrink into themselves, and disappear, as it were, from the eyes of God, when his wrath should be kindled. These ways of speaking are figurative, and very energetic. 7. Book is sometimes used for letters, me- moirs, an edict, or contract. In short, the word book, in Hebrew, sepher, is much more extensive than the Latin diber. The letters which Rabshakeh delivered from Sennacherib to Hezekiah, are called a book. The English translation, indeed, reads letter ; but the Septu- agint has @:Gdiov, and the Hebrew text, D‘20n. he contract, confirmed by Jeremiah for the purchase of a field, is called by the same name, Jer. xxxii, 10; and also the edict of Ahasuerus in favour of the Jews, Esther ix, 20, though our translators have called it letters. The writing which aman gave to his wife when he divorced her, was denominated, in Hebrew, “a book of divorce,” Deut. xxiv. Books, Writers of. The ancients seldom wrote their treatises with their own hand, but dictated them to their freedmen and _ slaves. These were either rayvypddor, amanuenses, no- tarii, “hasty writers,” or caddcyedpot, librarii, “ fair writers,” or BiBAroypagor, librarii, “ copy- ists.” The office of these last was to tran- scribe fairly that which the former had written hastily and from dictation; they were those who were obliged to write books and other docu- ments which were intended to be durable. The correctness of the copies was under the care of the emendator, corrector, 6 doxipafwv ra yeypappéva, A great part of the books of the New Testa- ment was dictated after this custom. St. Paul noted it as a particular circumstance in the Epistle to the Galatians, that he had written it with his own hand, Gal. vi, 11. But he affixed the salutation with his own hand, 2 Thess. iii, 17; 1 Cor. xvi, 21; Col. iv, 18. The amanu- ensis who wrote the Epistle to the Romans, has mentioned himself near the conclusion, Rom. xvi, 22. Booxs, modes of publication. Works could only be multiplied by means of transcripts. Whenever in this way they passed over to others, they were beyond the control of tne author, and published. The edition, or publica- tion, by means of the booksellers, was, only at a later period, advantageous to the Chris- tians. The recitatio [reading aloud] preceded the publication, which took place often merely BOO among some few friends, and often with great reparations before many persons, who were Invited for that purpose. From hence the author became known as the writer, and the world became previously informed of all which they might expect from the work. If the com- position pleased them, he was requested to per- mit its transcription; and thus the work left the hands of the author, and belonged to the publicwm: [public.] Frequently an individual sent his literary labours to some illustrious man, as a present, strena,[a new-year’s gift,] munus- culwm ; [a small present ;] or he prefixed his name to it, for the sake of giving him a proof of friendship or regard, by means of this ex- ress and particular direction of his work. hen it was only thus presented or sent to him, and he accepted it, he was considered as the person bound to introduce it to the world, or as the patronus libri, [patron of the book,] who had pledged himself, as the patronus per- sone, [patron of the person,] to this duty. It now became his office to provide for its pub- lication by means of transcripts, to facilitate its approach ad limina potentiorwm to the gates of men of great influence, and to be its defensor. Thus the works of the first founders of the Christian church made their appearance before their community. Their Epistles were read in those congregations to which they were direct- ed; and whoever wished to possess them either took a transcript of them, or caused one to be procured for him. The historical works were made known by the authors in the congrega- tions of the Christians, per recitationem: [by reading aloud :] the object and general interest in them procured for them readers and tran- scribers. St. Luke dedicated his writings to an illustrious man of the name of Theophilus. Boox or Lirs, or Boox or THE Livine, or Boos or THE Lorp, Psalm lxix, 28. Some have thought it very probable that these descriptive phrases, which are frequent in Scripture, are taken from the custom, observed generally in the courts of princes, of keeping a list of per- sons who are in their service, of the provinces which they govern, of the officers of their armies, of the number of their troops, and sometimes even of the names of their soldiers. Thus, when it is said that any one is written in the book of life, it means that he particu- larly belongs to God, and is enrolled among the number of his friends and servants: and to be “blotted out of the book of life,” is to be erased from the list of God’s friends and serv- ants, as those who are guilty of treachery are struck off the roll of officers belonging to a prince. The most satisfactory explanation of these phrases is, however, that which refers them to the genealogical lists of the Jews, or to the registers kept of the living, from which the names of all the dead were blotted out. Boox or Jupement. Daniel, speaking of God’s judgment, says, ‘‘ The judgment was set, and the books were opened,” Dan. vii, 10. This is an allusion to what was practised when a prince called his servants to account. The accounts are produced and examined. It is possible he might allude, also to a custom of 174 BOO the Persians, among whom it was a constant practice every day to write down the services rendered to the king, and the rewards given to those who had performed them. Of this we see an instance in the history of Ahasuerus and Mordecai, Esther iv, 12, 34. When, there- fore, the king sits in judgment, the books are opened: he obliges all his servants to reckon with him; he punishes those who have failed in their duty; he compels those to pay whe are indebted to him ; and he rewards those who have done him services. A similar proceed- ing will take place at the day of God’s fina judgment. : SeaLteD Boor, mentioned Isa. xxix, 11, and the book sealed with seven seals, in the Reve- lation v, 1-3, are the prophecies of Isaiah and of John, which were written ina book, or roll, after the manner of the ancients, and were sealed, which figure truly signifies that they were mysterious: they had respect to times remote, and to future events; so that a com- plete knowledge of their meaning could not be obtained till after what was foretold should happen, and the seals, as it were, taken off. In old times, letters, and other writings that were to be sealed, were first wrapped round with thread or flax, and then wax and the seal were applied to them. To read them, it was necessary to cut the thread or flax, and to break the seals. BOOTY, spoils taken in war, Num. xxxi, 27-32. According to the law of Moses, the booty was to be divided equally between those who were in the battle and those who were in the camp, whatever disparity there might be in the number of each party. The law farther required that, out of that part of the spoils which was assigned to the fighting men, the Lord’s share should be separated ; and for every five hundred men, oxen, asses, sheep, &c, they were to take one for the high priest, as being the Lord’s first fruits. And out of the other moiety, belonging to the children of Israel, they were to give for every fifty men, oxen, asses, sheep, &c, one to the Levites. BOOZ, or BOAZ, the son of Salmon and Rahab, Ruth iv, 21, &c; Matt.i,5. Rahab, we know, was a Canaanite of Jericho, Joshua ii, 1. Salmon, who was of the tribe of Judah, married her, and she bore him Booz, one of our Saviour’s ancestors according to the flesh. Some say there were three of this name, the son, the grandson, and the great grandson, of Salmon: the last Booz was Ruth’s husband, and the father of Obed. 2. Booz, or Boaz, was the name of one of the two brazen pillars which Solomon erected in the porch of the temple, the other column being called Jachin. This last pillar was on the right hand of the entrance into the temfle, and Booz on the left, 1 Kings vii, 21. The word signifies strength or firmness. Mr. Hutch- inson has an express treatise upon these two columns, attempting to show that they repre- sented the true system of the universe, which he insists were given by God to David, and by him to Solomon, and was wrought by Hiram upon these pillars, BOT BOSOM. See Accunation. BOSSES, the thickest and strongest parts of a buckler, Job xv, 20. BOTTLE. The eastern bottle is made of a goat or kid skin, stripped off without openin the belly; the apertures made by cutting o the tail and legs are sewed up, and, when filled, it is tied about the neck. The Arabs and Persians never go a journey without a small leathern bottle of water hanging by their side like a scrip. These skin bottles preserve their water, milk, and other liquids, in a fresher state than any other vessels they can use. The people of the east, indeed, put into them every thing they mean to carry to adistance, whether dry or liquid, and very rarely make use of boxes and pots, unless to preserve such things as are liable to be broken. They enclose these leathern bottles in woollen sacks, because their beasts of carriage often fall down under their load, or cast it down on the sandy desert. These skin bottles were not confined to the countries of Asia; the roving tribes, which passed the Hel- lespont soon after the deluge, and settled in Greece arid Italy, probably introduced them into those countries. We learn from Homer, that they were in common use among the Greeks at the siege of Troy; for, with a view to an accommodation between the hostile ar- mies, the heralds carried through the city the things which were necessary to ratify the com- pe two lambs, and exhilarating wine, the ruit of the earth, in a bottle of goat skin: "Apve dia, cat otvov ééppova, kaprov dootpns ed tvciyeles, teal 26 The bottle of wine which Samuel’s mother brought to Eli, 1 Sam. i, 24, is called 52, and was an earthen jug. Another word is used to signify the vessel out of which Jael gave milk to Sisera: she opened a bottle of milk, and gave him drink, Judges iv, 19. This is called ‘pxo which refers to something supple, moist, oozing, or, perhaps, imports moistened into pliancy, as that skin must be which is kept constantly filled with milk. This kind was usually made of goat skins. This word is also used to denote the bottle in which Jesse sent wine by David to Saul, 1 Sam. xvi, 20. It is likewise employed to express the bottle into which the Psalmist desires his tears may be collected, Psalm lvi, 8; and that to which he resembles himself, and which he calls a bottle in the smoke, Psalm cxix, 83, that is, a skin bottle, blackened and shrivelled. Beside the words already considered, another max, in the plural, is used, Job xxxii, 19. This signifies, in general, to swell or distend. On receiving the liquor poured into it, a skin bottle must be greatly swelled and distended; and it must be swelled still farther by the fermentation of the liquor within it, as that advances to ripeness. In this state, if no vent be given to the liquor, it may overpower the strength of the bottle, or it may penetrate by some secret crevice or weaker part. Hence arises the propriety of putting new wine into new bottles, which, be- ms strong, may resist the expansion, the inter- pressure of their contents, and preserve the 175 BOU wine to due maturity ; while old bottles inay, without danger, contain old wine, whose _fer- mentation is already past, Matt. ix, 17; Luke v, 38. *BOUDDHISTS, or BUDHISTS, one of the three great sects of India, distinct both from the Brahminical sect, and the Jainas. The Bouddhists do not believe in a First Cause : they considey matter as eternal; that every portion of animated existence has in itself its own rise, tendency, and destiny; that the condition of creatures on earth is regulated by works of merit and demerit; that works of merit not only raise individuals to happiness, but, as they prevail, exalt the world itself to prosperity ; while, on the other hand, when vice is predomi- nant, the world degenerates till the universe itself is dissolved. They suppose, however, that there is always some superior deity, who has attained to this elevation by religious merit ; but they do not regard him as the governor of the world. To the present grand period, com- prehending all the time included in a “ Iculpu,” they assign five deities, four of whom have already appeared, including Goutumu, or Boud- dhu, whose exaltation continues five thousand years, two thousand three hundred and fifty-six of which had expired, A. D. 1814. After the expiration of the five thousand years, another saint will obtain the ascendancy, and be deified. Six hundred millions of saints are said to be canonized with each deity, though it is admit- ted that Bouddhu took only twenty-four thou- sand devotees to heaven with him. The low- est state of existence is in hell; the next is that in the forms of brutes: both these are states of punishment. The next ascent is to that of man, which is probationary. The next in- cludes many degrees of honour and happiness up to demigods, &c, which are states of reward for works of merit. The ascent to superior deity is from the state of man. The Boudd- hists are taught that there are four superior heavens which are not destroyed at the end of “kulpu,” that below these there are twelve other heavens, followed by six inferior hea- vens; after which follows the earth; then the world of snakes; and then thirty-two chief hells ; to which are to be added, one hundred and twenty hells of milder torments. The highest state of glory is absorption. The per- son who is unchangeable in his resolution; who has obtained the knowledge of things past, present, and to come, through one “ kul- pu;” who can make himself invisible; go where he pleases; and who has attained to complete abeirncion ; will enjoy absorption. Those who perform works of merit are admit- ted to the heavens of the different gods, or are made kings or great men on earth; and those who are wicked are born in the forms of dif- ferent animals, or consigned to different hells. The happiness of these heavens is described as entirely sensual. The Bouddhists believe that at the end of a “ kulpu” the universe is destroyed. To convey some idea of the extent of this period, the illiterate Cingalese use this com- parison: “‘ If a man were to ascend a mountain nine miles high, and to renew these journeys BOU once in every hundred years, till the mountain were worn down by his feet to an atom, the time required to do this would be nothing to the fourth part of a ‘kulpu.’” Bouddhu, be- fore his exaltation, taught his followers that, after his death, the remains of his body, his doctrine, or an assembly of his disciples, were to be held in equal reverence with himself. When a Cingalese, therefore, approaches an image of Bouddhy, he says, “I take refuge in Bouddhu : I take refuge in his doctrine; I take refuge in his followers.” There are five commands given to the common Bouddhists; the first forbids the destruction of animal life; the second for- bids theft; the third, adultery; the fourth, falsehood; the fifth, the use of spirituous li- quors. There are other commands for supe- rior classes, or devotees, which forbid dancing, songs, music, festivals, perfumes, elegant dress- es, elevated seats, &c. Among works of the highest merit, one is the feeding of a hungry infirm tiger with a person’s own flesh. BOURIGNONISTS, the followers of the celebrated Mad. Antoinette Bourignon de la| Ponte, a native of Flanders, born at Lisle, in 1616. She was so much deformed at her birth, 176 BRA vation of the Gospel Spirit ;” which are muct a esteem among the admirers of mystical the- ology. BOW. The expression, “ to break the bow,” so frequent in Scripture, signifies to destroy the power of a people, because the principal offen- sive weapon of armies was anciently the bow. “A deceitful bow” is one that, from some defect, either in bending or the string, carries the arrow wide of the mark, however well aimed. See Arms. BOWELS. The bowels are the seat of mercy, tenderness, and compassion. Joseph’s bowels were moved at the sight of his brother Benjamin; that is, he felt himself softened and affected. The true mother of the child whom Solomon commanded to be divided, felt her bowels move, and consented that it should be given to the woman who was not its real mo- ther, 1 Kings, iii, 26. The Hebrews also some- times place wisdom and understanding in the bowels, “Who hath put wisdom in the inner parts?” or bowels, Job xxxviii, 36. The Psalmist says, ‘‘ Thy law is within my heart,” literally, in the midst of my bowels,—it is by me strongly and affectionately regarded, Psalm that it was even debated whether she should | xl, 8 not be stifled as a monster. As she grew up, however, this deformity greatly decreased, and she discovered a superior mind, a strong ima- gination, and very early indications of a devo- tional spirit, strongly tinctured with mysticism. She conceived herself to be divinely called, and set apart to revive the true spirit of Chris- tianity that had been extinguished by theolo- gical animosities and debates. In her confession of faith, she professes her belief in the Scrip- tures, and in the divinity and atonement of Christ. The leading principles which pervade her productions are these: that manis perfectly free to resist or receive divine grace; that God is ever unchangeable in love toward all his creatures, and does not inflict any arbitrary punishment, but that the evils they suffer are the natural consequences of sin; that true religion consists not in any outward forms of worship, nor systems of faith, but in imme- diate communion with the Deity, by internal feelings and impulses, and by a perfect acqui- escence in his will. This lady was educated in the Roman Ca- tholic religion; but she declaimed equally against the corruptions of the church of Rome and those of the Reformed churches: hence she was opposed and persecuted by both Catholics and Protestants, and after being driven about from place to place, she died at Franeker, in 1680. She maintained that there ought to be a general toleration of all religions. Her no- tion on God’s foreknowledge was, that God was ore of foreknowing all events, but, his power being equal to his knowledge, he pur- posely withheld from himself that knowledge in certain cases, that he might not interfere with the free ager.cy and responsibility of his creatures. Her works are very numerous, making eighteen volumes in octavo: of which the principal are, “‘ The Light of the World;” “ The Testimony of Truth;” and “‘ The Reno- , 8. BOX TREE, vwnrn, Isa. xli, 9; Ix, 18; Ezek. xxvii,6; 2Esdras xiv, 24, where the word appears to be used for éablets. Most of the ancient, and several of the modern, trans- lators, render this word the buxus, or “ box tree;” but from its being mentioned along with trees of the forest, some more stately tree must be intended, probably the cedar. BRACELET. A bracelet is commonly worn by the oriental princes, as a_ badge of power and authority. When the calif agen Bem- rillah granted the investiture of certain domi- nions to an eastern prince, he sent him letters patent, a crown, a chain, and bracelets. This was probably the reason that the Amalek- ite brought the bracelet which he found on Saul’s arm, along with his crown, to David, 2Sam. i, 10. It was a royal ornament, and belonged to the regalia of the kingdom. The bracelet, it must be acknowledged, was worn both by men and women of different ranks: but the original word, in the second book of Samuel, occurs only in two other places, and is quite different from the term which is employed to express the more common ornament known by that name. And beside, this ornament was worn by kings and princes in a different man- ner from their subjects. It was fastened above the elbow; and was commonly of great value. BRAHMINS, or BRACHMINS, the high- est caste of Hindoos, to whom is confined the priesthood, and, in general, all their ancient learning, which is locked up in their sacrea language, called the Sanscrit. The Brahmins derive that name from Brahma, the Creator; for they maintain the doctrine of three embo- died energies, the creative, the preserving, and the destroying; personified under the names of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, all sprung from Brimh ; and to each of them is assigned a kina of celestial consort, a female deity, which they describe as a passive energy. BRA Like the philosophers of Greece, they seem to have had an open and a secret doctrine: the latter, a species of Spinozism, considering the great Supreme as “the soul of the world ;” endowed with no other quality than ubiquity; requiring no worship, and exerting no power, but in the production of the three great ener- gies above mentioned. These are so inge- niously diversified as to produce three hundred and thirty millions of gods, or objects of idola- try; so various in character as to suit every man’s taste or humour, and to furnish exam- ples of every vice and folly to which humanity 18 subject. As it respects a future state, two of the prin- ro, which signifies a brook, is also the term for a valley, whence the one is often placed for the other, in different translations of the Scriptures. To deal deceitfully ‘‘as a brook,” and to ‘“ pass away as the stream thereof,” is to deceive our friend when he most needs and expects our help and comfort, Job vi, 15; because brooks, being temporary streams, are dried up in the heats of summer, when the traveller most needs a sup- ply of water on his journey. BROTHER. 1. A brother by the same mother, a uterine brother, Matt. iv, 21; xx, 20. 2.-A brother, though not by the same mother, Matt. i, 2. 3. A near kinsman, a cousin, Matt. xui, 55; Mark vi, 3. Observe, that in Matt. xiii, 55, James, and Joses, and Judas, are called the ddeAdot, brethren, of Christ, but were most probably only his cousins by his mother’s side; for James and Joses were the sons of Mary, Matt. xxvii, 56; and James and Judas, the sons of Alpheus, Luke vi, 15, 16; which Alpheus is therefore probably the same with Cleopas, the husband of Mary, sister to our Lord’s mother, John xix, 25. BUCKLER. See Arms. BUILD. Beside the proper and literal sig- nification of this word, it is used with reference ‘to children and a numerous posterity. Sarah desires Abraham to take Hagar to wife, that by her she may be builded up, that is, have children to uphold her family, Gen. xvi, 2. The midwives who refused obedience to Pha- raoh’s orders, when he commanded them to put to death all the male children of the Hebrews, were rewarded for it; God built them houses, that is, he gave them a numerous posterity. The Prophet Nathan tells David that God would build his house; that is, give him chil- dren and successors, 2 Sam. vil, 27. Moses, speaking of the formation of the first woman, anys, God built her with the rib of Adam, Gen. ii, 22. BUL, the eighth month of the ecclesiastical year of the Jews, and the second month of the civil year. It answers to October. and consists of twenty-nine days. On the sixth day of this month the Jews fasted, because on that day 184 BUL Nebuchadnezzar put to death the children of Zedekiah in the presence of their unhappy father, whose eyes, after they had been wit. nesses of this sad spectacle, he ordered to be put out, 2 Kings xxv, 7. We find the name of this month mentioned in Scripture but once, 1 Kings vi, 38. BULL, the male of the beeve kind; and it is to be recollected that the Hebrews never castrated animals. There are several words translated “bull” in Scripture, of which the following is a list, with the meaning of each: sw, a bove, or cow, of any age. wn, the wild bull, oryx, or buffalo, occurs only Deut. xiv, 5; and in Isaiah li, 20, xn, with the interchange of the two last letters. ‘wax, a word implying strength, translated “ bulls,” Psalm xxii, 12; 1,13; xviii, 30; Isaiah xxxiv, 7; Jer. xlvi, 15. spa, herds, horned cattle of full age. 1», a full grown bull, or cow, fit for propagating. ‘yy, a full grown, plump young bull ; and in the femi- nine, a heifer. wn, Chaldee ¢aur, and Latin taurus ; the ox accustomed to the yoke: oc- curs only in Ezra vi, 9,17; vii, 17; Dan. iv, 25, 32,33; xxii, 29, 30. This animal was reputed by the Hebrews to be clean, and was generally made use of by them for sacrifices. The Egyptians had a particular veneration for it, and paid divine honours to it; and the Jews imitated them in the worship of the golden calves or bulls, in the wilderness, and in the kingdom of Israel. The wild bull is found in the Syrian and Arabian deserts. It is frequently mentioned by the Arabian poets, who are copious in their de- scriptions of hunting it, and borrow many images from its beauty, strength, swiftness, and the loftiness of its horns. They represent it as fierce and untameable ; as being white on the back, and having large shining eyes. Bulls, in a figurative and allegorical sense, are taken for powerful, fierce, and insolent enemies, Psalm xxii, 12; Ixviii, 30. BULRUSH, xn, Exodus ii, 3; Job viii, 11; Isaiah xviii, 2; xxxv, 7. A plant growing on the banks of the Nile, and in marshy grounds. The stalk rises to the height of six or seven cubits, beside two under water. This stalk is triangular, and terminates in a crown of small filaments resembling hair, which the ancients used to compare to a thyrsus. This reed, the Cyperus papyrus of Linneus, com- monly called “the Egyptian reed,” was of the greatest use to the inhabitants of the ey where it grew; the pith contained in the stoc served them for food, and the woody part for building vessels, figures of which are to be seen on the engraven stones and other monuments of Egyptian antiquity. For this purpose they made it up, like rushes, into bundles; and, by ine these bundles together, gave their vessels the necessary shape and solidity. ‘The ves- sels of bulrushes,” or papyrus, “that are men- tioned in sacred and profane history,” say8 Dr. Shaw, “were no other than large fabrics of the same kind with that of Moses, Exodus li, 3; which, from the late introduction of plank and stronger materials, are now lait aside.” Thus Pliny takes notice of the “aves BUR papyraceas armamentaque Nili,” “ships made of papyrus, and the equipments of the Nile;” and he observes, ‘‘ ex ipsd quidem papyro navi- gia texunt,” “of the papyrus itself they con- struct sailing vessels.” Herodotus and Diodo- rus have recorded the same fact; and amon. the poets, Lucan, “ Conseritur bibuld Memphitis cymba papyro,” “the Memphian” or Egyptian “boat is made of the thirsty papyrus ;” where the epithet dibuld, “drinking,” ‘ soaking,” “thirsty,” is particularly remarkable, as cor- responding with great exactness to the nature of the plant, and to its Hebrew name, which signifies to soak or drink wp. These vegetables require much water for their growth; when, therefore, the river on whose banks they grew was reduced, they perished sooner than other plants. This explains Job viii, 11, where the circumstance is referred to as an image of transient prosperity: “Can the flag grow with- out water? hilst it is yet in its greenness, and not cut down, it withereth before any other herb.” BURIAL, the interment of a deceased per- son; an office held so sacred, that they who neglected it have in all nations been held in abhorrence. As soon as the last breath had fled, the nearest relation, or the dearest friend, gave the lifeless body the parting kiss, the last farewell and sign of affection to the departed relative. This was a custom of immemorial antiquity ; for the patriarch Jacob had no sooner yielded up his spirit, than his beloved Joseph, claiming for once the right of the first-born, “fell upon his face and kissed him.” It is probable he first closed his eyes, as God had el he should do: ‘‘ Joseph shall put his ands upon thine eyes.” The penn kiss being given, the company rent their clothes, which was a custom of great antiquity, and the highest expression of grief in the primitive ages. This ceremony was never omitted by the Hebrews when any mournful event hap- pened, and was performed in the following manner: they took a knife, and holding the blade downward, gave the upper garment a cut in the right side, and rent it a hand’s breadth. For very near relations, all the garments are rent on the right side. After closing the eyes, the next care was to bind up the face, which it was no more lawful to behold. The next care of surviving friends was to wash the body, pro- bably, that the ointments and perfumes with which it was to be wrapped up, might enter more evsily into the pores, when opened by warm water. This ablution, which was always esteemed an act of great charity and devotior, was performed by women. Thus the body of Dorcas was washed, and laid in an upper room, till the arrival of the Apostle Peter, in the hope that his prayers might restore her to life. After the body was wasned, it was shrouded, and swathed with a linen cloth, although in most places, they only put on a pair of drawers and a white tunic; and the head was bound about with a napkin. Such were the napkin and grave clothes in which the Saviour was buried. 2. The body was sometimes embalmed, which was performed by the Egyptians after the fol- 185 BUR lowing method: the brain was removed with a bent iron, and the vacuity filled up with me dicaments; the bowels were also drawn out, and the trunk being stuffed with myrrh, cassia, and other spices, except frankincense, which were proper to exsiccate the humours, it was pickled in nitre, in which it lay for seventy days. After this period, it was wrapped in bandages of fine linen and gums, to make it adhere; and was then delivered to the relations of the deceased entire; all its features, and the very hairs of the eyelids, being preserved. In this manner were the kings of Judah embalmed for many ages. But when the funeral obse- quies were not long delayed, they used another kind ofembalming. They wrapped up the body with sweet spices and odours, without extract- ing the brain, or removing the bowels. This is the way in which it was proposed to embalm the lifeless body of our Saviour; which was prevented by his resurrection. The meaner sort of people seem to have been interred in their grave clothes, without a coffin. In this manner was the sacred body of our Lord com- mitted to the tomb. The body was sometimes placed upon a bier, which bore some resemblance to a coffin or bed, in order to be carried out to burial. Upon one of these was carried forth the widow’s son of Nain, whom our compas- sionate Lord raised to life, and restored to his mother. We are informed in the history of the kings of Judah, that, Asa being dead, they laid him in the bed, or bier, which was filled with sweet odours. Josephus, the Jewish his- torian, describing the funeral of Herod the Great, says, His bed was adorned with precious stones; his body rested under 2 purple covers ing; he had a diadem and a crown of gold upon his head, a sceptre in his hand; and all his house followed the bed. ‘The bier used by the Turks at Aleppo is a kind of coffin, much in the form of ours, only the lid rises with a ledge in the middle. 3. The Israelites committed the dead to their native dust; and from the Egyptians, probably, borrowed the practice of burning many spices at their funerals. ‘‘ They buried Asa in his own sepulchres, which he made for himself in the city of David, and laid him in the bed which was filled with sweet odours, and divers kinds of spices, prepared by the apothecaries’ art; and they made a very great burning for him,” 2 Chron. xvi, 14. Thus the Old Testa- ment historian entirely justifies the account which the Evangelist gives, of the quantity of spices with which the sacred body of Christ was swathed. The Jews object to the quantity used on that occasion, as unnecessarily pro- fuse, and even incredible; but it appears from their own writings, that spices were used at such times in great abundance. In the Tal- mud it is said, that no less than eighty pounds of spices were consumed at the funeral of rabbi Gamaliel the elder. And at the funeral of Herod, if we may believe the account of their most celebrated historian, the procession was followed by five hundred of his domestics car- rying spices. Why then should it be reckoned incredible, that Nicodemus brought of myrrh BUR and aioes about a hundred pounds’ weight, to embalm the body of Jesus ? 4. The funeral procession was attended by professional mourners, eminently skilled in the art of lamentation, whom the friends and rela- tions of the deceased hired, to assist them in expressing their sorrow. They began the ceremony with the stridulous voices of old women, who strove, by their doleful modula- tions, to extort grief from those that were present. The children in the streets through * which they passed, often suspended their sports, to imitate the sounds, and joined with equal sincerity in the lamentations. “ But where- unto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and call- ing unto their fellows, and saying, We have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented,” Matt. ix, 17. Music was afterward introduced to aid the voices of the mourners: the trumpet was used at the funerals of the great, and the small pipe or flute for those of meaner condi- tion. yee mourners were in use among the Greeks as early as the Trojan war, and proba- bly in ages long before; for in Homer, a choir of moumers were planted around the couch on which the body of Hector was laid out, who sung his funeral dirge with many sighs and tears :— O1 GS énei Ecodyayov wud dupara, Tév piv Exeira Tonrots év Nex éeoor Oécav napa 6 cicuy dowdodrs, Opivey eipyovs. n...d. Jl. lib. xxiv, 1. 720. “A melancholy choir attend around, With plaintive sighs and musi>’s solemn sound ; Alternately they sing, alternate flow The obedient tears, melodious in their wo.”’ Pops. In Egypt, the lower class of people call in women who play on the tabor; and whose business it is, like the hired mourners in other countries, to sing elegiac airs to the sound of that instrument, which they accompany with the most frightful distortions of their limbs. These women attend the corpse to the grave, intermixed with the female relations and friends of the deceased, who commonly have their hair in the utmost disorder; their heads covered with dust; their faces daubed with indigo, or at least rubbed with mud; and howling like maniacs. Such were the minstrels whom our Lord found in the house of Jairus, making so great a noise round the bed on which the dead body of his daughter lay. The noise and tu- mult of these retained mourners, and the other attendants, appear to have begun immediately after the person expired. It is evident that this sort of mourning and lamentation was a kind of art among the Jews: ‘ Wailing shall be in the streets; and they shall call such as are skilful of lamentation to wail,” Amos v, 16. Mourners are still hired at the obsequies of Hindoos and Mohammedans, as in former times. To the dreadful noise and tumult of the hired mourners, the following passage of Jeremiah indisputably refers; and shows the custom to be derived from a very remote anti- quity: “Call for the mourning women that they may come; and send for cunning women, that they may come, and let them make haste, and take up a wailing for us, that our eyes may 186 BUR run down with tears, and our eyelids gush out with waters,” Jer. ix, 17. The funeral pro- cessions of the Jews in Barbary are conducted nearly in the same manner as those in Syria, The corpse is borne by four to the place of burial: in the first rank march the priests next to them the kindred of the deceased; after whom come those that are invited to the fune- ral; and all singing in a sort of plain song, the forty-ninth Psalm. Hence the Prophet, Amos viii, 3, warns his people that public calamities were approaching, so numerous and severe, ag should make them forget the usual rites of burial, and even to sing one of the songs of Zion over the dust of a departed relative, This appears to be confirmed by a prediction in the eighth chapter: “ And the songs of the temple shall be howlings in th® day, saith the Lord God; there shall be many dead bodies in every place; they shall cast them forth with silence ;” they shall have none to lament and bewail; none to blow the funeral trump or touch the pipe and tabor; none to sing the plaintive dirge, or express their hope of a bless- ed resurrection, in the strains of inspiration. All shall be silent despair. See Sepuncurzs. BUSH. mo. This word occurs in Exod. ili, 2,4, and Deut. xxxiii, 16, as the name of the bush in which God appeared to Moses. If it be the yiovds mentioned by Dioscorides, it is the white thorn. Celsius calls it the rubus fructicosus. The number of these bushes in this region seems to have given the name to the mountain Sinai. The word myo, found only in Isa. vii, 19, and there rendered “busk- es,” means fruitful pastures. BUTTER is taken in Scripture, as it has been almost perpetually in the east, for cream or liquid butter, Prov. xxx, 33; 2Sam. xvii, 29, The ancient way of making butter in Arabia and Palestine was probably nearly the same as is still practised by the Bedoween Arabs, and Moors in Barbary, and which is thus described by Dr. Shaw: “ Their method of making but- ter is by putting the milk or cream into a goat’s skin turned inside out, which they suspend from one side of the tent to the other; and then pressing it to and fro in one uniform direction, they quickly separate the unctious and wheyey parts. In the Levant they tread upon the-skin with their feet, which produces the same effect.” The last method of separating the butter from the milk, perhaps may throw light upon a pas- sage in Job of some difficulty: ‘“ When I wash- ed my steps with butter, and the rock poured me out rivers of oil,” Job xxxi, 6. The methed of making butter in the east illustrates the con- duct of Jael, the wife of Heber, described in the book of Judges: “ And Sisera said unto her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water to drink, for Jam thirsty: and she opened a bot- tle of milk, and gave him drink, and covered him.” In the song of Deborah, the statement is repeated: ‘“ He asked water, and she gave him milk; she brought forth butter in a lordly dish,” Judges iv, 19; v, 25. The word mon, which our translators rendered butter, properly signifies cream; which is undoubtedly the meaning of it in this passage: for Sisera com- PORN CAB plained of thirst, and asked a little water to quench it ;—a purpose to which butter is but little adapted. Mr. Harmer, indeed, urges the same objection to cream, which, he contends, few people would think a very proper beverage for one that was extremely thirsty; and con- cludes that it must have been butter-milk which Jael, who had just been churning, gave to Sise- ra. But the opinion of Dr. Russel is prefer- able,—that the hemah of the Scriptures is pro- bably the same as the haymak of the Arabs, which is not, as Harmer supposed, simple cream, but cream produced by simmering fresh sheep’s milk for some hours over a slow fire. It could not be butter newly churned, which Jael presented to Sisera, because the Arab butter is apt to be foul, and is commonly passed through a strainer before it is used : and Russel declares, he never saw butter offered to a stranger, but always haymak ; nor did he ever observe the orientals drink butter-milk, but always leban, which is coagulated sour milk, diluted with wa- ter. It was leban, therefore, which Pococke mistook for butter-milk, with which the Arabs treated him in the Holy Land. A similar con- clusion may be drawn concerning the butter and milk which the wife of Heber presented to Sise- ra: they were forced cream or haymak, and le- ban, or coagulated sour milk, diluted with water, which is a common and refreshing beverage in those sultry regions. In Isaiah vii, 15, butter and honey are mentioned as food which, in Egypt and other places in the east, is in use to this day. The butter and honey are mixed, and the bread is then dipped in it. BYSSUS. By this word we generally un- derstand that fine Egyptian linen of which the priests’ tunics were made. But we must dis- tinguish three kinds of commodities, which are generally comprehended under the name of linen: 1. The Hebrew 12, which signifies linen: 2. vw, which signifies cotton: 3. ya, which is commonly called dussws, and is the silk grow- ing from a certain shell fish, called pinna. We do not find the name duéz in the text of Moses, though the Greek and Latin use the word bys- sus, to signify the fine linen of certain habits belonging to the priests. The word dutz> oc- curs only in 1 Chron. xv, 27; Ezek. xxvii, 16; Esther i, 6. In the Chronicles we see David dressed in a mantle of dutz, with the singers and Levites. Solomon used dutz in the veils of the temple and sanctuary. Ahasuerus’s tents were upheld by cords of butz; and Mordecai was clothed with a mantle of purple and dutz, when king Ahasuerus honoured him with the first employment in his kingdom. Lastly, it is observed that there was a manufacture of butz in the city of Beersheba, in Palestine. This butz must have been different from common linen, since in the same place where it is said, David wore a mantle of byssus, we read like- wise that he had on a linen ephod. CAB, or KAB, a Hebrew measure, contain- ing three pints one third of our wine measure, or two pints five sixths of our corn measure. CABBALA, a mysterious kind of science, delivered to the ancient Jews, as they pretend, 187 CAB by revelation, and transmitted by oral tradition to those of our times; serving for the inter- retation of the books both of nature and cripture. The word is variously written, as Cabala, Caballa, Kabbala, Kabala, Cabalistica, Ars Cabala, and Gaballa. It is originally He- brew, 7923p, and properly signifies reception ; formed from the verb bsp, to receive by tradi- tion, or from father to son; especially in the Chaldee and Rabbinical Hebrew. Cabbala, then, pen denotes any sentiment, opinion, usage, or explication of Scripture, transmitted from father to son. In this sense the word cab- bala is not only applied to the whole art, but also to each operation performed according to the rules of that art. Phus it is, rabbi Jacob Ben Ascher, surnamed Baal-Hatturim, is said to have compiled most of the cabbalas invented on the books of Moses before his time. As to the origin of the cabbala, the Jews relate many marvellous tales. They derive the mysteries contained in it from Adam; and assert, that whilst the first man was in paradise, the angel Raphael brought him a book from heaven, which contained the,doctrines of heavenly wis- dom; and that when Adam received this book, angels came down from heaven to learn its contents; but that he refused to admit them to the knowledge of sacred things, intrusted to himself alone: that, after the fall, this book was taken back into heaven; that, after many prayers and tears, God restored it to Adam; and that it passed from Adam to Seth. The Jewish fables farther relate, that the book being lost, and the mysteries contained in it almost forgotten, in the degenerate age pre- ceding the flood, they were restored by special revelation to Abraham, who transmitted them to writing in the book “Jezirah;” and that the revelation was renewed to Moses, who re- ceived a traditionary and mystical, as weli as a written and preceptive, law from God. Ac- cordingly, the Jews believe that God gave to Moses on Mount Sinai, not only the law, but also the explication of that law; and that Moses, after his coming down, retiring to his tent, rehearsed to Aaron both the one and the other. When he had done, the sons of Aaron, Eleazar and Ithamar, were intro- duced to a second rehearsal. This being over, the seventy elders that composed the sanhedrim were admitted; and, lastly, the eople, as many as pleased; to all of whom oses again repeated both the law and expla- nation, as he received them from God : so that Aaron heard it four times, his sons thrice, the elders twice, and the people once. Now, of the two things which Moses taught them, the laws and the explanation, only the first were committed to writing ; which is what we have in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. As to the second, or the explication of those laws, they were contented to impress it well in their me- mory, to teach it their children; they to theirs, &c. Hence the first part they call simply the law, or the written law; the second, the oral law, or cabbala. Such is the original notion of the cabbala. 2. The cabbala being again lost amidst the CAB calamities of the Babylonish captivity, was once more revealed to Esdras; and it is said to have been preserved in Egypt, and transmitted to posterity through the hands of Simeon Ben Setach, Elkanah, Akibha, Simeon Ben Jochai, and others. The only warrantable inference from these accounts, which bear the obvious marks of fiction, is, that the cabbalistic doctrine obtained early credit among the Jews as a part of their sacred tradition, and was transmitted, under this notion, by the Jews in Egypt to their brethren in Palestine. Under the sanction of ancient names, many fictitious writings were produced, which greatly contributed to the spreading of this mystical system. Among these were ‘ Sepher Happeliah,” or the book of wonders ; ‘“ Sepher Hakkaneh,” or the book of the pen; and “ Sepher Habbahir,” or the book of light. The first unfolds many doctrines said to have been delivered by Elias to the rabbi Elkanah; the second contains mystical com- mentaries on the divine commands; and_ the third illustrates the most sublime mysteries. Among the profound doctors who, beside the study of tradition, cultivated with great indus- try the cabbalistic philosophy, the most cele- brated persons are the rabbis Akibba, who lived soon after the destruction of Jerusalem, and Simeon Ben Jochai, who flourished in the second century. To the*former is ascribed the book entitled ‘‘ Jezirah,” concerning the crea- tion; and to the latter, the book “‘Sohar,” or brightness; and these are the principal sources from which we derive our knowledge of the cabbala. 3. That this system of the cabbalistic philo- sophy, which we may consider as the acroama- tic, esoretic, or concealed doctrine of the Jews, by way of contradistinction from the exoretic or popular doctrine, was not of Hebrew origin, we may conclude with a very great degree of probability, from the total dissimilarity of its abstruse and mysterious doctrines to the simple principles of religion taught in the Mosaic law; and that it was borrowed from the Egyptian schools, will sufficiently appear from a com- parison of its tenets with those of the oriental and Alexandrian philosophy. Many writers have, indeed, imagined that they have found in the cabbalistic dogmas a near resemblance of the doctrines of Christianity; and they have thought that the fundamental principles of this mystical system were derived from divine reve- lation. This opinion, however, may be traced up to a prejudice which originated with the Jews, and passed from them to the Christian fathers, by which they were led to ascribe all Pagan wisdom to a Hebrew origin: a notion which very probably took its rise in Egypt, when Pagan tenets first crept in among the Jews. Philo, Josephus, and other learned Jews, in order to flatter their own vanity, and that of theiy countrymen, industriously propagated this is and the more learned fathers of the hristian church, who entertained a high opinion of the Platonic philosophy, hastily adopted it, from an imagination that if they sonld trace back the most valuable doctrines of Paganism to a Hebrew origin, this could 188 CAB not fail to recommend the Jewish and Christian religions to the attention of the Gentile phi- losophers. Many learned moderns, relying implicitly upon these authorities, have main- tained the same opinion; and have thence been inclined to credit the report of the divine ori- ginal of the Jewish cabbala. But the opinion is unfounded; and the cabbalistic sysiem is essentially inconsistent with the pure doctrine of divine revelation. The true state of the case seems to be, that during the prophetic ages, the traditions of the Jews consisted in a simple ex- planation of those divine truths which the pro- phets delivered, or their law exhibited, under the veil of emblems. After this period, when the sects of the Essenes and Therapeute were formed in Egypt, toreign tenets and institu- tions were borrowed from the Egyptians and Greeks; and, in the form of allegorical inter- pretations of the law, were admitted into what might then be called the Jewish mysteries, or secret doctrines. These innovations chiefly consisted in certain dogmas concerning God and divine things, at this time received in the Egyptian schools; particularly at Alexandria, where the Platonic and Pythagorean doctrines on these subjects had been blended with the oriental philosophy. The Jewish mysteries, thus enlarged by the accession of Pagan dog- mas, were conveyed from Egypt to Palestine, at the time when the Pharisees, who had been driven into Egypt under Hyrcanus, returned with many other Jews into their own country. From this time the cabbalistic mysteries con- tinued to be taught in the Jewish schools; but at length they were adulterated by a mixture of Peripatetic doctrines, and other tenets. ‘These mysteries were not, probably, reduced to any systematic forms in writing, till after the dis- persion of the Jews; when, in consequence of their national calamities, they became a hensive that those sacred treasures would be corrupted or lost. In preceding periods, the cabbalistic doctrines underwent various cor- ruptions, particularly from the prevalence of the Aristotelian philosophy. The similarity, or rather the coincidence, of the cabbalistic, Alexandrian, and oriental philosophy, will be sufficiently evinced by briefly stating the com- mon tenets in which these different systems agreed. They are as follow :—‘ All things are derived by emanation from one principle; and this principle is God. From him a substantial power immediately proceeds, which is the image of God, and the source of all subsequent emana- tions. This second principle sends forth, b the energy of emanation, other natures, whic are more or less perfect, according to their different degrees of distance, in the scale of emanation, from the first source of existence, and which constitute different worlds or orders of being, all united to the eternal power from which they proceed. Matter is nothing more than the most remote effect of the emanative energy of the Deity. The material world receives its form from the immediate agency of powers far beneath the first source of being. Evil is the necessary effect of the imperfection of matter. Human souls are distant emana CAB tions from Deity; and, after they are liberated from their material vehicles, will return, through various stages of purification, to the fountain whence they first proceeded.” From this brief view it appears, that the cabbalistic system, which is the offspring of the other two, is a fanatical kind of philosophy, originating in defect of judgment and eccentricity of imagi- nation, and tending to produce a wild and per- nicious enthusiasm. 4. Among the explications of the law which are furnished by the cabbala, and which, in reality, are little else but the several interpre- tations and decisions of the rabbins on the laws of Moses, some are mystical; consisting of odd abstruse significations given to a word, or even to the letters whereof it is composed: whence, by different combinations, they draw meanings from Scripture very different from those it seems naturally to import. The art of interpreting Scripture after this manner is call- ed more particularly cabéala ; and it is in this last sense the word is more ordinarily used among us. This cabbala, called also artificial cabbala, to distinguish it from the first kind, or simple tradition, is divided into three sorts. The first, called gematria, consists in taking letters as figures, or arithmetical numbers, and explaining each word by the arithmetical value of the letters whereof it is composed ; which is done various ways: the second is called nota- ricon, and consists either in taking each letter of a word for an entire diction, or in making one entire diction out of the initial letters of many: the third kind, called themurah, that is, changing, consists in changing and transposing the letters of a word; which is done various ways. The generality of the Jews prefer the cabbala to the literal Scripture; comparing the former to the sparkling lustre of a precious stone, and the latter to the fainter glimmering of acandle. ‘The cabbala only differs from masorah, as the latter denotes the science of reading the Scripture; the former, of interpret- ing it. Both are supposed to have been handed down from generation to generation by oral tradition only, till at length the readings were fixed by the vowels and accents, as the inter- pretations were by the gemara. 5. Cabbala is also applied to the use, or rather abuse, which visionaries and enthusi- asts make of Scripture, for discovering futurity by the study and consideration of the combi- nation of certain words, letters, and numbers, in the sacred writings. All the words, terms, magic figures, numbers, letters, charms, &c, used in the Jewish magic, as also in the her- metical science, are comprised under this spe- cies of cabbala; which professes to teach the art of curing diseases, and performing other wonders, by means of certain_arrangements of sacred letters and words. But it is only the Christians that call it by this name, on account of the resemblance this art bears to the explications of the Jewish cabbala: for the Jews never used the word cabbala in any such sense; but ever with the utmost respect and veneration. It is not, however, the magic of the Jews alone which we call cab- 189 CHS bala: but the word is also used for any kina of magic. CABUL, the name which Hiram, king of Tyre, gave to the twenty cities in the land of Galilee, of which Solomon made him a present, in acknowledgment for the great services in building the temple, 1 Kings ix, 31. These cities not being agreeable @ Hiram, on view- ing them, he called them the land of Cabul, which in the Hebrew tongue denotes displeas- ing ; others take it to signify binding or adhe- sive, from the clayey nature of the soil. CAESAR, a title borne by all the Roman emperors till the destruction of the empire. It took its rise from the surname of the first em- peror, Caius Julius Cesar; and this title, by a decree of the senate, all the succeeding empe- rors were to bear. In Scripture, the reigning emperor is generally mentioned by the name of Cesar, without expressing any other distinc- tion: so in Matt. xxii, 21,“ Render unto Cesar,” &c, Tiberius is meant; and in Acts xxv, 10, “T appeal unto Cesar,” Nero is intended. CASSARBEA, a city and port of Palestine, built by Herod the Great, and thus called in honour of Augustus Cesar. It was on the site of the tower of Stratb. This city, which wae six hundred furlongs from Jerusalem, is often mentioned in the New Testament. Here it was that Herod Agrippa was smitten of the Lord for not giving God the glory, when the people were so extravagant in his praise. Cor- nelius the centurion, who was baptized by St. Peter, resided here, Acts x, 1, &c; and also Philip the deacon, with his four maiden daugh- ters. At Casarea the Prophet Agabus foretold that Paul would be bound and persecuted at Jerusalem. Lastly, the Apostle himself con- tinued two years a prisoner at Caesarea, till he was conducted to Rome. When Judea was reduced to the state of a Roman province, Cesarea became the stated residence of the proconsul, which accounts for the circumstance of Paul being carried thither from Jerusalem, to defend himself. Dr. E. D. Clarke’s remarks upon this once celebrated city will be read with interest : ‘On the 15th of July, 1801, we embarked, after sun- set, for Acre, to avail ourselves of the land wind, which blows during the night, at this season of the year. By day break, the next morning, we were off the coast of Cesarea; and so near with the land that we could very distinctly perceive the appearance of its numer- ous and extensive ruins.’ The remains of this city, although still considerable, have long been resorted to as a quarry, whenever build- ing materials are required at Acre. Djezzar Pacha brought from hence the columns of rare and beautiful marble, as well as the other orna- ments of his palace, bath, fountain, and mosque, at Acre. The place at present is inhabited only by jackals and beasts of prey. As we were becalmed during the night, we heard the cries of these animals until day break. Po- cocke mentions the curious fact of the former existence of crocodiles in the river of Czsarea. Perhaps there has not been in the history of the world an example of any city, that in so CES short 9 spuce of time rose to such an extraor- dinary height of splendour as did this of Cesa- rea; or that exhibits a more awful contrast to its former magnificence, by the present deso- late appearance of its ruins. Nota single in- habitant remains. Its theatres, once resound- ing with the shouts of multitudes, echo no other sound than @e nightly cries of animals roaming for their prey. Of its gorgeous palaces and temples, enriched with the choic- est works of art, and decorated with the most precious marbles, scarcely a trace can be dis- cerned. Within the space of ten years after laying the foundation, from an obscure fortress, it became the most celebrated and flourishing city of all Syria. It was named Caesarea by Herod, in honour of Augustus, and dedicated by him to that emperor, in the twenty-eighth year of his reign. Upon this occasion, that the ceremony might be rendered illustrious, by a degree of profusion unknown in any former instance, Ped assembled the most skilful musicians, wrestlers, and gladiators, from all parts of the world. This solemnity was to be renewed every fifth year. But, as we viewed the ruins of this memorable city, every other circumstance respecting its history was absorb- ed in the consideration that we were actually beholding the very spot where the scholar of Tarsus, after two years’ imprisonment, made that eloquent appeal, in the audience of the king of Judea, which must ever be remember- ed with piety and delight. In the history of the actions of the holy Apostles, whether we regard the internal evidence of the narrative, or the interest excited by a story so wonder- fully appalling to our passions and affections, there is nothing that we call to mind with ful- ler emotions of sublimity and satisfaction. ‘In the demonstration of the Spirit and of power,’ the mighty advocate for the Christian faith had before ‘reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come,’ till the Roman govern- or, Felix, trembled as he spoke. Not all the oratory of Tertullus; not the clamour of his numerous adversaries; not even the counte- nance of the most profligate of tyrants, availed against the firmness and intrepidity of the oracle of God. The judge had trembled be- fore his prisoner; and now a second occasion offered, in which, for the admiration and the triumph of the Christian world, one of the bitterest persecutors of the name of Christ, and a Jew, appeals, in the public tribunal of a large and populous city, to all its chiefs and its rulers, its governor and its king, for the truth of his conversion founded on the highest evi- dence.” CASAREA PHILIPPI was first called Laish or Leshem, Judg. xviii, 7. After it was subdued by the Danites, Judg. v, 29, it received the name of Dan; and is by Heathen writers called Paneas. Philip, the youngest son of Herod the Great, made it the capital of his tetrarchy, enlarged and embellished it, and gave it the name of Cesarea Philippi. It was situated at the foot of Mount Hermon, near the head of the Jordan; and was about fifty miles from Damascus, and thirty from Tyre. Our 190 CAI Saviour visited and taught in this place, and healed one who was possessed of an evil spirit: here also he gave the memorable rebuke to Peter, Mark vin. CAIAPHAS, high pricst of the Jews, suc- ceeded Simon, son of Cayaith; and after pos. sessing this dignity nine years, from A. M. 4029 to 4038, he was succeeded by Jonathan, son of Ananas, or Annas. Caiaphas was high priest, A. M. 4037, which was the year of Jesus Christ’s death. He married a daughter of An. nas, who also is called high priest in the Gos- pel, because he had long enjoyed that dignity. ‘When the priests deliberated on the seizure and death of Jesus Christ, Caiaphas declared, that there was no room for debate on that matter, ‘“ because it was expedient that one man should die for the people, that the whole nation should not perish,” John xi, 49, 50. This sentiment was a prophecy, which God suffered to proceed from the mouth of the high priest on this occasion, importing, that the death of Jesus would be for the salvation of the world. When Judas had betrayed Jesus, he was first taken before Annas, who sent him to his son-in-law, Caiaphas, who possibly lived in the same house, John xviii, 24. The priests and doctors of the law there assembled to judge our Saviour, and to condemn him. The depo- sitions of certain false witnesses being insuffi- cient to justify a sentence of death against him, and Jesus continuing silent, Caiaphas, as high priest, said to him, “ I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God!” To this adjuration, so solemnly made by the superior judge, Jesus answered, “‘ Thou hast said; nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” On hearing these words, Caiaphas rent his clothes, saying, ‘““What farther need have we of witnesses ? Behold, now you have heard his blasphemy. What think ye?” They answered, “He is worthy of death.” And as the power of life and death was not at this time in their hands, but was reserved by the Romans, they conducted him to Pilate, that he might confirm their sen- tence, and order his execution. Two years after this, Vitellus, governor of Syria, coming to Jerusalem at the passover, was received very magnificently by the people. As an acknowledgment for this honour, he restored the custody of the high priest’s orna- ments to the priests, he remitted certain duties raised on the fruits of the earth, and deposed the high priest Caiaphas. From this it appears that Caiaphas had fallen under popular odium, for his deposition was to gratify the people. CAIN, the eldest son of Adam and Eve. He was the first man who had been a child, and the first man born of woman. For his history, as connected with that of Abel, see Abel. The curse pronounced upon Cain, on account of his fratricide, is thus expressed: “ And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is thy brother Abel? And he said, 1 know not: am I my brother’s keeper? And God said, What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother’s blood CAL crieth unto me from the ground. And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand. When thou ullest it, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee its strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. And Cain said unto the Lord, My unishment is greater than I can bear. Be- hold thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth,” meaning, probably, from his own native district, and from the presence of his kindred, “and from thy face shall I be hid ;” by which he probably intended the divine glory, or Shekinah, whose appearance sancti- fied the place of primitive worship, and was the pledge of acceptance and protection. The mark set upon Cain “lest any one finding him should kill him,” has been variously interpreted. Some have a it a change in the colour of his skin, others a certain horror of counte- nance. The LXX. understood the passage to mean, that the Lord gave him a sign, to assure him that his life should be preserved. Wuat- ever it was, its object was not tu aggravate, but to mitigate, his punishmert, which may intimate that Cain had manifested repentance. Cain, being thus barished from the presence of the Lord, retired into the land of Nod, lying east from the province of Eden. While he dwelt in this country, which is generally under- stood to be Susiana, or Chusistan, he had a son, whom he named Enoch, in memory of whom he built a city of the same name. This is all we learn from Scripture concerning Cain. CAKE. See Brean. CALAH, a city of Assyria, built by Ashur, Gen. x, 12. From it the adjacent country, on the north-east of the Tigris, and south of the Gordian mountains of Armenia, was called Callachene, or Callacine. CALAMUS, mp Exod. xxx, 23; Cantic. iv, 14; Isa. xliii, 24; Jer. vi, 20; Ezek. xxvii, 19. An aromatic reed, growing in moist places in Egypt, in Judea near lake Genezareth, and in several parts of Syria. It grows to about two feet in height; bearing from the root a knotted stalk, quite round, containing in its cavity a soft white pith, The whole is of an agreeable aromatic smell; and the plant is said to scent the air with a fragrance even while growing. When cut down, dried, and pow- dered, it makes an ingredient in the richest erfumes. It was used for this purpose by the ews. Catamus Scriprorius, a reed answering the purpose of a pen to write with. The ancients used styles, to write on tablets covered with wax; but reeds, to write on parchment or papyrus. The Psalmist says, ‘‘ My tongue is the pen of a ready writer,” xlv, 1. The He- brew signifies rather a style. The third book of Maccabees states, that the writers employed in making a list of the Jews in Egypt, produc- ed their reeds quite worn out. Baruch wrote nis prophecies with ink, Jer. xxxvi, 4; and, consequently, used reeds; for it does not ap- ear that quills were then used to write with. n third John 13, the Apostle says, he did not design to write with pen (reed) and ink. The 191 CAL Arabians, Persians, Turks, Greeks, and Arme« nians, to this day, write with reeds or rushes. CALEB, the son of Jephunneh, of the tribe of Judah, was one of those who accompanied Joshua, when he was deputed by Moses to view the land of Canaan, which the Lord had pro- mised them for an inheritance, Num. xiii. ‘The deputies sent on this occasion were twelve in number, selected one out of each of the tribes, and they performed their commission with great promptitude and skill; they traversed the country in every direction, bringing with them, on their return, some of its finest faites for the inspection of their brethren. Some of them, however, after making the report of the beauty and goodness of the country, which they de- scribed to be a land flowing with milk and honey, added, that the inhabitants of it were remarkable for their strength, while its cities were large and enclosed with walls. These latter particu'urs hav ug excited & spirit of nvur- muring among the Israelites, Caleb endeavour- ed to animate their courage by dwelling upon the fertility of the country, and exhorting them to go boldly and take possession of it. Others, however, dissuaded the people from making the attempt, assuring them that they would never make themselves masters of it. We have seen giants there, said they, in comparison of whom we were as grasshoppers; on which the people declared against the project, and intimated their wish to return again into Egypt. Moses and Aaron no sooner heard this than they fell upon their faces before the whole congrega- tion, and Joshua and Caleb rent their clothes, imploring them to take courage and march boldly on; since, if God were with them, they might easily make a conquest of the whole land. So exasperated, however, were the mul- titude, that they were proceeding to stone Caleb and Joshua, when the glory of the Lord appeared upon the tabernacle, and threatened their extermination. Moses, having fervently interceded for them, the Lord graciously heard his prayer; but though he was pleased not to destroy them immediately, he protested with an oath, that none of those who had murmured against him should see the land of Canaan, but that they should all die in the wilderness. “As for my servant Caleb,” it was added, “who hath faithfully followed me, him will I bring into the land, and he shall possess it, he and his children after him,” Num. xiv, 1-24. Joshua also obtained a similar exception, verses 30, 38. When Joshua had entered the pro- mised land, and conquered a considerable part of it, Caleb, with the people of his tribe, came to meet him at Gilgal, and finding that he was about to divide the land among the twelve tribes, Caleb petitioned to have the country which was inhabited by the giants allotted to him, on which Joshua blessed him and granted his request. Assisted by a portion of his tribe, he marched against Hebron, and slew the children of Anak: thence he proceeded to Debir, and finding the place almost impregna- ble, he offered his daughter Achsah in marriage to the hero that should take it. This was done bv his nephew Othniel, who in corsequence CAL obtained Achsah, with a considerable portion also of territory. We are not informed of the articular time or mauner of the death of Ca- eb; but by his three sons, Iru, Elah, and Naam, he had a numerous posterity, who main- tained an honourable rank among their bre- thren. Sec Num. xiii, xiv, Josh. xiv, 6-15; xv, 13-19 ; Judges i, 9-15; 1 Chron. iv, 15-20. CALF, ‘ay. The young of the ox kind. There is frequent mention in Scripture of calves, because they were made use of com- monly in sacrifices. The “ fatted calf,” men- tioned in several places, as in 1 Sam. xxviii, 24, and Luke xv, 23, was stall fed, with special reference to a particular festival or extraordi- nary sacrifice. The “calves of the lips,” mentioned by Hosea, xiv, 2, signify the sacri- fices of praise which the captives of Babylon addressed to God, being no longer in a condi- tion to offer sacrifices in his temple. The Septuagint render it the “ fruit of the lips ;” and their reading is followed by the Syriac, and by the Apostle to the Hebrews, xui, 15. The “golden calf” was an idol set up and pei ae by the Israelites at the foot of mount Sinai in their passage through the wil- derness to the land of Canaan. Having been conducted through the wilderness by a pillar of cloud and fire, which preceded them in their marches, while Moses was receiving the divine commands that cloud covered the mountain, and they probably imagined that it would no longer be their guide; and, therefore, applied to Aaron to make for them a sacred sign or symbol, as other nations had, which might visibly represent God. ‘With this request, preferred tumultuously, and in a menacing manner, Aaron in a moment of weakness com- lied. The image thus formed is supposed to ave been like the Egyptian deity, Apis, which was an ox, an animal used in agriculture, and so a symbol of the God who presided over their fields, or of the productive power of the Deity. The means by which Moses reduced the golden calf to powder, so that when mixed with water he made the people drink it, in contempt, has uzzled commentators. Some understand that he did this by a chemical process, then well known, but now a secret; others, that he beat it into gold leaf, and then separated this into ibe so fine, as to be easily potable; others, that e reduced it by filing. The account says, that he took the calf, burned it to powder, and mixed the powder with water; from which it is probable, as several Jewish writers have thought, that the calf was not wholly made of gold, but of wood, covered with a profusion of gold ornaments cast and fashioned for the occasion. For this reason it obtained the epithet golden, as afterward some ornaments of the temple were called, which we know were only overlaid with gold. It would in that case be enough to reduce the wood to powder in the fire, which would also blacken and deface the golden ornaments; but there is no need to suppose they were also reduced to powder. It is piain from Aaron’s proclaiming a fast to Jehovah, Exod. xxxii, 4, and from the worship of Jeroboam’s calves being so expressly 192 CAL distinguished from that of Baal, 2 Kings x, 28-31, that both Aaron and Jeroboam meant the calves they formed and set_up for worship to be emblems of Jehovah. Nevertheless, the inspired Psalmist speaks of Aaron’s calf with the utmost abhorrence, and declares that, by worshipping it, they forgat God their Saviour, (see 1 Cor. x, 9,) who had wrought so many miracles for them, and that for this crime God threatened to destroy them, Psalm cvi, 19-24; Exod. xxxii, 10; and St. Stephen calls it plainly ciéwdov, an idol, Acts vil, 41. As for Jeroboam, after he had, for political reasons, 1 Kings xii, 27, &c, made a schism in the Jew- ish church, and set up two calves in Dan and Bethel, as objects of worship, he is scarcely ever mentioned in Scripture but with a particu- lar stigma set upon him: “ Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin.” CALL, to name a person or thing, Acts xi, 26; Rom. vii, 3. 2. To cry to another for help; and hence, to pray. ‘he first passage in the Old Testament in which we meet with this phrase, is Gen. iv, 26, where we read, “Then began men to call on the name of the Lord,” or Jehovah; the meaning of which seems to be, that they then first began to wor- ship him in public assemblies. In both the Old and New Testament, to call upon the name of the Lord, imports invoking the true God in prayer, with a confession that he is Je- hovah, that is, with an acknowledgment of his essential and incommunicable attributes. In this view the phrase is applied to the worship of Christ. CALLING, a term in theology, which is taken in a different sense by the advocates and the impugners of the Calvinistic doctrine of grace. By the former it is thus stated: In the golden chain of spiritual blessings which the Apostle enumerates in Rom. viii, 30, originat- ing in the divine predestination, and terminat- ing in the bestowment of eternal glory on the heirs of salvation, that of calling forms an im- portant link. ‘“ Moreover, whom he did pre- destinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also glorified.” Hence we read of ‘‘ the called according to his purpose,” Rom. viii, 28. There is indeed a universal call of the Gospel to all men; for wherever it comes it is the voice of God to those who hear it, calling them to repent and believe the divine testimony unto the salvation of their souls; and it leaves them inexcusable in rejecting it, John iii, 14-19; but this universal call is not inseparably connected with salvation ; for it is in reference to it that Christ says, ‘‘ Many wre called, but few are chosen,” Matt. xxii, 14. But the Scripture also speaks of a calling which is effectual, and which consequently is more than the outward ministry of the world; yea, more than some of its partial and temporary effects upon many who hear it, for it is always as- cribed to God’s making his word eflectua through the enlightening and sanctifying in- fluences of his Holy Spirit. Thus it is said, “Paul may plant, and Apollos water, but God iveth the increase,” 1 Cor. iii, 6,7 Again, e is said to have ‘‘ opened the heart of Lydie, CAL that she attended to the doctrine of Paul,” Acts xvi, 14. “No man can come unto Christ, ex- cept the Father draw him,” John vi, 44. Hence faith is said to be the gift of God, Eph. ii, 8; Phil. i, 29. The Spirit takes of the things of Christ and shows them to men, John xvi, 14; and thus opens their eyes, turning them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, Acts xxvi, 18. And so God saves his people, not by works of righteousness which they have done, but according to his mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, Titus iii, 5. Thus they are saved, and called with a holy calling, not ac- cording to their works, but according to the divine purpose and grace which was given them in Christ Jesus before the world began, 2Tim.i,9. 2. To this it is replied, that this whole state- ment respecting a believer’s calling is without any support from the Scriptures, and is either a misunderstanding, or a misapplication of their sense. “To call” signifies to invite to the bless- ings of the Gospel, to offer salvation through Christ, either by God himself, or, under his appointment, by his servants; and in the pa- rable of the marriage of the king’s son, Matt. xxii, 1-14, which appears to have given rise, in many instances, to the use of this term in the Epistles, we have three descriptions of “called” or invited persons. First, the dis- obedient, who would not come in at the call, but made light of it. Second, the class of per- sons represented by the man who, when the king came in. to see his guests, had not on the wedding garment; and with respect to whom our Lord makes the general remark, “ For many are called, but few are chosen;” so that the persons thus represented by this individual culprit were not only “called,” but actually came into the company. Third, the approved guests; those who were both called and chosen. As far as the simple calling or invitation is concerned, all these three classes stood upon equal ground—all were invited; and it depend- ed upon their choice and conduct whether they embraced the invitation, and were admitted as guests. We have nothing here to countenance the notion of what is termed “ effectual calling.” This implies an irresistible influence exerted upon all the approved guests, but withheld from the disobedient, who could not, therefore, be otherwise than disobedient; or at most could only come in without that wedding garment, which it was never put into their power to take out of the king’s wardrobe; and the want of which would necessarily exclude them, if not from the church on earth, yet from the church in heaven. The doctrine of Christ’s parables is in entire contradiction to this notion of irre- sistible influence; for they who refused, and they who complied but partially with the call- ing, are represented, not merely as being left without the benefit of the feast, but as incur- ring additional guilt and condemnation for refusing the mvitation. It is to this offer of salvation by the Gospel, this invitation to spi- ritual and eternal benefits, that St. Peter ap- pears to refer, when he says, “ For the PROMISE is unto you and to we children, and to all that 193 CAL are afar off, even as many as the Lord our Goa shall cauu,” Acts ii, 39; a passage which de- clares ‘‘the promise” to be as extensive as the “calling ;” in other words, as the offer or invi- tation. To this also St. Paul refers, Rom. i, 5, 6: “By whom we have received grace and Apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name;” that is, to publish his Gospel, in order to bring all nations to the obedience of faith; ‘ among whom ye are also the caLLep of Jesus Christ ;” you at Rome have heard the Gospel, and have been invited to sal- vation in consequence of this design. This promulgation of the Gospel, by the personal ministry of the Apostle, under the name of calling, is also referred to in Gal. i, 6: “I mar- vel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ,” obviously meaning, that it was he himself who had called them, by his preaching, to embrace the grace of Christ. So also in chap. v, 13: “ For, bre- thren, ye have been called unto liberty.” Again: 1 Thess. ii, 12: “ That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath caLLED you,” invited you, “to his kingdom and glory.” 3. In our Lord’s parable it will also be ob- served, that the persons called are not invited as separate individuals to partake of solitary blessings; but they are called to “a feast,” into acompany or society, before whom the banquet is spread. The full revelation of the transfer of the visible church of Christ from Jews by birth, to believers of all nations, was not, how- ever, then made. When this branch of the evangelic system was fully revealed to- the Apostles, and taught by them to others, that part of the meaning of our Lord’s parable which was not at first developed was more Pewee discovered to his inspired followers. The call- ing of guests to the evangelical feast, we then more fully learn, was not the mere calling of men to partake of spiritual benefits; but call- ing them also to form a spiritual society com- posed of Jews and Gentiles, the believing men of all nations; to have a common fellowship in these blessings, and to be formed into this fellowship for the purpose of increasing their number, and diffusing the benefits of salvation among the people or nation to which they re- spectively belonged. The invitation, “ the calling,” of the first preachers was to all who heard them in Rome, in Ephesus, in Corinth, and other places; and those who embraced it, and joined themselves to the church by faith, baptism, and continued public profession, were named, especially and eminently, “the called,” because of their obedience to the invitation. They not only put in their claim to the bless- ings of Christianity individually, but became members of the new church, that spiritual so- ciety of believers which God now visibly owned as his people. As they were thus called into a common fellowship by the Gospel, this is sometimes termed their “vocation ;” as the object of this church state was to promote “holiness,” it is termed a “‘ holy vocation ;” as sanctity was required of the members, they are said to have been “called to be saints;” as the- final result was, through the mercy of God, to CAL be eternal life, we hear of “the hope of their calling,” and of their being “called to his eter- nal glory by Christ Jesus.’ 4, These views will abundantly explain the various passages in which the term calling oc- curs in the Epistles: “Even us whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles,” Rom. ix, 24; that is, whom he hath made members of his church through faith. “ But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God;” the wisdom and efficacy of the Gospel being, of course, acknowledged in their very profession of Christ, in opposition to those to whom the preaching of “ Christ cru- cified” was “a stumbling block,” and ‘“ fool- ishness,” 1 Cor. i, 24. “Is any man called,” (brought to acknowledge Christ, and to become a member of his church,) ‘“ being circumcised ? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision ? let him not be cir- eumcised,” 1 Cor. vii, 18. “That ye walk worthy of the vocation, wherewith ye are called. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling,” Eph. iv, 1, 4. “That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you to his kingdom and glory,” 1 Thess. i, 13. “Through sanctifi- cation of the Spirit, and belief of the truth, whereunto he called you by our Gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ,” 2 Thess. ii, 13, 14.“ Who hath saved us and salled us with a holy calling; not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Je- sus before the world began; but is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ,” 2 ‘Tim, i,9,10. On this passage we may remark, that the “calling,” and the “ purpose” mentioned in it, must of necessity be inter- preted to refer to the establishment of the church on the principle of faith, so that it might include men of all nations; and not, as formerly, be restricted to natural descent. For personal election, and a purpose of effectual per- sonal calling, could not have been hidden till manifested by the “‘ appearing of Christ;” since every instance of true conversion to God in any age prior to the appearing of Christ, would be as much a manifestation of eternal election, and an instance of personal effectual calling, according to the Calvinistic scheme, as it was after the appearance of Christ. The Apostle is speaking of a purpose of God, which was kept secret till revealed by the Christian sys- tem ; and, from various other parallel passages, we learn that this secret, this “ mystery,” as he often calls it, was the union of the Jews and Gentiles in “‘ one body,” or church, by faith. 5. In none of these passages is the doctrine of the exclusive calling of a set number of men contained; and the synod of Dort, as though they felt this, only attempt to infer the doctrine from a text already quoted ; but which we will now more fully notice: ‘ Whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he alse glorified,” ‘Rom, viii, 30. This is the text on which the 194 CAL Calvinists chiefly rest their doctrine of effect. ual calling ; and tracing it, as they say, through its steps and links, they conclude, that a set and determinate number of persons having been predestinated unto salvation, this set number only are called effectually, then justi- fied, and finally glorified. But this passage was evidently nothing to the purpose, unless it had spoken of a set and determinate number of men as predestinated and called, independ- ent of any consideration of their faith and obedience; which number as being determi- nate, would, by consequence, exclude the rest, The context declares that those who are fore- known, and predestinated to eternal glory, are true believers, those who “love God,” as stated in a subsequent verse; for of such only the Apostle speaks; and when he adds, “ More- over, whom he did predestinate, them he also called ; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he als¢ glorified ;” he shows in particular how the divine eee to glorify believers is carried into effect, through all its stages. The great instrument of bringing men to “ love God” is the Gospel; they are, therefore, called, invited by it, to this state and benefit; the calling be- ing obeyed, they are justified; and being justi- fied, and continuing in that state of grace, they are glorified. Nothing, however, is here said to favour the conclusion, that many others who were called by the Gospel, but refused, might not have been justified and glorified as well as they ; nothing to distinguish this calling into common and effectual: and the very guilt which those are every where represented as contracting who despised the Gospel ae shows that they reject a grace which is suffi- cient, and sincerely intended, to save them. CALNEH, a city in the land of Shinar, built by Nimrod, and one of the cities mentioned Conese x, 10, as belonging to his kingdom. It is believed to be the same with Calno, men- tioned in Isa. x,9. It is said by the Chaldee interpreters, as also by Eusebius and Jerom, to be the same with Ctesiphon, standing upon the Tigris, about three miles distant from Seleucia, and that for some time it was the capital city of the Parthians. Bochart, Wells, and Michaé- lis, agree in this opinion. CALVARY, or, as it is called in Hebrew, Golgotha, “ a skull,” or “ place of skulls,” sup- posed to be thus denominated from the simili- tude it bore to the figure of a skull or man’s head, or from its being a place of burial. It was a small eminence or hill to the north o Mount Sion, and to the west of old Jerusalem, upon which our Lord was crucified. The an- cient summit of Calvary has been much altered, by reducing its level in some parts, and raising it in others, in order to bring it within the area of a large and irregular building, called “ The Church of the Holy Sepulchre,” which now occupies its site. But in doing this, care has been taken that none of the parts connected with the crucifixion should suffer any altera- tion. The same building also encloses within its spacious walls several other places reputed sacred. The places which claim the chief at- CAL traction of the Christian visitant of this church, and those only perhaps which can be relied on, are, the spot on which the crucifixion took place, and the sepulchre in which our Lord was afterward laid. The first has been pre- served without mutilation: being a piece of ground about ten yards square, in its original position; and so high above the common floor of the church, that there are, according to Chateaubriand, twenty-one steps to ascend up vo it. Mr. Buckingham describes the present mount as a rock, the summit of which is as- cended by a steep flight of eighteen or twenty steps from the common level of the church, which is equal with that of the street without; and beside this, there is a descent of thirty steps, from the level of the church, into the chapel of St. Helena, and by eleven more to the place where the cross was said to be found. On this little mount is shown the hole in which the cross was fixed; and near it the position of the crosses of the two thieves: one, the penitent, on the north; and the other on the south. Here, also, is shown a cleft in the rock, said to have been caused by the earthquake which happened at the crucifixion. The se- pulchre, distant, according to Mr. Jolliffe, forty-three yards from the cross, presents rather a singular and unexpected appearance to a stranger; who, for such a place, would naturally expect to find an excavation in the ground, instead of which, he perceives it alto- ae raised, as if artificially, above its level. he truth is, that in the alterations which were made on Calvary, to bring all the principal places within the projected church, the earth around the sepulchre was dug away; so that, what was originally a cave in the earth has now the appears of a closet or grotto above ground. ‘The sepulchre itself is about six feet square and eight high. There is a solid block of the stone left in excavating the rock, about two feet and a half from the floor, and running along the whole of the inner side; on which the body of our Lord is said to have been laid. This, as well as the rest of the sepulchre, is now faced with marble: partly from the false taste which prevailed in the early ages of Chris- tianity, in disguising with profuse and ill-suited embellishments the spots rendered memorable in the history of its Founder; and partly, per- haps, to preserve it from the depredations of the visitants. This description of the holy sepulchre will but ill-accord with the notions entertained by some ee readers of a grave; but a cave or grotto, thus excavated in rocky ground, on the side of a hill, was the common receptacle for the dead among the eastern na- tions. Such was the tomb of Christ; such that of Lazarus; and such are the sepulchres still found in Judea and the east. It maybe useful farther to observe, that it was customary with Jews of property to provide a sepulchre of this kind on their own ground, as the place of their inter- ment after death; and it appears that Calvary itself, or the ground immediately around it, was occupied with gardens; one of which be- longed to Joseph of Arimathea, who had then recentiy caused a new sepulchre to be made 195 CAL for himself. It was this sepulchre, so close at hand, and so appropriate, which he resigned for the use of our (onl: little thinking perhaps. at the time, how soon it would again be eft vacant for its original purpose by his glorious resurrection. CALVINISM, that scheme of doctrine on predestination and grace, which was taught by Calvin, the celebrated reformer, in the early part of the sixteenth century. His opinions are largely opened in the third book of his “Institutes:” ‘‘ Predestination we call the eternal decree of God; by which he hath de- termined in himself what he would have to become of every individual of mankind. For they are not all created with similar destiny ; but eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal damnation for others. Every man, therefore, being created for one or other of these ends, we say, he is predestinated, either to life, or to death.” After having spoken of the elec- tion of the race of Abraham, and then of par- ticular branches of that race, he proceeds: “Though it is sufficiently clear, that God, in his secret counsel, freely chooses whom he will, and rejects others, his gratuitous election is but half displayed till we come to particular individuals, to whom God not only offers sal- vation, but assigns it in such a manner that the certainty of the effect is liable to no sus- pense or doubt.” He sums up the chapter, in which he thus generally states the doctrine, ir these words: “In conformity, therefore, to the clear doctrine of the Scripture, we assert, that. by an eternal and immutable counsel, God hath once for all determined both whom he would admit to salvation, and whom he would con demn to destruction. We affirm that this coun- sel, as far as concerns the elect, is founded on his gratuitous mercy, totally irrespective of hu- man merit; but that to those whom he devotes to condemnation, the gate of life is closed by a just and irreprehensible, but incomprehensible, judgment. In the elect, we consider calling as an evidence of election; and justification as another token of its manifestation, till they arrive in glory, which constitutes its comple- tion. As God seals his elect by vocation and justification, so by excluding the reprobate from the knowledge of his name, and sanctification of his Spirit, he affords another indication of the judgment that awaits them,” chap. 21, book iii. 2. In the commencement of the following chapter he thus rejects the notion that predes- tination is to be understood as resulting from God’s foreknowledge of what would be the conduct of either the elect or the reprobate: “Jt is a notion commonly entertained, that God, foreseeing what would be the respective merits of every individual, makes a corres- pondent distinction between different persons; that he adopts as his children such as he fore- knows will ie deserving of his grace; and de- votes to the damnation of death others, whose dispositions he sees will be inclined to wicked- ness and impiety. Thus they not only obscure election by covering it with the veil of fore- knowledge, but pretend that it originates in another cause,” book iii, chap. 22. Consist- CAL ently with this, he a little farther on asserts, that election does not flow from holiness, but holiness from election: ‘“‘ For when it is said, that the faithful are elected that they should be holy, it is fully implied, that the holiness they were in future to possess had its origin in election.” He proceeds to quote the ex- ample of Jacob and Esau, as loved and hated before they had done good or evil, to show that the only reason of election and reprobation is to be placed in God’s “secret counsel.” He will not allow the future wickedness of the reprobate to have been considered in the decree of their rejection, any more than the righteous- ness of the elect, as influencing their better fate: “‘God hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.’ You see how he (the Apostle) attributes both to the mere will of God. If, therefore, we can assign no reason why he grants mercy to his people but because such is his pleasure, neither shall we find any other cause but his will for the reprobation of others. For when God is said to harden, or show mercy to whom he pleases, men are taught, by this declaration, to seek nu cause beside his will.” (Ibid.) “ Many, indeed, as if they wished to avert odium from God, admit election in such a way as to deny that any one is reprobated. But this is puerile and absurd; because election itself could not exist, without being opposed to reprobation ;— whom God passes by he therefore reprobates ; and from no other cause than his determina- tion to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his children,” book iii, chap. xxiii. 3. This is the scheme of predestination as exhibited by Calvin; and to the objection taken from justice, he replies, “They” (the objectors) “inquire by what right the Lord is angry with nis creatures who had not provoked him by any previous offence; for that to devote to de- struction whom he pleases, is more like the caprice of a tyrant, than the lawful sentence of a judge. If such thoughts ever enter into the minds of pious men, they will be sufficiently enabled to break their violence by this one con- sideration, how exceedingly presumptuous it is, only to inquire into the causes of the divine will; which is, in fact, and is justly entitled to be, the cause of every thing that exists. For if it has any cause, then there must be something antecedent on which it depends, which it is impious to suppose. For the will of God is the highest rule of justice; so that what he wills must be considered just, for this very reason, because he wills it.” Thus he assumes the very thing in dispute, that God has willed the destruction of any part of the human race, “ for no other cause than because he wills it ;”” of which assumption there is not only not a word of proof in Scripture; but, on the contrary, it ascribes the death of him that dieth to his own will, and not to the will of God. 2. He pretends that to assign any cause to the divine will is to suppose something ante- cedent to, something above God, and therefore “impious;” as if we might not suppose some- thing 1n God to be the rule of his will, not only 196 CAL without any impiety, but with truth and piety as, for instance, his perfect wisdom, holiness justice, and goodness; or, in other words, to believe the exercise of his will to flow from the perfection of his whole nature; a much more honourable and Scriptural view of the will of God than that which subjects it to no rule, even though it should arise from the nature of God himself. 3. When he calls the will of God, “the highest rule of justice,” beyond which we cannot push our inquiries, he confounds the will of God, as a rule of justice to us, and asa rule to himself. This will is ourrule; yet even then, because we know that it is the will of a perfect being: but when Calvin represents mere will as constituting God’s own rule of justice, he shuts out knowledge, discrimination of the nature of things, and holiness; which is saying something very different from that great truth, that God cannot will any thing but what is per- fectly just. It is to say that blind will, will which has no respect to any thing but itself, is God’s highest rule of justice ; a position which, if presented abstractedly, ae Calvinists them- selves would spurn. 4. He determines the question by the authority of his own meta- physics, and totally forgets that one dictwm of inspiration overturns his whole theory,—God “Capilleth all men to be saved ;” a declaration, which in no part of the sacred volume is op- posed or limited by any contrary declaration. Calvin was not, however, content thus to leave the matter; but resorts to an argument, in which he has been generally followed by those who have adopted his system with some mitigations: ‘ As we are all corrupted by sin, we must necessarily be odious to God, and that not from tyrannical cruelty, but in the most equitable estimation of justice. If all whom the Lord predestinates to death are, in their natural condition, liable to the sentence of death, what injustice do they complain of receiving from him?” To this Calvin very fairly states the obvious rejoinder made in his day ; and which the common sense of mankind will always make,—“ They object, Were they not by the decree of God antecedently predestinated to that corruption which is now stated as the cause of their condemnation? When they perish in their corruption, therefore, they only suffer the punishment of that misery into which, in consequence of his predestination, Adam fell, and precipitated his posterity with him.” The manner in which Calvin attempts to meet this objection, shows how truly un- answerable it is upon his system. “1 confess,’ says he, “indeed, that all the descendants ot Adam fell, by the Divine will, into that misera- ble condition in which they are now involved; and this is what I asserted from the beginning, that we must always return at last to the sove- reign determination of God’s will; the cause of which is hidden in himself. But it follows not, therefore, that God is liable to this reproach; for we will answer them in the language of Paul, ‘O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?” That is, in order to escape the pinch CAL of the objection, he assumes that St. Paul af- firms that God has “formed” a part of the human race for eternal misery; and that, by imposing silence upon them, he intended to declare that this proceeding in God was just. Now the passage may be proved from its con- text to have no respect to the eternal state of men at all; but, if that were less obvious, it ives no answer to the objection; and we are rought round again, as indeed he confesses, to his former, and indeed only, argument, that the whole matter as he states it, is to be referred back to the divine will; which will, though perfectly arbitrary, is, as he contends, the high- est rule of justice: “I say, with Augustine, that the Lord created those whom he certainly foreknew would fall into destruction; and that this was actually so, because he willed it; but of his will, it helene not to us to demand the reason, which we are incapable of compre- hending; nor is it reasonable, that the divine will should be made the subject of controversy with us, which is only another name for the highest rule of justice.” Thus he shuts us out from pursuing the argument. But the evasion proves the objection unanswerable. For if all 1s to be resolved into the mere will of God as to the destruction of the reprobate; if they were created for this purpose, as Calvin ex- pressly affirms; if they fell into their corrup- tion in pursuance of God’s determination; if, as he had said before, ‘God passes them by, and reprobates then, from no other cause than his determination to exclude them from the in- heritance of his children,” why refer to their natural corruption at all, and their being odi- ous to God in that state, since the same reason is given for their corruption as for their repro- bation ?—not any fault of theirs; but the mere will of God, ‘ the reprobation hidden in his se- cret counsel,” and that not grounded on the visible and tangible fact of their demerit. Thus the election taught by Calvin is not the choice of some persons to peculiar grace from the whole mass, equally deserving of punish- ment; (though this is a sophism;) since, in that case, the decree of reprobation would rest upon God’s foreknowledge of those passed by as corrupt and guilty, which notion fe rejects : “For since God foresees future events only in consequence of his decree that they shall happen, it is useless to contend about foreknowledge, while it is evident that all things come to pass rather by ordination and decree.” “It is a HORRIBLE DECREE, I confess; but no one can de- ny that God foreknew the future fate of man before he created him; and that he did fore- know it, because it was appointed by his own decree.” Agreeably to this, he repudiates the distinction between will and permission: ‘“ For what reason shall we assign for his permitting it, but because it is his will? It is not probable, however, that man procured his own destruc- tion by the mere permission, and without any appointment, of God.” 5. With this doctrine he again attempts to recorcile the demerit of men: “ Their perdi- tion depends on the divine predestination in such a manner, that the cause and matter of it 197 CAL are found in themselves. For the first man fel. because the Lord had determined it should sc happen. The reason of’ this determination is unknown to us.—Man, therefore, falls accord- ing to the appointment of divine providence; but he falls by his own fault. The Lord had a little before pronounced every thing that he had made to be ‘very good.’ Whence, then, comes the depravity of man to revolt from his God? Lest it should be thought to come from creation, God approved and commended what had proceeded from himself. By his own wick- edness, therefore, man corrupted the nature he had received pure from the Lord, and by his fall he drew all his posterity with him to de- struction.” It is in this way that Calvin at- tempts to avoid the charge of making God the author of sin, But how God should not merely permit the defection of the first man, but ap- point it, and will it, and that his will should be the “necessity of things,” (all which he had before asserted,) and yet that Deity should not be the author of that which he appointed, wiil- ed, and imposed a necessity upon, would be ra- ther a delicate inquiry. It is enough that Cal- vin rejects the impious doctrine; and even though his principles aeely lead to it, since he has put in his disclaimer, he is entitled to be exempted from the charge;—but the logical conclusion is inevitable. 6. In much the same manner he contends that the necessity of sinning is laid upon the reprobate by the ordination of God, and yet denies God to be the author of their sinful acts, since the corruption of men was derived from Adam, by his own fault, and not from God. He exhorts us “ rather to contemplate the evi- dent cause of condemnation, which is nearer to us, in the corrupt nature of mankind, than search after a hidden and altogether incompre- hensible one, in the predestination of God.” “Bor though, by the eternal providence of God, man was created to that misery to which he is subject, yet the ground of it he has de- rived from himself, not God; since he is thus ruined, solely in consequence of his having degenerated from the pure creation of God to vicious and impure depravity.” Thus, almost in the same breath, he affirms that men became reprobate from no other cause than “the will of God,” and his “sovereign determination ;” that men have no reason “to expostulate with God, if they are predestinated to eternal death, without any demerit of their own, merely by his sovereign will ;”—and then, that the cor- rupt nature of mankind is the evident and near- er cause of condemnation; (which cause, how- ever, was still a matter of “ appointment,” and “ordination,” not “ permission ;”) and that man is “ruined solely in consequence of his having degenerated from the pure state in which God created him.” These propositions manifestly fight with each other; for if the reason of reprobation be laid in man’s corruption, it can- not be laid in the mere will and sovereign de- termination of God, unless we suppose him to be the author of sin. It is this offensive doc trine only, which can reconcile them. For if God so wills, and appoints, and necessitates CAL the depravity of man, as to be the author of it, then thers is no inconsistency in saying that the ruin of the reprobate is both from the mere will of God, and from the corruption of their nature, which is but the result of that will. The one is then, as Calvin states, the “ evident and nearer cause,” the other the more remote and hidden one; yet they have the same source, and are substantially acts of the same will. But if it be denied that God is, in any sense, the author of evil, and if sin is from man alone, then is the “corruption of nature” the effect of an independent will; and if this corruption be the “real source,” as he says, of men’s con- demnation, then the decree of reprobation rests not upon the sovereign will of God, as its sole cause, Which he affirms; but upon a cause de- pendent on the will of the first man: but as this is denied, then the other must follow. Cal- vin himself, indeed, contends for the perfect concurrence of these proximate and remote causes, although in point of fact, to have been perfectly consistent with himself, he ought rather to have called the mere will of God THE cause of the decree of reprobation, and the cor- ruption of man THE MEANS by which it is car- ried into effect :—language which he sanctions, and which many of his followers have not scru- pled to adopt. 7. So certainly does this opinion involve in it the consequences, that in sin man is the in- strument, and God the actor, that it cannot be maintained, as stated by Calvin, without this conclusion. For as two causes of reprobation are expressly laid down, they must be either opposed to each other, or be consenting. If they are opposed, the scheme is given up; if consenting, then are both reprobation and hu- man corruption the results of the same will, the same decree, and necessity. It would be trifling to say that the decree does not influ- ence; for if so, it is no decree in Calvin’s sense, who understands the decree of God, as the foregoing extracts and the whole third book of his “ Institutes” plainly show, as ap- pointing what shall be, and by that appoint- ment making it necessary. Otherwise, he could not reject the distinction between will and permission, and avow the sentiment of St. Augustine, “that the will of God is the neces- sity of things; and that what he has willed will necessarily come to pass,” book iii, chap. 23, sec. 8. So, in writing to Castellio, he makes the sin of Adam the result of an act of God: “You say Adam fell by his free will. I except against it. That he might not fall, he stood in need of that strength and constancy with which God armeth all the elect, as long as he will keep them blameless. Whom God has elected, he props up with an invincible power unto perseverance. Why did he not afford this to Adam, if he would have had him stand in his integrity?’ And with this view of necessity, as resulting from the decree of God, the immediate followers of Calvin coin- cided; the end and the means, as to the elect, and as to the reprobate, are equally fixed by the decree, and are both to be traced to the appoint- ing and ordaining will of God. On such a 193 CAL scheme it is therefore worse than trifling to attempt to make out a case of justice in favour of this assumed divine procedure, by alleging the corruption and guilt of man: a point which, indeed, Calvin himself, in fact, gives up when he says, “That the reprobate obey not the word of God, when made known to them, is justly imputed to the wickedness and depravity of their hearts, provided it be at the same time stated, that they are abandoned to this depravity, because they have been raised up by a just but inscrutable judgment of God, to display his glory in their condemnation.” 8. It was by availing themselves of the inef- fectual struggles of Calvin to give some colour of justice to his reprobating decree by fixing upon the corruption of man as a cause of re- probation, that some of his followers endea- voured, in the very teeth of his own express words, to reduce his system to sublapsarianism. This was attempted by Amyraldus; who was answered by Curcellzus, in his tract “ De Jure Dei in Creaturas.” This last writer, partly by several of the same passages we have given above from Calvin’s Institutes, and by extracts from his other writings, proves that Calvin did by no means consider man, as fallen, to be the object of reprobation ; but man not yet created; man as to be created, and so reprobated, under no consideration in the divine mind of his fall or actual guilt, except as consequences of an eternal preterition of the persons of the repro- bate, resolvable only into the sovereign plea- sure of God. The references he makes to men as corrupt, and to their corrupt state as the proximate cause of their rejection, are all mani- festly used to parry off rather than to answer objections, and somewhat to moderate and soft- en, as Curcelleeus observes, the harsher parts of his system. And, indeed, for what reason are we so often brought back to that unfailing re- fuge of Calvin, ‘the presumption and wicked- ness of replying against God?” For if repro- bation be a matter of human desert, it cannot be a mystery; if it be adequate punishment for an adequate fault, there is no need to urge it upon us to bow with submission to an unexplained sovereignty. We may add, there is no need to speak of a remote or first cause of reprobation, if the provimate cause will explain the whole case; and that Calvin’s continual reference to God’s secret cownsel, and will, and inscrutable judgment, could have no aptness to his argu- ment. Among English divines, Dr. Twisse has sufficiently defended Calvin from the charge, as he esteems it, of sublapsarianism; and, whatever merit Twisse’s own supralapsarian creed may have, his argument on this point is unanswerable. 9. As it is not intended here to enter into this controversy, on which multitudes of books have been written, and the leading authors are known almost to every one, the above may be sufficient to convey a just notion of Calvin’s own opinions. After these subjects had long agitated the reformed churches, and given rise to several modifications of Calvin’s original scheme, and to numerous writings in refuta- tion of it, the synod of Dort digested the whole ytd CAL ito five articles, from which arose the cele- brated controversy on the five points. These articles, as being the standard of what is gene- rally called strict Calvinism, are, in substance, as follows :— (1.) “ Of Predestination. As all men have sinned in Adam, and have become exposed to the curse and eternal death, God would have done no injustice to any one, if he had deter- mined to leave the whole human race under sin and the curse, and to condemn them on account of sin; according to those words of the Apostle, ‘All the world is become guilty before God,’ Rom. iii, 19, 23; vi, 23. That some, ia time, have faith given them by God, and others have it not given, proceeds from his eternal decree; for ‘known unto God are all his works from the beginning,’ &c, Acts xv, 18; Eph. i, 11. According to which decree, he graciously softens the Tears of the elect, however hard, and he bends them to believe ; but the non-elect he leaves, in his judgment, to their own perversity and hardness. And here, especially, a deep discrimination, at the same time both merciful and just; a discrimination of men equally lost, opens itself to us; or that decree of election and reprobation which is revealed in the word of God ; which, as per- verse, impure, and unstable persons do wrest to their own destruction, so it affords ineffable consolation to holy and pious souls. But elec- tion is the immutable purpose of God: by which, before the foundations of the world were laid, he chose, out of the whole human race, fallen by their own fault from their pri- meval integrity into sin and destruction, ac- cording to the most free good pleasure of his own will, and of mere grace, a certain number of men, neither better nor worthier than others, but lying in the same misery with the rest, to salvation in Christ; whom he had, even from eternity, constituted Mediator and head of all the elect, and the foundation of salvation; and therefore he decreed to give them unto him to be saved, and effectually to call and draw them into communion with him, by his word and Spirit; or he decreed himself to give unto them true faith, to justify, to sanctify, and at length pe to glorify them, &c, Eph. i, 4-6; om. viii, 30. ‘This same election is not made from any foreseen faith, obedience of faith, holiness, or any other good quality and dis- position, as a pre-requisite cause or condition in the man who should be elected, &c. ‘He hath chosen us,’ not because we were, but ‘ that we might be, holy,’ &c, Eph.i, 4; Rom. ix, 11-13; Acts xiii, 48. Moreover, Holy Scrip- ture doth illustrate and commend to us this eternal and free grace of our election, in this more especially, that it doth testify all men not to be elected; but that some are non-elect, or passed by, in the eternal election of God, whom truly God, from most free, just, irreprehensible, and immutable good pleasure, decreed to leave in the ezmmon misery into which they had, by their own fault, cast themselves; and not to bestow on them living faith, and the grace of conversion; but having been left in their own ways, and under just judgment, at length, not 199 CAL only on account of their unbelief, but also of all their other sins, to condemn and eternally punish them, to the manifestation of his own justice. And this is the decree of reprobation, which determines that God is, in no wise, the author of sin, (which, to be thought of, is blasphemy,) but a tremendous, incomprehensi ble, just judge, and avenger.” (2.) “ Of the Death of Christ.” Passing over, for brevity’s sake, what is said of the necessity of atonement, in order to pardon, and of Christ having offered that atonement and satisfaction, it is added, “ This death of the Son of God is a single and most perfect sacrifice and satis- faction for sins; of infinite value and price, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world; but because many who are call- ed by the Gospel do not repent, nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief; this doth not arise from defect or insufficiency of the sacri- fice offered by Christ upon the cross, but from their own fault. God willed that Christ, through the blood of the cross, should, out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, eficaciously redeem all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation, and given to him by the Father; that he should confer on them the gift of faith,” &c. (3.) “ Of Man’s Corruption, gc. All men are conceived in sin, and born the children of wrath, indisposed (ineptz) to all saving good, propense to evil, dead in sin, and the slaves of sin; and without the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, they neither are willing nor able to return to God, to correct their depraved - nature, or to dispose themselves to the correc- tion of it.” (4.) “ Of Grace and Free will. But in like manner as, by the fall, man does not cease to be man, endowed with intellect and will; nei- ther hath sin, which hath pervaded the whole human race, taken away the nature of the hu- man species, but it hath depraved and spirit- ually stained it; so that even this divine grace of regeneration does not act upon men like stocks and trees, nor take away the properties of his will; or violently compel it, while un- willing ; but it spiritually quickens, heals, cor- rects, and sweetly, and at the same time power- fully, inclines it; so that whereas before it was wholly governed by the rebellion and resist- ance of the flesh, now prompt and sincere obe- dience of the Spirit may begin to reign; in which the renewal of our spiritual will, and our liberty, truly consist; in which manner, (or for which reason,) unless the admirable Au- thor of all good should work in us, there could be no hope to man of rising from the fall b that free will, by which, when standing, he fell into ruin.” (5.) “ On Perseverance. God, who is rich in mercy, from his immutable purpose of election, - does not wholly take away his Holy Spirit from his own, even in lamentable falls; nor does he so permit them to glide down, (prolabi,) that: they should fall from the grace of adoption, and the state of justification; or commit the ‘sin unto death,’ or against the Holy Spirit; that, being deserted by him, they should cast CAL themselves headlong into eternal destruction. So that not by their own merits or strength, but by the gratuitous mercy of God, they obtain it, that they neither totally fall from faith and grace, nor jinally continue in their falls and perish.” 10. The controversy on these difficult sub- jects was not decided by the decrees of the synod of Dort, which, it will be seen under that article, were purposely drawn up in a politic and wary manner, so as to quadrate. with the opinions, and not to outrage the feelings, of any grade of Calvinists. Prior to the conven- tion of that celebrated assembly, the doctrines of Calvin had been refined upon and incau- tiously carried out to some of their legitimate consequences, in a manner almost without pre- cedent, except that of the Mohammedan doctors on the absolute fate which holds a distinguish- ed place inthe Koran, Several of the brightest and most acute wits in Europe occupied them- selves in sublimating to the height of extra- vagance the two kindred branches of predes- tination,—the eternal and absolute election of certain men to everlasting glory, and the repro- bation of the rest of mankind to endless punish- ment, without regard in the divine mind to the foreseen faith of one class or to the foreseen unbelief of the other. This course was com- menced by Beza, the contemporary and succes- sor of Calvin, who possessed neither his genius nor his caution; and his writings contain seve- ral rash assertions on these points, which, it is probable, would never have obtained the appro- bation of his departed friend and instructer. an. chius, with true Italian astuteness, carried on this process of refinement in high style; and his predestinarian improvements were ouly equalled by those of Piscator, Pareus, Keckerman, Hom- mius, Kimedontius, Polanus, Sturmius, Da- neus, Thysius, Donteklock, Bogerman, Gomar, Smoutius, Triglandius, down to the minor tribe of Contra-Remonstrants, Damman, Maccovius, and Sibrandus Lubbertus. Nor were the clever divines of our own country a whit behind the foreigners in accomplishing this grand object; and the theological reader, on seeing the names of Perkins, Whitaker, Abbot, and T'wisse, will instantly recognise men whose doctrinal vaga- ries were familiar to all the Calvinists in Eu- rope. No one can form an adequate concep- tion of the injury thus inflicted on the divine attributes of wisdom, goodness, and mercy, as they have been revealed in the Scriptures, un- less he has read the immense mass of quota- tions from the writings of these and other di- vines, which were presented to the notice of the synod of Dort by the Remonstrants, espe- cially in their Rejectzon of Errors under each of the five points in dispute; the proofs of which were quoted from their respective au- thors, and the accuracy and faithfulness of which were never called in question. Not only would the minds of all sober Christians in these days be shocked when perusing the monstrous sentiments propounded in those extracts, but even the tolerably stiff Calvinists of Oliver Cromwell’s time felt themselves scandalized by any allusion to them, and would not admit that 200 CAL their opinions had the least affinity to suca desecrating dogmas. Little more than twenty years after the synod of Dort, that distinguish. ed polemical divine and accurate scholar, Dr, Thomas Pierce, published his able and very in- teresting pamphlet, entitled, “ A Correct Copy of Some Notes concerning God’s Decrees;” in which, without naming the authors, he gave ten extracts from celebrated Calvinistic treatises, to prove, that “there are men of no small name who have told the world, that all the evil of sin which is in man proceedeth from God only as the author, and from man only as the instrument.” Four of these extracts will fur- nish sufficient matter to every judicious mind for mournful reflection on the strange obliqui- ties to which the human understanding is lia- ble:—(1.) “(A wicked man, by the just impulse of God, doeth that which is not lawful for him to do.” (2.) “‘ When God makes an angel or a man a transgressor, he himself doth not trans- gress, because he doth not break a law. The very same sin, namely, adultery or murder, in- asmuch as it is the work of God, the author, mover, and compeller, is not a crime; but in- asmuch as it is of man, it is a wickedness.” (3.) “God can will that man shall not fall, by his will which is called volwntas signi; and in the mean while he can ordain that the same man shall infallibly and efficaciously fall, by his will which is called voluntas beneplaciti. The former will of God is improperly called his will, for it only signifieth what man ought to do by right; but the latter will is properly call- eda will, because by that he decreed what should inevitably come to pass.” (4.) ‘“‘God’s will doth pass, not only into the permission of the sin, but into the sin itself which is permit- ted. The Dominicans,” the ‘high predestina- rian order in the church of Rome, “do imper- fectly and obscurely relate the truth whilst, beside God’s concurrence to the making way for sin, they require nothing but the negation of efficacious grace, when it is manifest that there is a farther prostitution of sin required.” Of these four passages, the first is from Calvin himself, the second from Zuinglius, and the third and fourth from Dr. Twisse. This pamph- let was the first in a smart controversy, in which Doctor (afterward Bishop) Reynolds, Baxter, Hickman, and Barlee, took part against Dr. Pierce, but in which those eminent men vir- tually disclaimed all community of sentiment between themselves and such high predestina rians. In their warmth, however, they accus- ed the Doctor of having ‘rifled the well-fur- nished cabinet of the Batavian Remonstrant writings,” and of not having hesitated “to be beholden to very thieves, namely, such roguish pamphlets as Fur Predestinatus and others are, rather than want materials for invectives against Calvin, Beza, Twisse,” &c. In his reply, the Doctor says, ‘‘ When I published my papers on God’s decrees, I had never so much as seen that well-furnished cabinet, the ‘Acta Synodalia Remonstrantium ;” and he proves that he has copied none of his extracts from Fur Predesti- natus. As his opponents were “so unthank- ful for the lenity’ which he had displayed in CAL giving “so short a catalogue,” he added other affirmations of a still more revolting import, if that were possible. The four extracts which follow, will serve as a correct specimen of the gross and unguarded assertions of some of those good men who were thus exposed; the first two are from Zanchius, the other two from Piscator, both of them men of renown in that age:— (1.) “Reprobates are compelled with a neces- sity of sinning, and so of perishing, by this or- dination of God; and so compelled that they cannot choose but sin and perish.” (2.) “ God works all things in all men, not only in the godly, but also in the ungodly.” (3.) “ Judas could not but betray Christ, seeing that God’s decrees are immutable; and whether a man bless or curse, he always doth it necessarily in respect of God’s providence, and in so doing he doeth always according tothe will of God.” (4.) “It doth or at least may appear from the word of God, that we neither can do more good than we do, nor omit more evil than we omit; because God from eternity hath precisely de- creed that both [the good and the evil] should so be done. It is fatally constituted when, and how, and how much, every one of us ought to study and love piety, or not to love it.” In that newly emancipated age, the ample discus- sion of these topics could not fail to produce much good; and the result in the course of a few years was, that a vast number of those who had implicitly followed the guidance of Calvin, deserted his standard, and either went com- pletely over to the ranks of Arminius, or halt- ed midway under the command of Baxter. From that time to the middle of the eighteenth century, those dogmas which are usually desig- nated as ultra-Calvinian or Antinomian, re- ceived no support, except from such shallow divines as Dr. Crisp and his immediate admirers. But when the Rev. John Wesley and his bro- ther, as Arminians, propounded the doctrines of the Gospel in as evangelical a manner, and with as marked success, as any Calvinist, a number of those excellent men, both in the church and among the Dissenters, who had been early benefited by the ministry of the two brothers, thought, as many now do, that it was impossible for any thing to be evangeli- cal that was not Calvinistic; and, apparently with the design of being at as great a remove as possible from a reputed heresy, they became in principle real Antinomians. In forming this conclusion, and in running to a supposed opposite extreme, such persons seem to have forgotten that those truly evangelical princi- ples,—which in Germany and the ig bour- Ing states effected the reformation from Popery, which transformed sinners into Christians and martyrs, and which, in the pare state of society that then obtained, but too painfully reminded the sainted sufferers of the domestic, municipal, and national grievances and perse- cutions to which the earliest confessors of the name of Christ were subjected,—had been in beneficial operation long before Calvin’s doc- trinal system was brought to maturity, and when he was known only as the humble and diligent pastor of the church of Geneva. And 201 CAL even after the publication of his “ Institutes,” which contained the peculiarities of his creed, he had to wait many years, to labour hard, not always in the most sanctified spirit, both from the pulpit and the press, and to endure many per- sonal mortifications, before he was able to ob- trude his novel dogmas on his own immediate connections, or to make any sensible impres- sion on the generally received theology of his learned contemporaries. Such persons ought also to recollect, that, as Dr. Watts justly ob- serves, ‘‘some of the most rigid and narrow limitations of grace to men are found chiefly in Calvin’s Institutions, which were written in his youth. But his comments on Scripture were the labours of his riper years and maturer judgment.” Il. His first tract on predestination was published in 1552; and the first complete edi- tion of his ‘ Institutes” did not see the light till the year 1558; but the change in Melanc- thon’s opinions, from the fatality of Stoicism, to the universality of the Gospel, occurred at least six years prior to 1535, when the second edition of his “‘ Common Places” was published, that contained his amended creed, and strong cautions against the contrary doctrines. One of the most eloquent and best informed writers of the present age has, in reference to this sub- ject, justly observed: “ Both Luther and Me- ancthon, after their creed became permanentl settled at the diet of Augsburg, (A. D. 1530, kept one object constantly in view,—to incul- cate only what was plain and practical, and never to attempt philosophizing. They per- ceived, that before the reformation the doctrine of divine foreknowledge had been grossly mis- conceived and abused, although guarded by all the logic of the schools; and they felt, that, after it, they had themselves at first contributed to increase the evil, by grounding upon the same high argument, although for a very dif- ferent purpose, the position of an infallible necessity. Thenceforward, therefore, they only taught a predestination which the Christian religion explains, and the Christian life exem- plifies. Thus, while their adversaries philoso- phized upon a predestination of individuals, preferred one before another by divine regard because worthy of such a preference, the taught only that which has been revealed swith certainty,—the predestination of a peculiar de- oll of persons, of a people zealous of good works, of the Christian church contemplated as an aggregate, not on account of its own dignity, but on account of Christ its supreme Head, and the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him. While restoring Scriptural sim- plicity to the doctrine of predestination, per- plexed and disfigured by the vanity of the schools, they studiously and anxiously pre- served every trace of that universal benevo- lence by which Christianity is particularl distinguished. ‘ Let us,’ they said, ‘ with both our hands, or rather with all our heart, hold fast the true and pious maxim, that God is not the author of sin, that he sits not in heaven writing Stoical laws in the volumes of fate; but, endowed with a perfect freedom himself, CAL he communicates a liberty of action to his creatures ; firmly opposing the position of ne- cessity as false, and pernicious to morals and religion. God, we may be assured, is no cruel and merciless tyrant; he does not hate and reject men, but loves them as a parent loves his children.’ Universal grace, indeed, was at all times a favourite topic with the Lutherans; nor would they admit of any predestination except that of a beneficent Deity, who was in Christ reconciling the world to himself; except a pre- destination conformable with that order of things which he has established, and with the use or abuse of the means which he has or- dained. ‘The Almighty,’ they said, ‘ has seriously willed and decreed, from eternity, all men to be saved and to enjoy everlasting fe- licity ; let us not therefore indulge in evil sug- gestions, and separate ourselves from his grace, which is as expanded as the space between heaven and earth; let us not restrain the ge- neral promise, in which he offers his favour to all without discrimination, nor confine it to those who, affecting a peculiar garb, wish to be alone esteemed pious and sanctified. If many perish, the fault is not to be imputed to the divine will, but to human obstinacy, which despises that will, and disregards a salvation destined for all men.’ ‘And because many are called, but few are chosen, let us not,’ they ad- ded, ‘entertain an opinion highly impious,— that God tenders his grace to many, but com- municates it only to a few; for should we not in the greatest degree detest a Deity by whose arbitrary will we believed ourselves to be ex- claided from salvation? Upon the important point likewise of the conditional acceptance of the individual, their ideas were not more dis- tinct than their language was explicit. ‘If God chose,’ they argued, ‘certain persons only in order to unite them to himself, and rejected the remainder in all respects alike, would not such AN ELECTION WITHOUT CAUSES seem tyran- nical? Let us therefore be persuaded, that some cause exists in us, as some difference is to be found between those who are, and those who are not, accepted. Thus they conceived that, predestinating his elect in Christ, or the Chris- tian church, to eternal salvation, he excludes none from that number by a partial adoption of favourites, but calls all pial: and accepts of all who obey his calling, or, in other words, who become true Christians by possessing the qualifications which Christianity requires.— “He,’ they stated, who ‘falls from grace can- not but perish, completely losing remission of sin, with the other benefits which Christ has purchased for him, and acquiring in their stead divine wrath and death eternal.’ Melancthon, who in his private correspondence expressly termed Calvin the Zeno of his day, says, ‘ Let us execrate the Stoical disputations which some introduce, who imagine that the elect always retain the Holy Spirit, even when they commit atrocious crimes,—a manifest and highly reprehensible error; and let us not con- firm in fools security and blindness.’ ” These quotations might be augmented by others from the earliest Lutheran authors, more 202 CAL Arminian in their import than any which Ar- minius ever wrote: but the preceding are suffi- cient to show, that, during upward of thirty years, the Protestant church in Germany was nourished by doctrines most manifestly at va- riance with the refinements afterward promul- gated by Calvin. Real conversions of sinners were never more abundant than in that golden age; yet these were produced by the blessing of God upon an evangelical agency that had scarcely any thing in commédn with the Ge- nevan dogmas. ith these and similar facts before him, therefore, no Calvinist can in com- mon honesty claim for the peculiarities of his creed, for those doctrines which distinguish it from the Melancthonism of the Protestant churches of England and Germany, the ex- clusive title of Evanceiica.. Equally falla- cious is the ground on which he can prefer any such claim on account of the alleged counsel and advice given by Calvin to our reformers while they were engaged in the formation of our Articles and Liturgy. On no fact in the ecclesiastical history of this country are our annalists more completely at agreement than on this,—that Calvin’s name and writings were scarcely known in England till the time when the persecution under Queen Mary forced many of our best divines into banishment; and that, to the great future disquietude of the church, several of these exiles on their return imported a personal bias either in favour of his discipline or of his dogmas. Anterior to that period he had received no such pressing invi- tations from our reformers, and from the king himself, as Melancthon had done, for his friendly theological aid in drawing up the doe- trinal and disciplinary formulz of our nationa’ church. The man who asserts the contrary to this, and who has the hardihood to deny the Melancthonian origin of the Articles and Lit- urgy, discovers at once his want of correct information on these subjects, and has never read the convincing documents appended to the Archbishop of Cashel’s (Dr. Laurence’s) “Eight Sermons,” being the Bampton Lec- tures for 1804, and entitled, “ An Attempt to Iliustrate those Articles of the Church of Eng- land which the Calvinists improperly consider as Calvinistical ;” Todd’s treatise “On Original Sin, Free Will, §-c, as maintained by certain Declarations of our Reformers ;” Plaifere’s “Ap- pello Evangelium ;” nor even the portable yel convincing pamphlets of Kipling and Winches: ter, the former entitled “ The Articles not Cal vinistic ; the latter, “A Dissertation on th Seventeenth Article of the Church.” 12. There is one fact connected with these assumed yet unfounded claims, which has never yet been placed in its proper light, but which it may be well briefly to notice in this place. Calvin himself, in 1535, wrote the following truly Melancthonian paragraphs as_ part of his preface to the New Testament in French: “This Mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, was the only, true, and eternal Son of God, whom the Father was about to send into the world, that he might collect all men together from this horrid dispersion and devastation, When, at CAL length, that fulness of time arrived, that day preonizined by the Lord, he openly showed imse.f as that Messiah who had for so man ages been the desire of all nations, and hat most abundantly performed all those things which were necessary for the redemption of all men. But this great blessing was not confined solely within the boundaries of the land of Israel, since, on the contrary, it was intended [porrigéndwm] to be held out for the acceptahce of the whole human race; because through Christ alone the entire family of man was to be reconciled to God, as will be seen, and most amply demonstrated, in these pages of the New Testament.” ‘“ To this inheritance of our hea- venly Father’s kingdom we are all called with- out respect of persons,—whether we be men or women, high or low, masters or servants, teach- ers or disciples, [doctores,] divines or laics, Jews or Greeks, Frenchmen or [Romani] Italians. From this inheritance no one is excluded, if he only so receive Christ as he is offered by the Father for the salvation of all men, and embrace him when received.” Great research has been displayed by the Calvinists at differ- ent periods, in endeavouring to discover, in the public formularies of the church, or in the private productions of our reformers, some trace of affinity between them and the writings of Calvin. Only two cases of such affinity have yet been found; and, unfortunately for the validity of all pretensions of this kind, neither of them contains a single peculiarity of Calvinism, but, on the contrary, both are of the moderate and evangelical class of the Me- lancthonian school. One of the passages thus discovered is here subjoined from Cranmer’s “ Defence of the True and Catholic Docirine of the Sacrament,” &c ; and bears all the marks of verisimilitude to the second of the preceding paragraphs from Calvin, though written fifteen years after it:—“ Almighty God, without re- spect of eres accepteth the oblation and sacrifice of priest and lay person, of king and subject, of master and servant, of man and wo- man, of young and old, yea, of English, French, Scot, Greek, Latin, Jew, and Gentile; of every man according to his faithful and obedient heart unto him, and that through the sacrifice propitiatory of Jesus Christ.” Had either this or the other passage contained the least tinge of what is now considered as belonging exclu- sively to the system of Calvin, the English ad- mirers of that great man would have had some grounds for the assertions which have been too confidently made, because so easily refuted. 13. Having given this summary of the senti- ments of Calvin himself, and of the ancient or strict Calvinists, it is proper to observe, that there are, and always have been, many who generally embrace the Calvinistic system, but object to some particular parts, and to the strong language in which some of the proposi- tions are expressed. These are called moderate or modern Calvinists, who differ from Calvin, and the synod of Dort, chiefly on two points,— the doctrine of reprobation, and the extent of the death of Christ. The theory of Baxter has already been noticed. This and all other miti- 203 CAL ated schemes rest on two principles, the suf- Beiene of the atonement for all mankind, and the sufficiency of grace for those who do not believe. Still something more is held to be necessary than this sufficiency of grace in order to actual salvation; namely, an accept- ance by man, which can only be made under that degree of effectual supernatural aid which is dispensed only to a certain number of per- sons, who are thus distinguished as the “ elect of God.” The main characteristic of all these theories, from the first to the last, from the highest to the lowest, is, that a part of man- kind are shut out from the mercies of God, on some ground irrespective of their refusal of a sincere offer to them of salvation through Christ, made with a communicated power of embracing it. Some power they allow to the reprobate, as natural power, and degrees of superadded moral power; but in no case the power to believe unto salvation; and thus, as one well observes, ‘ When they have cut some fair trenches, as if they would bring the water of life unto the dwellings of the reprobate, on a sudden they open a sluice which carries it offagain.” The whole labour of these theories is to find out some plausible reason for the infliction of punishment on them that perish, independent of the only cause assigned by the word of God—their rejection of a mercy free for all, and made attainable by all. See Bax- TERIANISM. 14. After all, however, it is pleasant to find these indications of a growing consciousness, on the part of modern predestinarians, that the common notions and common language of mankind on these deep subjects are not far from the truth. And hough some too fasti- dious Arminians may complain, that, in this desire to enlist the views and words of common sense on the side of Calvinism, many of those by whom they are employed attach to them a meaning very different from that which ordinary usage warrants; yet even this ten- dency to approximate to right views should be regarded as favourable to the progress of truth, and the evidently improved feeling which has suggested such approximation ought to be met in a conciliating spirit. But this is a fault which must always be an appendage to such a system, however it may be modified ; and does not exclusively apply to its modern supporters. The following remarks by Archbishop Lau- rence on the ambiguity of language not unfre- quently discernible in the writings of Calvin himself, are worthy of consideration :—‘ In whatever sense he wished these words to be understood, it must be admitted that he some- times adapted the style of others, who hada very different se in view, to his own pecu- liar opinions. And hence, from the want of a due discrimination, the sentiments of his con- temporaries, opposite in their natural tendency. are often improperly forced into the vortex of Calvinism. Systematizing was his darling pro- pensity, and the ambition of being distinguished as a leader in reform his predominant passion: in the arrangements of the former, he never felt a doubt, or found a difficulty; and in the CAL pursuits of the latter he displayed an equal degree of perseverance and ardour. Thus, in the doctrine of the eucharist, it is well known that he laboured to acquire celebrity, and con- ciliate followers, by maintaining a kind of middle sacramental presence between the cor- poreal of the Lutherans, and the mere spiritual of the Zuinglians; expressing himself in lan- guage ashichs partly derived from one, and partly from the other, verged towards neither extreme ; but which, by his singular talent at perspicuous combination, he applied, and not without success, to his own particular purpose. Nor was he less solicitous to press into his service a foreign phraseology upon the subject more immediately before me; a subject on his theory of which he not a little prided himself, and seemed contented to stake his reputation. He perceived that the Lutherans, strongly reprobating every discussion upon the decrees of a Deity unrevealed to us, founded predesti- nation solely on a Scriptural basis; contending for a divine will which is seriously, not ficti- tiously, disposed to save all men, and predeter- mined to save all who become and continue sin- cere Christians. Zuingle, indeed, had reasoned from a different principle; and, although per- suaded that God’s mercies in Christ were libe- rally bestowed on all without distinction, on infants who commit not actual crime, and on the Heathen as well as the Christian world, he nevertheless was a necessitarian in the strict- est sense of the expression ; referring events of every kind to an uncontrollable and absolute predetermination. Zuingle, however, died in 1531, before the youth of Calvin permitted him to assume the character of a reformer; who found Bullinger then at the head of the Zuin- glian church, not only applauding, but adopt- ing, the moderation of the Lutherans; and, to use the phrase of Turretin, plainly Melancthon- izing. But the doctrine alluded to, it may be imagined, was of a species too limited and unphilosophical for one of his enterprising turn of mind, who never met with an obstacle which he attempted not instantly to surmount. Dis- regarding, therefore, the sober restrictions of the times, he gave loose to the most unbounded speculation: yet, anxious by all means to win over all to his opinion, he studiously laboured to preserve, on some popular points, a verbal conformity with the Lutherans. With them, in words, he taught the universality of God’s good will; but it was a universality which he extended only to the offer of salvation; con~ ceiving the reprobate to be precluded from the reception of that offer by the secret decree of an immutable Deity. The striking feature of their system was an election in Christ, by which they meant an election as Christians. This also, in words, he inculeated: his idea, however, of an election in Christ was totally different from theirs; for he held it to be the previous election of certain favourites by an irrespective will of God, whom, and whom alone, Christ was subsequently appointed to save. But his ingenuity was such, in adapting the terms borrowed from another source to his own theory, that some erroneously conceive 203 CAM them to have been thus originally used by tae Lutherans themselves. Hence, therefore, much confusion has arisen in the attempt of properly discriminating between the various sentiments of Protestants upon this question, at the period under consideration: all have been regarded as formed upon the model which Calvin exhi- bited; at least by writers who have contem- lated him as the greatest reformer of his age, ba who have forgotten that, although they chose to esteem him the greatest, they could not represent him as the first in point of time; and that his title to preéminence, in the com- mon estimation of his contemporaries, was then far from being acknowledged.” 15. On one topic, however, Calvin and the older divines of that school were very explicit, They tell us plainly, that they found all the Christian fathers, both of the Greek and the Latin church down to the age of St. Augustine, quite unmanageable for their purpose; and therefore occasionally bestow upon them and their productions epithets not the most courte- ous. Yet some modern writers, not possessing half the splendid qualifications of those veterans in learning, make a gorgeous display of the little that they know concerning antiquity; and wish to lead their readers to suppose, that the whole stream of early Christianity has flowed down only in their channel. Every one must have remarked how much like Calvin all those fathers speak whose words are quoted by Toplady in his ‘ Historic Defence.” Nor can the two Milners, in their ‘ History of the Church,” entirely escape censure on this ac- count,—though both were excellent men, and better scholars than Toplady. But from the manner in which they “show up” only those ancient Christian authors, some of whose sen- timents seem to be nearly in unison with their own, they induce the unlearned or half inform- ed to draw the erroneous conclusion,—that the peculiarities of Calvinism are not the inven- tions of a comparatively recent era, and that they have always formed a prominent part of the profession of faith of every Christian com- munity since the days of the Apostles. All men must admire the candid and liberal spirit which breathes in the subjoined high but just eulogium on Calvin, from the pen of the same amiable Archbishop: “ Calvin himself was both a wise and a good man; inferior to none of his contemporaries in general ability, and superior to almost all in the art, as well as elegance, of composition, in the perspicuity and arrangement of his ideas, the structure of his periods, and the Latinity of his diction. Although attached to a theory, which he found it difficult in the extreme to free from the sus- picion of blasphemy against God, as the author of sin, he certainly was no blasphemer; but, on the contrary, adopted that very theory from an anxiety not to commit, but, as he conceived, to avoid blasphemy,—that of ascribing to hu- man, what he deemed alone imputable to divine, agency. CAMBYSES, the son of Cyrus, king of Persia. He succeeded his father, A. M. S175 and is the Ahasuerus mentioned in Ezra iv, §, CAM to whom, as soon as he came to the crown, the Samaritans applied by petition, desiring that the rebuilding of Jerusalem might be stop- ped. What the motives were which they made use of to prevail upon this prince, we are igno- rant; but it is certain, that though he was not persuaded to revoke his father’s decree, yet he put a stop to the works, so that for the remain- ing seven years and five months which he reigned, the building of the city and temple was suspended. See AHAsUERUS. LL. $01 This animal is called in ancient Arabic, gimel ; and in modern, diam- mel; in Greek, xapndos. With very little varia- tion, the name is retained in modern languages. The camel is very common in Arabia, Judea, and the neighbouring countries; and is often mentioned in Scripture, and reckoned among the most valuable property, 1 Chron. v, 21; Job i, 3, &. “No creature,” says Volney, “seems so peculiarly fitted to the climate in which he exists as the camel. Designing this animal to dwell in a country where he can find little nourishment, nature has been sparing of her materials in the whole of his formation. She has not bestowed upon him the fleshiness of the ox, horse, or elephant; but limiting her- self to what is strictly necessary, has given him a long head, without ears, at the end of a long neck without flesh; has taken from his legs and thighs every muscle not immediately requisite for motion; and, in short, bestowed upon his withered body only the vessels and tendons necessary to connect its frame together. She has furnished him with a strong jaw, that he may grind the hardest aliments; but, lest he should consume too much, has straitened his stomach, and obliged him to chew the cud ; has lined his foot with a lump of flesh, which sliding in the mud, and being no ey adapted to climbing, fits him only for a dry, level, and sandy soil, like that of Resbie, 8S reat, in short, is the importance of the camel to the desert, that, were it deprived of that useful animal, it must infallibly lose every inhabitant.” The chief use of the camel has always been as a beast of burden, and for performing journeys across the deserts. They have sometimes been used in war, to carry the baggage of an orien- tal army, and mingle in the tumult of the battle. Many of the Amalekite warriors, who burnt Ziklag in the time of David, were mount- ed on camels; for the sacred historian remarks, thet of the whole army not a man escaped the furious onset of that heroic and exasperated leader, “ save four hundred young men, which rode upon camels, and fled,” 1 Sam. xxx, 17 The passage of Scripture in which our Lord says, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven,” Matt. xix, 24, has been the occasion of much criticism. Some assert that near Jerusalem was a low gate called “the needle’s eye,” through which a camel could not pass unless his load was taken off. Others conjecture that xéycdos should be read «4@:dos, a cable. But there are no an- cient manuscripts to support the reading. In the Jewish Talmud, there is, however, a simi- 205 CAM lar proverb respecting an elephant: “ Rabbi Shesheth answered Rabbi Amram, who had advanced an absurdity, ‘ Perhaps thou art one of the Pambidithians, who can make an ele- phant pass through the eye of a needle ;’” that is, says the Aruch, ‘“‘ who speak things impos- sible.” There is also a saying of the same kind in the Koran : ‘“ The impious, who in his arrogancy shall accuse our doctrine of falsity, shall find the gates of heaven shut; nor shall he enter there, till a camel shall pass through the eye of a needle. It is thus that we shall recompense the wicked,” Surat. vii, 37. In- deed, Grotius, Lightfoot, Wetstein, and Mi- chaélis, join in opinion, that the comparison is so much in the figurative style of the oriental nations and of the rabbins, that the text is suf- ficiently authentic. CAMEL’S HAIR, mentioned Matt. iii, 4; Mark i, 6. John the Baptist, we are told, was habited in a raiment of camel’s hair ; and Char- din assures us, that the modern dervises wear such garments; as they do also great leathern girdles. Camel’s hair is also made into those beautiful stuffs, called shawls; but certainly the coarser manufacture of this material was adopted by John, and we may receive a good idea of its texture, from what Braithwaite says of the Arabian tents: ‘“ They are made of camel’s hair, somewhat like our coarse hair cloths to lay over goods.” By this coarse ves- ture the Baptist was not merely distinguished, but contrasted with those in royal palaces, who wore “soft raiment,” such as shawls or other superfine manufactures, whether of the same material or not. CAMERONIANS, a sect in Scotland, who separated from the Presbyterians in 1666, and continued to hold their religious assemblies in the fields. The Cameronians took their de- nomination from Richard Cameron, a famous field preacher, who, refusing to accept the in- dulgence to tender consciences granted by King Charles II, as such an acceptance seemed an acknowledgment of the king’s supremacy, and that he had before a right to silence them, separated from his brethren, and even headed a rebellion, in which he was killed. His fol- lowers were never entirely reduced till the Revolution, when they voluntarily submitted to King William. The Cameronians adhered rigidly to the form of government established in 1648. CAMERONISTS, or CAMERONITES, is the denomination of a party of Calvinists in France, who asserted, that the cause of men’s doing good or evil proceeds from the knowledge which God infuses into them; and that God does not move the will physically, but only morally, in virtue of its dependence on the judgment of the mind. They had this name from John Cameron, one of the most famous divines among the Protestants of France, in the seventeenth century, who was born at Glas- gow, in Scotland, about the year 1580, and taught Greek there till he removed to Bour- deaux in 1600. Here he acquired such ce- lebrity by the fluency with which he spoke Greek, that he was appointed to teach the CAM earned languages at Bergerac. He afterward became professor of philosophy at Sedan; but returning to Bourdeaux in 1604, he devoted himself to the study of divinity. Upon being dea tutor to the sons of the chancellor of avarre, he accompanied them to Paris, Ge- neva, and Heidelberg. After having discharged the office of a minister at Bourdeaux, which he assumed in 1608, for ten years, he accepted the professorship of divinity at Saumur. Upon the dispersion of that academy by the public commotions in 1621, he removed to England, and taught divinity at his own house in Lon- don. King James inclined to favour him on account of his supposed attachment to the hierarchy, made him master of the college, and ee of divinity, at Glasgow; but after olding this office, which he found to be un- plemsant to him, for a year, he returned to aumur, where he read private lectures. From thence he removed, in 1624, to Montauban ; where the disturbances excited by the emissa- ries of the duke de Rohan led him to remon- strate against the principles which produced them, with more zeal than prudence. This occasioned his being insulted by a private per- son in the streets, and severely beaten: and this treatment so much affected him, that he soon after died, in 1625, at the early age of forty-six years. Bayle represents him as “a man of great parts and judgment, of an excel- lent memory, very learned, a good philosopher, good humoured, liberal not only of his know- ledge but his purse, a great talker, a long- winded preacher, little versed in the fathers, inflexible in his opinions, and inclined to tur- bulence.” He was one of those who attempted to reconcile the doctrine of predestination, as it had been taught at Geneva, and confirmed at Dort, with the sentiments of those who be- lieve that God offers salvation to all mankind. His opinion was maintained and propagated by Moses Amyraut, and several others of the most learned among the reformed ministers, who thought Calvin’s doctrine too harsh. They were called Hypothetical Universalists. Came- ron likewise maintained the possibility of sal- vation in the church of Rome. See AmYRaUT and BaxTERIANisM. CAMP, or ENCAMPMENT, of the Israel- ites. The whole body of the people, consist- ing of six hundred thousand fighting men, beside women and children, was disposed un- der four battalions, so placed as to enclose the tabernacle, in the form of a square, and each under one general standard. (See Armies.) There were forty-one encampments, from their first in the month of March, at Rameses, in the land of Goshen, in Egypt, and in the wilder- ness, until they reached the land of Canaan. They are thus enumerated in Numbers xxxili :— 1, Rameses 8. Wilderness of Sin 2. Succoth 9. Dophkah 3. Etham, on the edge 10. Alush of the wilderness 11. Rephidim 4. Pihahiroth 12. Wilderness of Sinai 5. Marah 13. Kibroth-hattaavah 6. Elim 14. Hazeroth 7. By the Red Sea 15. Rithmah 206 CAM 16. Rimmon-parez 30. Jotkiathah 17. Libnah 31. Ebronah 18. Rissah 32. Ebion-gaber 19. Kehelatha 33. Kadesh 20. Shapher 34. Mount Hor 21. Haradah 35. Zalmonah 22, Makheloth 36. Punon 23. Tahath 37. Oboth 24, Tarah 38. Ije-abarim 25. Mithcah 39. Dibon-gad 26. Hashmonah 40. Almon-diblathaim 27. Moseroth 41. Mountains of Aba. 28. Bene-jaakan rim 29. Hor-hagidgad In the second year after their exodus from Egypt they were numbered; and upon an exact poll, the number of their males amounted to six hundred and three thousand, five hundred and fifty, from twenty years old and upward, Num. i, ii. This vast mass of people, en- camped in beautiful order, must have presented a most impressive spectacle. That it failed not to produce effect upon the richly endowed and poetic mind of Balaam, appears from Num. xxiv, 2; ‘And Balaam lifted up his eyes and he saw Israel abiding in his tents according to their tribes; and the Spirit of God came upon him, and he took up his parable and said, How goodly are thy tents, O Jacob, and thy taber- nacles, O Israel! As the valleys are they spread forth, as gardens by the river side, as the trees of lign aloes which the Lord hath planted, and as cedar trees beside waters.” Grandeur, order, beauty, and freshness, were the ideas at once suggested to the mind of this unfaithful pro- phet, and called forth his unwilling admiration. Perhaps we may consider this spectacle as a type of the order, beauty, and glory of the true “church in the wilderness,” in those happy days when God “shall not behold iniquity in Jacob, nor perverseness in Israel;” when it shall be said, ‘“ The Lord his God is with him, and the shout of a king is among them.” CAMPHIRE. x55. Greek, xézpos. Latin cyprus. Canticles i, 14; iv,13. Sir T. Browne supposes that the plant mentioned in the Can- ticles, rendered xérpos in the Septuagint, and cyprus in the vulgate, is that described by Dioscorides and Pliny, which grows in Egypt, and near to Ascalon, producing an odorate bush of flowers, and yielding the celebrated oleum cyprinum. [A sweet oil made of the flowers of the privet tree.] This is one of the plants which is most grateful to the eye and the smell. The deep colour of its bark, the light green of its foliage, the softened mixture of white and py with which the flowers, collected into long clusters like the lilac, are coloured; the red tint of the ramifications which Suepert them, form an agreeable com- bination. he flowers, whose shades are so delicate, diffuse around the sweetest odours, and embalm the gardens and apartments which they embellish. The women take pleasure in decking themselves with them. With the powder of the dried leaves they give an orange tincture to their nails, to the inside of their hands, and to the soles of their feet. The ex- pression, m2 es-nN nnwy, rendered “pare their CAN nails,” Deut. xxi, 12, may perhaps rather mean, “adorn their nails;” and imply the antiquity of this practice. This is a universal custom in Egypt, and not to conform to it would be con- sidered indecent. It seems to have been prac- tised by the ancient Egyptians, for the nails of the mummies are most commonly of a red- dish hue. In the Song of Solomon, the bride is de- ascribed as saying, “My beloved is unto me as a cluster of epee in the vineyards of En- gedi,” chap. i, 24; and again, “‘ Thy plants are an orchard of pomegranates, with pleasant fruits, camphire with spikenard,” chap iv, 13. CANA, atown of Galilee, where Jesus per- formed his first miracle, John ii, 1,2, &c. It lay in the tribe of Zebulun, not far from Naza- reth. Cana was visited by Dr. E. D. Clarke, who says, “tis worthy of note, that, walk- ing among the ruins of achurch, we saw large massy stone pots, answering the description ae of the ancient vessels of the country ; ese were not preserved nor exhibited as re- liques, but lying about, disregarded by the pre- sent inhabitants, as antiquities with whose ori- ginal use they were unacquainted. From their appearance, and the number of them, it was quite evident that a practice of keeping water in large stone pots, each holding from eighteen to twenty-seven gallons, was once common in the country.” CANAAN, theson of Ham. The Hebrews believe that Canaan, having first discovered Noah’s nakedness, told his Dhitien Ham; and that Noah, when he awoke, having understood what had passed, cursed Canaan, the first au- thor of the offence. Others are of opinion that Ham was punished in his son Canaan, Gen. ix, 25. For though Canaan is mentioned, Ham is not exempted from the malediction; on the contrary, he suffers more from it, since parents are more affected with their children’s misfor- tunes than with their own; especially if the evils have been inflicted through some fault or folly of theirs. Some have thought that Ca- naan may be put elliptically for the father of Canaan, that is, Ham, as it is rendered in the Arabic and Septuagint translations. The posterity of Canaan was numerous. His eldest son, Sidon, founded the city of Sidon, and was father of the Sidonians and Pheni- cians. Canaan had ten other sons, who were fathers of as many tribes, dwelling in Palestine and Syria ; namely, the Hittites, the Jebusites, the Amorites, the Girgasites, the Hivites, the Arkites, the Sinites, the Arvadites, the Zema- rites, and the Hemathites. It is believed that Canaan lived and died in Palestine, which from him was called the land of Canaan. Notwith- standing the curse is directed againt Canaan the son, and not against Ham the father, it is often supposed that all the posterity of Ham were placed under.the malediction, ‘Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servents shall he be unto his brethren.” But the true reason why Canaan only was mentioned probably is, that the curse was in fact restricted to the posteri- ty of Canaan. It is true that many Africans, escendants of other branches of Ham’s fami- 207 CAN ly, have been largely and cruelly enslaved, but so have other tribes in different parts of the world. There is certainly no proof that the negro race were ever placed under this male- diction. Had they been included in it, this would neither have justified their oppressors, nor proved that Christianity is not designed to removetheevilof slavery. But Canaan alone, in his descendants, is cursed, and Ham only in that branch of: his posterity. It follows that the subjugation of the Canaanitish races to Israel fulfils the prophecy. To them it was limited, and with them it expired. Part of the seven nations of the Canaanites were made slaves to the Israelites, when they took possession of their land ; and the remainder by Solomon. Canaan, Lanp or. In the map it presents the appearance of a narrow slip of country, ex- tending along the eastern coast of the Medi- terranean ; from which, to the river Jordan, the utmost width does not exceed fifty miles. This river was the eastern boundary of the land of Canaan, or Palestine, properly so called, which derived its name from the Philistines or Pales- tines originally inhabiting the coast. To three of the twelve tribes, however, Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh, portions of territory were as- signed on the eastern side of the river, which were afterward extended by the subjugation of the neighbouring nations. The territory of Tyre and Sidon was its ancient border on the north-west; the range of the Libanus and Anti- libanus forms a natural boundary on the north and north-east ; while in the south it is press- ed upon by the Syrian and Arabian deserts. Within this circumscribed district, such were the physical advantages of the soil and climate, there existed, in the happiest periods of the Jewish nation, an immense population. The kingdom of David and Solomon, however, ex- tended far beyond these narrow limits. Ina north-eastern direction, it was bounded only by the river Euphrates, and included a consi- derable part of Syria. It is stated that Solomon had dominion over all the region on the west- ern side of the Euphrates, from Thiphsah, or Thapsacus, on that river, in latitude 25° 20’, to Azzah, or Gaza. “'Tadmore in the wilderness,” (Palmyra,) which the Jewish monarch is stated to have built, (that is, either founded or fortifi- ed,) is considerably to the north-east of Damas- cus, being only e day’s journey from the Eu- phrates; and Hamath, the Epiphania of the Greeks, (still called Hamah,) in the territory belonging to which city Solomon had several “ store cities,” is seated on the Orontes, in lati- tude 34° 45’ N. On the east and south-east, the kingdom of Solomon was extended by the conquest of the country of Moab, that of the Ammonites, and Edom; and tracts which were either inhabited or pastured a the Israelites, lay still farther eastward. aon, which be- longed to the tribe of Judah, and was situated in or near the desert of Paran, is described by Abulfeda as the farthest city of Syria toward Arabia, being two days’ journey beyond Zoar. In the time of David, the people of Israel, wo- men and children included, amounted, on the lowest computation, to five millions; beside CAN the tributary Canaanites, and other conquered nations. The vast resources of the country, and the power of the Jewish monarch, may be estimat- ed not only by the consideration in which he was held by the contemporary sovereigns of Egypt, Tyre, and Assyria, but by the strength of the several kingdoms into which the domin- ions of David were subsequently divided. Da- mascus revolted during the reign of Solomon, and shook off the Jewish yoke. At his death, ten of the tribes revolted under Jeroboam, and the country became divided into the two rival kingdoms of Judah and israel, having for their capitals Jerusalem and Saniaria. The kingdom of Israel fell before the Assyrian conqueror, in the year B, C. 721, after it had subsisted about two hundred and fifty years. That of Judah survived about one hundred and thirty years, Judea being finally subdued and laid waste by Nebuchadnezzar, and the temple burned B. C. 588. Idumea was conquered a few years after. From this period till the era of Alexander the Great, Palestine remained subject to the Chal- dean, Median, and Persian dynasties. At his death, Judea fell under the dominion of the kings of Syria, and, with some short and troubled in- tervals, remained eee either to the kings of Syria or of Egypt, till John Hyrcanus shook off the Syrian yoke, and assumed the diadem, B. C. 130. The Asmonean dynasty, which united, in the person of the monarch, the functions of king and pontiff, though tributary to Roman conquer- ors, lasted one hundred and twenty-six years, till the kingdom was given by Anthony to He- rod the Great, of an Idumean family, B. C. 39. 2. At the time of the Christian era, Pales- tine was divided into five provinces; Judea, Samaria, Galilee, Perea, and Idumea. On the death of Herod, Archelaus, his eldest son, suc- ceeded to the government of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea, with the title of tetrarch; Galilee being assigned to Herod Antipas; and Perea, or the country beyond Jordan, to the third bro- ther, Philip. But in less than ten years the dominions of Archelaus became annexed, on his disgrace, to the Roman province of Syria; and Judea was thenceforth governed by Roman procurators. Jerusalem, after its final destruc- tion by Titus, A. D. 71, remained desolate and almost uninhabited, till the emperor Hadrian colonized it, and erected temples to Jupiter and Venus on its site. The empress Helena, in the fourth century, set the example of repairing in pilgrimage to the Holy Land, to visit the scenes consecrated by the Gospel narrative; and the country became enriched by the crowds of devotees who flocked there. In the beginning of the seventh century, it was overrun by the Saracens, who held it till Jerusalem was taken by the crusaders in the twelfth. The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem continued for about eighty years, during which the Holy Land streamed continually with Christian and Sara- cen blood. In 1187, Judea was conquered by the illustrious Saladin, on the decline of whose kingdom it passed through various revolutions, and at length, in 1317, was finally swallowed up in the Turkish empire. 208 CAN Palestine is now distributed into pashalics, That of Acre or Akka extends from Djebail neatly to Jaffa; that of Gaza comprehends Jaffa and the adjacent plains; and these two being now united, all the coast is under the jurisdic. tion of the pasha of Acre. Jerusalem, Hebron, Nablous, Tiberias, and in fact, the greater part of Palestine, are included in the pashalic of Damascus, now held in conjunction with that of Aleppo; which renders the present pasha, in effect, the viceroy of Syria. Though both pashas continue to be dutiful subjects to the Grand Seignior in appearance, and annually transmit considerable sums to Constantinople to insure the yearly renewal of their office, they are to be considered as tributaries, rather than subjects of the Porte ; and it is supposed to be the religious supremacy of the Sultan, as caliph and vicar of Mohammed, more than any appre- hension of his power, which prevents them from declaring themselves independent. The reverence shown for the firmauns of the Porte throughout Syria attests the strong hold which the Sultan maintains, in this character, on the Turkish population. The pashas of Egypt and Bagdad are attached to the Turkish sovereign by the same ecclesiastical tic, which alone has kept the ill-compacted and feeble empire from crumbling to ruin. 3. A few additional remarks upon the topo- graphy and climate will tend to elucidate the force of many of those parts of Scripture which contain allusions to these topics. Dr. E. D, Clarke, after stating his resolve to make the Scriptures his only guide throughout this inte- resting territory, says, “The delight afforded by the internal evidences of truth, in every in- stance where their fidelity of description was proved by a comparison of existing documents, surpassed even all we had anticipated. Such extraordinary instances of coincidence even with the customs of the country as they are now exhibited, and so many wonderful examples of illustration afforded by contrasting the simple narrative with the appearances presented, made us only regret the shortness of our time, and the limited sphere of our abilities for the com- parison.” Judea is beautifully diversified with hills and plains—hills now barren and gloomy, but once cultivated to their summits, and smil- ing in the variety of their produce, chiefly the olive and the vine; and plains, over which the Bedouin now roves to collect a scanty herbage for his cattle, but once yielding an abundance of which the inhabitants of a northern climate can form no idea. Rich in its soil; glowing in the sunshine of an almost perpetual sum- mer; and abounding in scenery of the grand- est, as well as of the most beautiful kind; this happy country was indeed a land which the Lord had blessed: but Mohammedan sloth and despotism, as the instruments employed to exe- cute the curse of Heaven, have converted it into a waste of rock and desert, with the exception of some few spots, which remain to attest the veracity of the accounts formerly given of it. The hills of Judea frequently rise into mount- ains; the most considerable of which are those of Lebanon and Hermon, on the north; those CAN which surround the sea of Galilee, and the Dead Sea, also attain a respectable elevation. The other mountains of note are, Carmel, Ta- bor, Ebal, and Gerizim, and the mountains of Gilboa, Gilead, and Abarim ; with the summits of the latter, Nebo and Pisgah: a description of which will be found under their respective heads. Many of the hills and rocks abound in caverns, the refuge of the distressed, or the re- sa:ts of robbers. 4. From the ‘ares of rain which falls in Judea, ‘and the heat and dryness of the atmos- phere for the greater part of the year, it pos- sesses but few rivers; and as these, have all their rise within its boundaries, their course is short, and their size inconsiderable: the prin- cipal is the Jordan, which runs about a hundred miles. The other remarkable streams are, the Arnon, the Jabbok, the Kishon, the Kedron, the Besor, the Sorek, and the stream called the river of Egypt. These, also, will be found described under their respective heads. This country was once adorned with woods and forests: as we read of the forest of cedars in Lebanon, the forest of oaks in Bashan, the forest or wood of Ephraim, and the forest of Hareth in the tribe of Judah. Of these, the woods of Bashan alone remain; the rest have been swept away by the ravages of time and of armies, and by the gradual consumption of the inhabitants, whose indolence and ignorance have prevented their planting others. 5. ‘There are no volcanoes now existing in Judea or its vicinity: nor is mention made of any in history, although volcanic traces are fourd in many parts on its eastern side, as they are also in the mountains of Edom on the south, the Djebel Shera and Hesma, as noticed by Burckhardt. There can be no doubt that many of the sacred writers were familiarly acquainted with the oer of volcanoes ; whence it may be inferred that they were pre- sented to their observation at no great distance, and from which they drew some of their sub- limest imagery. Mr. Horne has adduced the following instances: “The mountains quake at him, and the hills melt, and the earth is burned at his presence. His fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him,” Nahum i, 5, 6. ‘Behold, the Lord cometh forth out of his place, and will come down and tread upon the high places of the earth. And the mountains shall be molten under him, and the valleys shall be cleft as wax before the fire, and as the waters that are poured down a steep place,” Micah i, 3,4. ‘O that thou wouldest rend the heavens, that thou wouldest come down, that the mountains might flow down at thy presence. As when the meit- ang fire burneth, the fire causeth the waters to boil, to make thy name known to thine adver- saries, that the nations may tremble at thy presence. When thou didst terrible things which we looked not for, thou camest down, the mountains flowed down at thy presence,” Isa. lxiv, 1-3. 6. The climate of Judea, from the southern latitude of the country, is necessarily warm. The cold of winter as indeed, sometimes greater 209 CAN than in European climates situated some de- grees farther to the north; but it is of short duration, and the general character of the climate is that of heat. Both heat and cold are, however, tempered by the nature of the surface; the winter being scarcely felt in the valleys, while in the summer the heat is almost insupportable; and, on the contrary, in the more elevated parts, during the winter months, or rather weeks, frosts frequently occur, and snow sometimes falls, while the air in summer is comparatively cool and refreshing. Many winters pass without either snow or frost; and in the coldest weather which ever occurs, the sun in the middle of the day is generally warm, and often hot; so that the pain of cold is in reality but little felt, and the poor who cannot afford fires may enjoy, during several hours of the day, the more genial and invigorating in- fluence of the sun. This is the ordinary cha- racter of the winters; though in some years, as will be seen presently, the cold is more severely felt during the short time that it pre- vails, which is never more than two months, and more frequently not so much as one. To- ward the end of November, or beginning of December, domestic fires become agreeable. It was at this time that Jehoiakim, king of Judah, is represented by Jeremiah as sitting in his winter house, with a fire burning on the hearth before him, Jer. xxxvi, 22. The same luxury, though frequently by no means neces- sary, is used by the wealthy till the end of March. 7. Rain only falls during the autumn, winter, and spring, when it sometimes descends with great violence: the greatest quantity, and that which properly constitutes the rainy season, happening between the autumnal equinox, or somewhat later, and the beginning of December ; during which period, heavy clouds often ob- scure the sky, and several days of violent rain sometimes succeed each other with winds. This is what in Scripture is termed the early or the former rain. Showers continue to fall at uncertain intervals, with some cloudy but more fair weather, till toward the vernal equi- nox, when they become again more frequent and copious till the middle of April. These are the latter rains, Joel ii, 23. From this time to the end of May, showers come on at irregular intervals, gradually decreasing as the season advances; the sky being for the most part serene, and the temperature of the air agreeable, though sometimes acquiring a high degree of heat. From the end of May, or beginning of June, to the end of September, or middle of October, scarce a drop of rain falls, the sky being constantly unclouded, and the heat generally oppressive. During this period, the inhabitants commonly sleep on the tops of their houses. The storms, especially in the autumn, are preceded by short but violent gusts of wind, which, from the surface of a parched soil, raise great clouds of dust; which explains what is meant by, “Ye shall not see wind,” 2 Kings iii, 7. The continuation of the same passage likewise implies, that such circum- scribed whirlwinds were generally considered: CAN as the precursors of rain. a circumstance like- wise alfuded to by Solomon, who says, “ Whoso boasteth himself of a false gift, is like clouds and wind without rain,” Prov. xxv, 14. An- other prognostic of an approaching storm is a small cloud rising in the west, and increasing until it overspreads the whole heavens. Such was the cloud, “like a man’s hand,” which appeared to Elijah, on Mount Carmel; which spread “till the heaven was black with clouds and wind, and there was a great rain,” 1 Kings xviii, 44. To this phenomenon, and the cer- tainty of the prognostic, our Saviour alludes: “When ye see a cloud” (or the cloud, rnv vegedAnv) “rise out of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is,” Luke xii, 54. The same appearance is noticed by Homer ;— ‘Qs & Br’ ard oxomtijs eldsy vépos ainddos dvip Epyspevoy xara novrov tnd Lepiporo iwis, To dé 7’, dvevOev ébvre, peddvrepov, Hirt mica, QDaiver’ idv xara wévrov, dyei 6& te Naihawa rodAhv, Piyecey re idav, xe 7.d, Il. lib. iv, 275. “Slow from the main the heavy vapours rise, Spread in dim streams, and sail along the skies, Till black as night the swelling tempest shows, The cloud condensing as the west wind blows. He dreads the impending storm,” &c. Pore. Hail frequently falls in the winter and spring in very heavy storms, and with hailstones of an enormous size. Dr. Russel says that he has seen some at Aleppo which measured two inches in diameter; but sometimes they are found to consist of irregularly shaped pieces, weighing near three ounces. The copious dew forms another peculiarity of this climate, frequently alluded to in Scripture: so copious, indeed, is it sometimes, as to resemble small rain, and to supply the wants of superficial vegetation. Mr. Maundrell, when travelling near Mount Hermon, says, ‘‘ We were instruct- ed by experience what the Psalmist means by ‘the dew of Hermon,’ Psalm cxxxiii, 3; our tents being as wet with it, asif it had rained all night.” 8. The seasons are often adverted to in Scripture, under the terms “seed time and harvest.” The former, for wheat, is about the middle of October to the middle or end of No- vember: barley is put into the ground two and sometimes three months later. The wheat harvest commences about the twentieth of May, and early in June the whole is off the ground. The barley harvest, it is tobe observed, is gene- ‘ally a fortnight earlier. A survey of the as- tonishing produce of this country, and of the manner in which its most rocky, and, to appear- ance, insuperably sterile parts, are made to yield to the wants of man, will be sufficient to refute the objections raised by skeptical writers against the possibility of its furnishing subsist- ence to the multitude of its former inhabitants recorded in Scripture. Dr. Clarke, when tra velling from Napolose to Jerusalem, relates, “ The road was mountainous, rocky, and full of loose stones; yet the cultivation was every where marvellous: it afforded one of the most striking pictures of human industry which it is possible to behold. The limestone rocks 210 CAN and stony valleys of Judea were entirely cover. ed with plantations of figs, vines, and olive trees: not a single spot seemed to be neglected, The hills, from their bases to their upmost summits, were entirely covered with gardens: all of these were free from weeds, and in the highest state of agricultural perfection. Even the sides of the most barren mountains had been rendered fertile, by being divided into terraces, like steps rising one above another, whereon soil had been accumulated with as- tonishing labour. Among the standing crops, we noticed millet, cotton, linseed, and tobacco, and occasionally small fields of barley. A sight of this territory can alone convey any adequate idea of its surprising produce: it is truly the Eden of the east, rejoicing in the abundance of its wealth. Under a wise and a beneficent government, the produce of the Holy Land would exceed all calculation. Its erennial harvest; the salubrity of its air; its mpid springs; its rivers, lakes, and matchless plains; its hills and dales ;—all these, added to the serenity of its climate, prove this land to be indeed ‘a field which the Lord hath blessed: God hath given it of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and wine.’” An oriental’s ideas of fertility differ, however, from ours; for to him, plantations of figs, vines, and olives, with which the lime- stone rocks of Judea were once covered, would suggest the same associations of plenty and opulence that are called up in the mind of an nglishman by rich tracts of corn land. The land of Canaan is characterized as flowing with milk and honey; and it still answers to this description; for 1t contains extensive pas- ture lands of the richest quality, and the rocky country is covered with aromatic plants, yield- ing to the wild bees, who hive in the hollow of the rocks, such abundance of honey as to sup- we the poorer classes with an article of food. oney from the rocks is repeatedly referred to in the Scriptures, as a delicious food, and an emblem of plenty, 1 Sam. xiv, 25; Psa. lxxxi, 16. Dates are another important article of consumption; and the neighbourhood of Judea was famous for its numerous palm trees, which are found springing up from chance-sown ker- nels in the midst of the most arid districts. When to these wild productions we add the oil extracted from the olive, so essential an article to an oriental, we shall be at no loss to account for the ancient fertility of the most barren dis- tricts of Judea, or for the adequacy of the soil to the support of so numerous a population, notwithstanding the comparatively small pro- portion of arable land. ‘There is no reason to doubt, however, that corn and rice would be imported by the Tyrian merchants ; which the Israelites would have no difficulty in exchang- ing for the produce of the olive ground and the vineyard, or for their flocks and herds. Delicious wine is still produced in some dis- tricts, and the valleys bear plentiful crops of tobacco, wheat, barley, and millet. Tacitus compares both the climate and the soil, indeed, to those of Italy; and he particularly specifies the palm tree and balsam tree as productions CAN which gave the country an advantage over his own. Among other indigenous productions may be enumerated the cedar and other varie- ties of the pine, the cypress, the oak, the syca- more, the mulberry tree, the fig tree, the willow, the turpentine tree, the acacia, the aspen, the arbutus, the myrtle, the almond tree, the tama- risk, the oleander, the peach tree, the chaste tree, the carob or locust tree, the oskar, the doom, the mustard plant, the aloe, the citron, the apple, the pomegranate, and many flower- ne shrubs. ‘The country about Jericho was celebrated for its balsam, as well as for its palm trees; and two plantations of it existed during the last war between the Jews and the Romans, for which both parties fought desperately. But Gilead appears to have been the country in which it chiefly abounded: hence the name, “balm of Gilead.” Since the country has fallen under the Turkish dominion, it has ‘ceased to be cultivated in Palestine, but is still found in Arabia. Other indigenous produc- tions have either disappeared or are now con- fined to circumscribed districts. Iron is found in the mountain range of Libanus, and silk is produced in abundance in the plains of Samaria. 9. The grand distinction of Canaan, how- ever, is, that it was the only part of the earth made, by divine institution, a type of heaven. So it was exhibited to Abraham, and also to the Jews. It pointed to the eternal rest which the spiritual seed of the father of the faithful were to enjoy after the pilgrimage of life; its holy city was the figure of the “Jerusalem above ;” and Zion, with its solemn and joyful services, represented that ‘hill of the Lord” to which the redeemed shall come with songs, and everlasting joy upon their heads; where they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall fly away. CANAANITES, the posterity of Canaan oy his eleven sons, who are supposed to have settled in the land of Canaan, soon after the dispersion of Babel. Five of these are known to have dwelt in the land of Canaan; viz. Heth, Jebus, Hemor or Amor, Girgashi, and Hevi or Hivi; and these, together with their father Canaan, became the heads of so many nations. Sina or Sini was another son of Canaan, whose settlement is not so precisely ascertained ; but some authors infer, from the affinity of the names, that the Desert of Sin, and Mount Sinai, were the pee of his abode, and that they were so called from him. The Hittites inhabited the country about Hebron, as far as Beersheba, and the brook Besor, reckoned by Moses the southern limits of Canaan. The Jebusites dwelt near them on the north, as far as the city of Jebus, since called Jerusalem. The Amorites possessed the country on the east side of Jordan, between the river Arnon on the south-east, and Mount Gilead on_the north, afterwards the lot of Reuben and Gad. The Girgashites lay next above the Amorites, on the east side of the Sea of Tiberias, and their land was afterward possessed by the half tribe of Manasseh. The Hivites dwelt north- ward, under Mount Libanus. The Perizzites, who make one of the seven nations of the Ca- 211 CAN naanites, are supposed, by Heylin and others, to be the descendants of Sina or Sini; and it is probable, since we do not read of their abode in cities, that they lived dispersed, and in tents, like the Sycthians, roving on both sides of the Jordan, on the hills and plains; and that they were called by that name from the Hebrew pharatz, which signifies “to disperse.” The Canaanites dwelt in the midst of all, and were surrounded by the rest. This appears from the sacred writings to have been the respective situation of those seven nations, which are said to have been doomed to destruction for their idolatry and wickedness, when the Israelites first invaded their country. The learned have not absolutely determined whether the nations proceeding from Canaan’s other six sons should be reckoned among the inhabitants of the land of Canaan. The prevalent opinion is, that they were not included. As to the customs, manners, arts, sciences, and lan- uage of the seven nations that inhabited the and of Canaan, they must, from the situation they severally occupied, have been very differ- ent. Those who inhabited the sea coast were merchants, and by reason of their commerce and wealth, scattered colonies over almost all the islands and maritime provinces of the Me- diterranean. (See Phenicia.) The colonies which Cadmus carried to Thebes in Beotia, and his brother Cilix into Cilicia, are said to have proceeded from the stock of Canaan. Sicily, Sardinia, Malta, Cyprus, Corfu, Ma- jorca, Minorca, Gades, and Ebutris, are sup- posed to have been peopled by the Canaanites. The other Canaanites, whose situation was inland, were employed partly in pasturage, and partly in tillage, and they were also well skilled in the exercise of arms. Those who dwelt in the walled cities, and who had fixed abodes, cultivated the land; and those who wandered about, as the Perizzites seem to have done, grazed cattle: so that among the Canaanites, we discover the various classes of merchants, and, consequently, mariners; of artificers, sol- diers, shepherds, and husbandmen. We learn, also, from their history, that they were all ready, however diversified by their occupations or local interests, to join in a common cause; that they were well appointed for war, both offensive and defensive; that their towns were well fortified; that they were sufficiently fur- nished with military weapons and warlike cha- riots; that they were daring, obstinate, and almost invincible; and that they were not des- titute of craft and policy. Their language, we find, was well understood by Abraham, who was a Hebrew, for he conversed’ readily with them on all occasions; but as to their mode of writing, whether it was originally their own or borrowed from the Israelites, it is not so easy to determine. Their religion, at least in part, seems to have been preserved pure till the days of Abraham, who acknowledged Melchisedek to be priest of the most high God; and Mel- chisedek was, without doubt, a Canaanite, or, at least, dwelt at that time in Canaan in high esteem and veneration. 2, But we learn from the Scripture history, CAN tnat the Hittites in particular were become de- enerate in the time of Isaac and Rebekah; or they could not endure the thoughts of Ja- cob’s marrying one of the daughters of Heth, as Esau had done. From this time, then, we may date the prevalence of those abominations which subjected them to the divine displeasure, and made them unworthy of the land which they possessed. In the days of Moses, they were become incorrigible idolaters ; for he com- mands his people to destroy their altars, and break down their images, Coates or pillars,) and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire. And lest they should pervert the Israelites, the latter were strictly enjoined not to intermarry with them; but “to smite them, and utterly destroy them, nor show mercy upon them,” Deut. vii, 1-5. They are accused of the cruel custom of sacrificing men, and are said to have made their seed pass through the fire to Moloch, Lev. xviii, 21. Their morals were as corrupt as their doctrine : adultery, bestiality of all sorts, profanation, incest, and all manner of uncleanness, are the sins laid to their charge. ‘“ The Canaanites,” says Mr. Bryant, “as they were a sister tribe of the Mizraim, resembled them in their rites and religion. They held a heifer, or cow, in high veneration, agrecably to the customs of Egypt. Their chief deity was the sun, whom they worshipped, together with the Baalim, un- der the titles of Ourchol, Adonis, or Thamuz.” 3. When the measure of the idolatries and abominations of the Canaanites was filled up, God delivered their country into the hands of the Israelites, who conquered it under Joshua. However, they resisted with obstinate valour, and kept Joshua employed six years from, the time of his passing the river Jordan, and enter- ing Canaan, in the year B. C. 1451, to the year B.C. 1445, the sabbatical year beginning from the autumnal equinox; when he made a divis- ion of the land among the tribes of Israel, and rested from his conquests. As God had com- manded this people, long before, to be treated with rigour, see Deut. vu, 2, Joshua extirpated great numbers, and obliged the rest to fly, some of them into Africa, and others into Greece. Procopius says, they first retreated into Egypt, but advanced into Africa, where they built many cities, and spread themselves over those vast regions which reach to the straits, pre- serving their old language with little altera- tion. Inthetime of Athanasius, the Africans still said they were descended from the Ca- naanites; and when asked their origin, they answered, “Canani.” It is agreed, that the Punic tongue was nearly the same as the Ca- naanitish or Hebrew. ; 4. On the rigorous treatment of the nations of Canaan by the Israelites, to which infidels have taken so many exceptions, the following remarks of Paley are a sufficient reply: The first thing to be observed is, that the nations of Canaan were destroyed for their wickedness. This is plain from Lev. xviii, 24, &c. Now the facts disclosed in this passage sufficiently testify, that the Canaanites were a wicked peo- ple; that detestable practices were general 212 CAN among them, and even habitual; that it wag for these enormities the nations of Canaan were destroyed. It was not, as some have imagined, to make way for the Israelites; nor was it simply to make away with their idola- try; but it was because of the abominable crimes which usually accompanied the latter, And we may farther learn from the passage, ’ that God’s abhorrence of these crimes, and his indignation against them, are etre by the rules of strict impartiality, since Moses solemnly warns the Israelites against falling into the like wicked courses, “‘ that the land,” says he, “cast not you out also, when you defile it, as it cast out the nations that were before you; for who- soever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people,” Lev. xviii, 28, 29, Now, when God, for the wickedness of a peo- ple, sends an earthquake, or a fire, or a plague among them, there is no complaint of injustice, especially when the calamity is known, or ex- pressly declared beforehand, to be inflicted for the wickedness of such people. It is rather regarded as an act of exemplary penal justice, and, as such, consistent with the character of the moral Governor of the universe. The ob- jection, therefore, is not to the Canaanitish na- tions being destroyed ; (for when their national wickedness is considered, and when that is ex- pressly stated as the cause of their destruction, the dispensation, however severe, will not be questioned ;) but the objection is solely to the manner of destroying them. I mean there is nothing but the manner left to be objected to: their wickedness accounts for the thing itself, To which objection it may be replied, that if the thing itself be just, the manner is of little signification, of little signification even to the sufferers themselves. For where is the great difference, even to them, whether they were destroyed by an earthquake, a pestilence, a famine, or by the hands of an enemy ? Where is the difference, even to our imperfect appre- hensions of divine justice, provided it be, and is known to be, for their wickedness that they are destroyed? But this destruction, you say, confounded the innocent with the guilty. The sword of Joshua, and of the Jews, spared nei- ther women nor children. Is it not the same with all other national visitations ?_ Would not an earthquake, or a fire, or a plague, or a famine among them, have done the same? Even in an ordinary and natural death the, same thing happens; God takes away the life he lends, without regard, that we can perceive, to age, or sex, or character. “ But, after all, promiscuous massacres, the burning of cities, the laying waste of countries, are things dread- ful to reflect upon.” ‘Who doubts it? so are all the judgments of Almighty God. The effect, in whatever way it shows itself, must necessa- rily be tremendous, when the Lord, as the Psalmist expresses it, ‘‘ moveth out of his place to punish the wicked.” But it ought to satisfy us; at least this is the point upon which we ought to rest and fix our attention; that it was for excessive, wilful, and forewarned wick- edness, that all this befel them, and that it is CAN all along so declared in the history which recites it, But, farther, if punishing them by the hands of the Israelites rather than by a pestilence, an earthquake, a fire, or any such calamity, be still an objection, we may perceive, I think, some reasons for this method of punishment in preference to any other whatever ; always bear- ing in our’ mind, that the question is not con- cerning the justice of the punishment, but the mode of it. It is well known, that the people of those ages were affected by no proof of the power of the gods which they worshipped, so deeply as by their giving them victory in war. It was by this species of evidence that the su- periority of their own gods above the gods of the nations which they conquered, was, in their opinion, evinced. This being the actual per- suasion which then prevailed in the world, no matter whether well or ill founded, how were the neighbouring nations, for whose admoni- tion this dreadful example was intended, how were they to be convinced of the supreme power of the God of Israel above the pretended gods of other nations; and of the righteous character of Jehovah, that is, of his abhorrence of the vices which prevailed in the land of Ca- naan? How, Isay, were they to be convinced so well, or at all indeed, as by enabling the Israelites, whose God he was known and ac- knowledged to be, to conquer under his banner, and drive out before them, those who resisted the execution of that commission with which the Israelites declared themselves to be invest- ed, namely, the expulsion and extermination of the Canaanitish nations? This convinced surrounding countries, and all who were ob- servers or spectators of what passed, first, that the God of Israel was a real God; secondly, that the gods which other nations worshipped, were either no gods, or had no power against the God of Israel; and thirdly, that it was he, and he alone, who possessed both the power and the will, to punish, to destroy, and to ex- terminate from before his face, both nations and individuals,who gave themselves up to the crimes and wickedness for which the Canaan- ites were notorious. Nothing of this sort would have appeared, or with the same evidence, from an earthquake, or a plague, or any natural ca- lamity. These might not have been attributed to divine agency at all, or not to the interpo- sition of the God of Israel. Another reason which made this destruction both more necessary, and more general, than it would have otherwise been, was the con- sideration, that if any of the old inhabitants were left, they would prove a snare to those who succeeded them in the country; would draw and seduce them by degrees into the vices and corruptions which prevailed among them- selves. Vices of all kinds, but vices most par- ticularly of the licentious kind, are astonish- ingly infectious. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. A small number of persons ad- dicted to them, and allowed to practise them with impunity or encouragement, will spread them through the whole mass. This reason is formally and expressly assigned, not simply for 213 CAN the punishment, but for the extent to which it was carried; namely, extermination: “ Thou shalt utterly destroy them, that they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods.” In reading the Old Testament account, therefore, of the Jewish wars and conquests in Canaan, and the terrible destruction brought upon the inhabitants thereof, we are always to remember that we are reading the execution of a dreadful but just sentence, pronounced by Jehovah against the intolerable and incorrigi- ble crimes of these nations; that they were intended to be made an example to the whole world of God’s avenging wrath against sins, which, if they had been suffered to continue, might have polluted the whole ancient world, and which could only be checked by the signal and public everthrow of nations notoriously addicted to them, and so addicted as even to have incorporated them into their religion and their public institutions; and that the Israel- ites were mere instruments in the hands of a righteous Providence for effecting the extir- pation of a people, of whom it was necessary to make a public example to the rest of man- kind; that this extermination, which might have been accomplished by a pestilence, by fire, by earthquakes, was appointed to be done by the hands of the Israelites, as being the clear- est and most intelligible method of displaying the power and the righteousness of the God of Israel; his power over the pretended gods of other nations; and his righteous indignation against the crimes into which they were fallen. CANDACE, the name of an Ethiopian queen, whose eunuch coming to Jerusalem to worship the Lord, was baptized by Philip the deacon, near Bethsura, in the way to Gaza, as he was returning to his own country, Acts viii, 27. The Ethiopia here mentioned was the isle or peninsula of Meroé to the south of Egypt, which, as Mr. Bruce shows, is now called Atbara, up the Nile. Candace was the common name of the queens of that country. Strabo and Pliny mention queens of that name as reigning in their times. That the queen mentioned in the Acts was converted by the instrumentality of her servant, and that the country thus received Christianity at that early period, are statements not supported by any good testimony. See Apyssinian Cuurcu. CANDLESTICK. The instrument so ren- dered by our translators was more properly a stand for lamps. One of beaten gold was made by Moses, Exod. xxv, 31, 32, and put into the tabernacle in the holy place, over against the table of shew bread. The basis of this candle- stick was also of pure gold; it had seven branches, three on each side, and one in the middle. When Solomon had built the temple, he was not satisfied with placing one golden candlestick there, but had ten put up, of the same form and metal with that described by Moses, five on the north, and five on the south side of the holy place, 1 Kings vii, 49. After the Jews returned from their captivity, the golden candlestick was again placed in the tem- ple, as it had been before in the tabernacle by CAN Moses. The lamps were kept burning per- petually ; and were suo morning and even- ing with pure oliveoil. Josephus says, that after the Romans had destroyed the temple, the several things which were found within it, were carried in triumph to Rome, namely, the golden table, and the golden candlestick with seven branches. These were lodged in the temple built by Vespasian, and consecrated to Peace; and at the foot of Mount Palatine, there is a triumphal arch still visible, upon which Vespasian’s triumph is represented, and the several monuments which were carried pub- licly in the procession are engraved, and among the rest the candlestick with the seven branch- es, which are still discernible upon it. In Rev. i, 12, 20, mention is made of seven golden can- dlesticks, which are said to be emblems of the seven Christian churches. CANKER-WORM, p%, Psalm cv, 34; Jer. li, 27, where it is rendered caterpillar; Joel i, 4; ii, 25; Nahum iii, 15, canker-worm. As it is frequently mentioned with the locust, it is thought by some to be a species of that insect. It certainly cannot be the canker-worm, as our version renders it; for in Nahum, it is expressly said to have wings and fly, to camp in the hedges by day, and commit its depredations in the night. But it may be, as the Septuagint renders it in five passages out of eight where it occurs, the bruchus, or“ hedge-chaffer.” Nevertheless, the passage, Jer. li, 27, where the zalek is described as “ rough,” that is, with hair standing an end on it, leads us very naturally to the rendering of our translators in that place, “‘ the rough caterpillar,” which, like other caterpillars, at a proper time, casts its ex- terior covering and flies away in a winged state. Scheuchzer observes, that we should not, perhaps, be far from the truth, if with the an- cient interpreters, we understood this ialek, after all, as a kind of locust; as some species of them have hair principally on the head, and others have prickly points standing out. CANON, a word used to denote the author- ized catalogue of the sacred writings. 'The word is originally Greek, xavav, and signifies a rule or standard, by which other things are to be examined and judged. Accordingly, the same word has been applied to the tongue of a balance, or that small part which, by its per- pendicular position, determines the even poise or weight, or, by its inclination either way, the uneven poise of the things which are weighed. Hence it appears, that as the writ- ings of the Prophets, Apostles, and Evangel- ists contain an authentic account of the revealed will of God, they are the rule of the belief and practice of those who receive them. Canon is also equivalent to a list or catalogue, in which are inserted those books which contain the rule of faith. For an account of the settling of the canon of Scripture, see Bible. The following obser- vations of Dr. Alexander, in his work on the canon, proving that no canonical book of the Old or Rew Testament has been lost, may here be properly introduced—No canonical book of the Old Testament has been lost. On this 214 CAN subject, there has existed some diversity of opinion. Chrysostom is cited by Bellarmine as saying, “that ey of the writings of the prophets had perished, which may readily be proved from the history in Chronicles. For the Jews were negligent, and not only negli- gent, but impious; so that some books were lost through carelessness, and others were burned, or otherwise destroyed.” In confirm- ation of this opinion, an appeal is made to 1 Kings iv, 32, 33, where it is said of Solomon, “that he spake three thousand proverbs, and his songs were a thousand and five. And he spake of trees, from the cedar in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall- he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes.” All these pro- ductions, it 1s acknowledged, have perished, Again, it is said in 1 Chron. xxix, 29, 30: “Now, the acts of David the king, first and last, behold they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer; with all his reign, and his might, and the times that went over him, and over Israel, and over all the kingdoms of the countries.” The book of Jasher, also, is twice mentioned in Scrip- ture. In Joshua x, 13: “ And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves on their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher?” And in 2 Sam. i, 18: “And he bade them teach the children of Israel the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.” The book of the wars of the Lord is referred to in Numbers xxi, 14. But we have in the canon no books under the name of Nathan and Gad, nor any book of Jasher, nor of the wars of the Lord. Moreover, we frequently are referred, in the sacred history, to other chronicles or annals, for a fuller account of the matters spoken of, which chronicles are not now extant. And in 2 Chron. ix, 29, it is said, ‘“ Now, the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer, against Jeroboam, the son of Nebat ?” Now, it is well known that none of these writings of the prophets are in the canon; at least, none of them under their names. It is said, also, in 2 Chron. xii, 15, “Now, the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer, concerning genealogies ?” Of which works nothing re- mains under the names of these prophets. 1. The first observation which may be made on this subject is, that every book referred to or quoted in the sacred writings is not neces- sarily an inspired or canonical book. Because St. Paul cites passages from the Greek poets, it does not follow that we must receive their poems as inspired. 2. A book may be written by an inspired man, and yet be neither inspired nor canonical. Inspiration was not constantly afforded to the rophets ; but was occasional, and for particu ar Important purposes. In common matters CAN and especially in things no way connected with religion, it is reasonable to suppose that the Prophet and Apostles were Tet to the same guidance of reason and common sense as other men. A man, therefore, inspired to de- liver some prophecy, or even to write a canoni- cal book, might write other books with no greater assistance than other good men re- ceive. Because Solomon was inspired to write some canonical books, it does not follow that what he wrote on natural history was also inspired, any more than Solomon’s private letters to his friends, if ever he wrote any. Let it be remembered that the Prophets and Apostles were only inspired on special occa- sions, and on particular subjects, and all diffi- culties respecting such works as these will vanish. ow many of the books referred to in the Bible, and mentioned above, may have been of this description, it is now impossible to tell; but probably several of them belong to this class. No doubt there were many books of annals much more minute and particular in the narration of.facts than those which we have. It was often enough merely to refer to these state papers, or public documents, as being sufficiently correct, in regard to the facts on account of which the reference was made. The book of the wars of the Lord might, for aught that appears, have been merely a muster roll of the army. The word translated b00k has so extensive a meaning in Hebrew, that it is not even necessary to suppose that it was a writing at all. The book of Jasher (or of Rectilude, if we translate the word) might have been some useful compend taken from Scrip- ture, or composed by the wise, for the regula- tion of justice and equity between man and man. Augustine, in his “City of God,” has distinguished accurately on this subject. “I think,” says he, “that those books which should have authority in religion were revealed by the Holy Spirit, and that men composed others by historical diligence, as the prophets did these by inspiration. And these two classes of books are so distinct, that it is only by those written by inspiration that we are to suppose that God, through them, is speaking unto us. The one class is useful for fulness of know- ledge ; the other, for authority in religion; in which authority the canon is preserved.” 3. But again: it may be maintained, without any prejudice to the completeness of the canon, that there may have been inspired writings which were not intended for the instruction of the church in all ages, but composed by the prophets for some special occasion. These writings, though inspired, were not canonical. They were temporary in their design; and when that was accomplished, they were no longer needed. We know that the prophets delivered, by inspiration, many discourses to the people, of which we have not a trace on record. Many true prophets are mentioned, who wrote nothing that we know of; and several are mentioned, whose names are not even given. The same is true of the Apostles. Very few of them had any concern in writing the canonical Scriptures, and yet they all pos- 215 CAN sessed plenary inspiration. And if ny wrote letters on special occasions, to the churches planted by them; yet these were not designed for the perpetual instruction of the universal church. Therefore, Shemaiah, and Iddo, and Nathan, and Gad, might have written some things by inspiration which were never intend- ed to form a part of the sacred volume. It is not asserted that there certainly existed such temporary inspired writings: allthat is neces- sary to be maintained is, that, supposing such to have existed, which is not improbable, it does not follow that the canon is incomplete by reason of their loss. 4. The last remark in relation to the books of the Old Testament supposed to be lost is, that it is highly probable that we have several of them now in the canon, under another name. The books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, were, probably, not written by one, but by a succession of prophets. There is reason tc believe that, until the canon of sacred Scrip- ture was closed, the succession of prophets was never interrupted. Whatever was neces- sary to be added, by way of explanation, to any book already received into the canon, the were competent to annex; or, whatever annals ° or histories it was the purpose of God to have transmitted to posterity, they would be direct- ed and inspired to prepare. Thus, different parts of these books might have been penned by Gad, Nathan, Iddo, Shemaiah, &c. That some parts of these histories were prepared by panes we have clear proof in one instance; for Isaiah has inserted in his prophecy several chapters which are contained in 2 Kings, and which, I think, there can be no doubt were originally written by himself. The Jewish doctors are of opinion that the book of Jasher is one of the books of the Pentateuch, or the whole law. The book of the wars of the Lord has by many been supposed to be no other than the book of Numbers. Thus, it sufficiently appears from an exami- nation of particulars, that there exists no evi- dence that any canonical book of the Old Testament has been lost. To which we may add, that there are many general considerations of great weight which go to prove that no part of the Scriptures of the Old Testament has been lost. The translation of these books into Greek is sufficient to show that the same books existed nearly two hundred years before the advent of Christ. And, above all, the unquali- fied testimony to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, by Christ and his Apostles, ought to satisfy us that we have lost none of the in- spired books of the canon. The Scriptures are constantly referred to, and quoted as infallible authority by them, as we have before shown. These oracles were committed to the Jews as a sacred deposit, and they are never charged with unfaithfulness in this trust. The Scrip- tures are declared to have been written “ for our learning ;” and no intimation is given that they had ever been mutilated, or in any degree corrupted. As to the New Testament, the same author proceeds: With respect to the New Testament, CAN I am ready to concede, as was before done, that there may have been books written by in- spired men that have been lost; for inspiration was occasional, not constant; and confined to matters of faith, and not afforded on the affairs of this life, or in matters of mere science. And if such writings have been lost, the canon of Scripture has suffered no more by this means, than by the loss of any other uninspir- ed books. But again: I am willing to go far- ther, and say that it is possible Pahhoaek I know no evidence of the fact) that some things, written under the influence of inspiration, for a particular occasion, and to rectify some dis- order in a particular church, may have been lost, without injury to the canon. For, since much that the Apostles preached by inspiration is undoubtedly lost, so there is no reason why every word which they wrote must necessarily be preserved, and form a part of the canonical volume. For example: suppose that when St. Paul said, “I wrote to you in an epistle not to company with fornicators,” 1 Cor. v, 9, he re- ferred to an epistle which he had written to the Corinthians, before the one now called the First; it might never have been intended that this letter should form a constituent part of the canon ; for although it treated of subjects con- nected with Christian faith or practice, yet, an occasion having arisen, in a short time, of treating these subjects more at large, every thing 1n that epistle (supposing it ever to have been written) may have been included in the «wo Epistles to the Corinthians which are now in the canon. 1. The first argument to prove that no ca- nonical book has been lost, is derived from the watchful care of providence over the sacred Scriptures. Now, to suppose that a book writ- ten by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and intended to form a part of the canon, which is the rule of faith to the church, should be ut- terly and irrecoverably lost, is surely not very honourable to the wisdom of God, and in no way consonant with the ordinary method of his dispensations, in regard to his precious truth. There is good reason to think that, if God saw it needful, and for the edification of the church, that such books should be written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, by his providence he would have taken care to preserve them from destruction. We do know that this treasure of divine truth has been, in all ages, and in the worst times, the special eare of God, or not one of the sacred books would now be in existence. And if one ca- nonical book might be lost through the negli- gence or unfaithfulness of men, why not all? And thus the end of God, in making a revela- tion of his will, might have been defeated. But whatever other corruptions have crept into the Jewish or Christian churches, it does not appear that either of them, as a body, ever in- curred the censure of having been careless in preserving the oracles of God. Our Saviour never charges the Jews, who perverted the sacred Scriptures to their own ruin, with hav- ing lost any portion of the sacred deposit in- trusted to them. History informs us of the 216 CAN fierce and malignant design of Antiochus Epiphanes, to abolish every vestige of the sa. cred volume; but the same history assures us that the Jewish people manifested a heroic fortitude and invincible patience in resisting and defeating his impious purpose. They chose rather to sacrifice their lives, and suffer a cruel death, than to deliver up the copies of the sacred volume in their possession. And the same spirit was manifested, and with the same result, in the Dioclesian persecution of the Christians. Every effort was made to ob- literate the sacred writings of Christians; and multitudes suffered death for refusing to deliver up the New Testament. Some, indeed, over- come by the terrors of a cruel persecution, did, in the hour of temptation, consent to surrender the holy book; but they were ever afterward called traitors; and it was with the utmost dif. ficulty that any of them could be received again into the communion of the church, after a long repentance, and the most humblin confessions of their fault. Now, if any canoni- cal book was ever lost, it must have been in these early times, when the word of God was valued far above life, and when every Christian stood ready to seal the truth with his blood. 2. Another argument which appears to me to be convincing is, that in a little time, all the sacred books were dispersed over the whole world. If a book had, by some accident or violence, been destroyed in one region, the loss could soon have been repaired, by sending for copies to other countries. The considerations just mentioned would, I presume, be satisfac- tory to all candid minds, were it not that it is supposed that there is evidence that some things were written by the Apostles which are not now inthe canon. We have already referred to an epistle to the Corinthians, which St. Paul is supposed to have written to them, previously to the writing of those which we now possess, But it is by no means certain, or even probable, that St. Paul ever did write such an epistle; for not one ancient writer makes the least men- tion of any such letter, nor is there any where to be found any citation from it, or any refer- ence to it. It is a matter of testimony, in which all the fathers concur, as with one voice, that St. Paul wrote no more than fourteen epis- tles, all of which we now have. But still, St. Paul’s own declaration stands in the way of our opinion: “I wrote to you in an epistle,” 1 Cor. v,9,11. The words in the original are, *"Eyparpa tpiv &v rH émorody: the literal version of which is, “I have written to you in the epis- tle,” or “in this epistle ;” that is, in the former part of it; where, in fact, we find the very thing which he says that he had written. See 1 Cor. vy, 2,5, 6. But it is thought by Jearned and judicious commentators, that the words follow- ing, Novi dé éypawa Spiv, “ But now I have writ- ten unto you,” require that we should understand the former clause, as relating to some former time; but a careful attention to the context will convince us that this reference is by no means necessary. The Apostle had told them in the beginning of the chapter, to avoid the company of fornicators, &c; but it is manifest, CAN 217 trom the tenth verse, that he apprehended that his meaning might be misunderstood, by ex- tending the prohibition too far, so as to decline all intercourse with the world; therefore, he repeats what he had said, and informs them that it had relation only to the professors of Christianity, who should be guilty of such vices. The whole may be thus paraphrased: ‘I wrote to you above in my letter, that you should se- parate from those who were fornicators, and that you should purge them out as old leaven; but, fearing lest you should misapprehend my meaning, by inferring that I have directed you to avoid all intercourse with the Heathen around you, who are addicted to these shameful vices, which would make it necessary that you should go out of the world, I now inform you that my meaning is, that you do not associate familiar- ly with any who make a profession of Chris- tianity, and yet continue in these evil prac- tices.” In confirmation of this interpretation, we can adduce the old Syriac version, which, having been made soon after the days of the Apostles, is good testimony in relation to this matter of fact. In this venerable version, the meaning of the eleventh verse is thus given: “ This is what I have written unto you,” or, sf the meaning of what I have written unto you. The only other passage in the New Testa- ‘nent which has been thought to refer to an epistle of St. Paul not now extant, is that in olossians iv, 16: “ And when this epistle is read among you, cause also that it be read in the church of the Laodiceans, and that ye like- wise read the epistle from Laodicea.” But what evidence is there that St. Paul ever wrote an epistle to the Laodiceans? The text on which this opinion has been founded, in an- cient and modern times, correctly interpreted, nas no such import. The words inthe original are, xai ri éx Aaodtxeias tva cat dpeis dvayvare, “and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea,” Col. iv, 16. These words have been differently taken; for, by them some understand that an epistle had been written by St. Paul to the Laodiceans, which he desired might be read in the church at Colosse. Chrysostom seems to have understood them thus; and the Romish writers almost universally have adopted this opinion. ‘“ Therefore,” says Bellarmine, “it is certain that St. Paul’s epistle to the Laodi- ceans is now lost.” And their opinion is fa- voured by the Latin Vulgate, where we read, eamque Laodicensiwm, ‘that which is of the Laodiceans ;” but even these words admit of another construction. Many learned Protest- ants, also, have embraced the same _interpret- ation; while others suppose that St. Paul here refers to the epistle to the Ephesians, which they think he sent to the Laodiceans, and that the present inscription is spurious. But that neither of these opinions is correct, may be rendered very probable. That St. Paul could not intend, by the language used in the pas- sage under consideration, an epistle written by himself, will appear by the following argu- ments: (1.) St. Paul could not, with any proprie- ty of speech, have called an epistle written by CAN himself, and sent to the Laodiceans, an epistle from Laodicea. He certainly would have said, nods Aaodxeiay, [to Laodicea,] or some such thing. Who ever heard of an epistle addressed to any individual, or to any society, denominated an epistle from them ? 2.) If the epistle referred to in this paso had been one written by St. Paul, it would have been most natural for him to callit his epistle; and this would have ren- dered his meaning incapable of misconstruc- tion. (3.) All those best qualified to judge of the fact, and who were well acquainted with St. Paul’s history and writings, never mention any such epistle: neither Clement, Hermas, nor the Syriac interpreter, knew any thing of such an epistle of St. Paul. But it may be asked, To what epistle, then, does St. Paul refer? It seems safest in such a case, where testimony is deficient, to follow the literal sense of the words, and to believe that it was an epistle written by the Laodiceans, probably to him- self, which he had sent to the Colossians, to- gether with his own epistle, for their perusal. CANTICLES, the book of, in Hebrew, myywn vy, the song of songs. The church, as well as the synagogue, received this book generally as canonical. The royal author ap- pears, in the typical spirit of his times, to have designed to render a ceremonial appointment descriptive of aspiritual relation ; andthis song is accordingly considered, by judicious writers, to be a mystical allegory of that sort which in- duces a more sublime sense on historical truths, and which, by the description of human events, shadows out divine circumstances. The sacred writers were, by God’s condescension, author- ized to illustrate his strict and intimate rela- tion to the church, by the figure of a marriage; and the emblem must have been strikingly be- coming and expressive to the conceptions of the Jews, since they annexed ideas of peculiar mystery to this appointment, and imagined the marriage union to be a counterpart representa- tion of some original pattern in heaven. Hence it was performed among them with very pecu- liar ceremonies and solemnity, with every thing that could givedignity and importance to its rites. Solomon, therefore, in celebrat- ing the circumstances of his marriage, was naturally led, by a train of correspondent re- flections, to consider that spiritual connection which it was often employed to symbolize; and the idea must have been the more forcibly sug- ested to him, as he was at this period prepar- ing to build a temple to God, and thereby to furnish a visible representation of the Hebrew church. The spiritual allegory thus worked up by Solomon to its highest perfection, was very consistent with the prophetic style, which was accustomed to predict evangelical blessings by such parabolical figures; and Solomon was more immediately furnished with a pattern for this representation by the author of the forty- fifth Psalm, who describes, in a compendioug allegory, the same future connection between Christ and his church. 2. But though the work be certainly an alle- gorical representation, many learned men, in an unrestrained eagerness to explain the song, oO CAP 2 even in its minutest and most obscure particu- lars, have too far indulged their imaginations ; and, by endeavouring too nicely to reconcile the literal with the spiritual sense, have been led beyond the boundaries which a reverence for the sacred Scriptures should ever prescribe. The ideas which the sacred writers furnish con- cerning the mystical relation between Christ and his church, though well accommodated to our apprehensions by the allusion of a mar- riage union, are too general to illustrate every particular contained in this poem, which may be supposed to have been intentionally decorat- ed with some ornaments Bree to the lite- ral construction. When the general analogy is obvious, we are not always to expect minute resemblance, and should not be too curious in seeking for obscure and recondite allusions. Solomon, in the glow of an inspired fancy, and unsuspicious of misconception or deliberate perversion, describes God and his church, with their respective attributes and graces, under colourings familiar and agreeable to mankind, and exhibits their ardent affection under the authorized figures of earthly love. No simili- tude, indeed, could be chosen so elegant and apposite for the illustration of this intimate and spiritual alliance, as a marriage union, if considered in the chaste simplicity of its first institution, or under the interesting circum- stances with which it was established among the Jews. 3. This poem may be considered, as to its form, as a dramatic poem of the pastoral kind. There is a succession of time, and a change of place, to different parts of the palace and royal gardens. The persons introduced as speakers, are the bridegroom and bride, and their respect- ive attendants. The interchange of dialogue is carried on in a wild and digressive manner ; but the speeches are adapted to the persons with appropriate elegance. The companions of the bride compose a kind of chorus, which seems to bear some resemblance to that afterward adopted in the Grecian tragedy. Solomon and his queen assume the pastoral simplicity of style, which is favourable to the communication of their sentiments. The poem abounds through- out with beauties, and presents every where a delightful and romantic display of nature, paint- ed at its most interesting season, and described with every ornament that an inventive fancy could furnish. It is justly entitled Song of Songs, or most excellent song, as being supe- rior to any that an uninspired writer could have produced, and tending, if properly understood, to purify the mind, and to elevate the affections from earthly to heavenly things. CAPERNAUM, a city celebrated in the Gospels, being the place where Jesus usuall resided during the time of his ministry. it stood on the sea coast, that is, on the coast of the sea of Galilee, in the borders of Zebulun and Naphtalim, Matt. iv, 15, and consequently toward the upper part of it. As it was a con- venient port from Galilee to any place on the other side of the sea, this might be our Lord’s inducement to make it the place of his most constant residence. Upon this account Ca- 18 CAP pernaum was highly honoured; and though “exalted unto heaven,” as its inhabitants boasted, because it made no proper use of this signal favour it drew from him the severe de- nunciation, that it should “be brought down to hell,” Matt. xi, 23. This sentence of de- struction has been fully realized; the ancient city is reduced to a state of utter desolation, Burckhardt supposes the ruins called Tal Houm, near the rivulet called El Eshe, to be those of Capernaum. Mr. Buckingham, who gives this place the name of Talhhewn, de- scribes considerable and extensive ruins; the only remains of those edifices which exalted Capernaum above its fellows. CAPPADOCIA, is called in Hebrew Caph- tor. Cappadocia joined Galatia on the east, and is mentioned in Acts ii, 9, and by St. Peter, who addresses his First Epistle to the dispersed throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Bi- thynia, and Asia. The people of this country were formerly infamous for their vices; but after the promulgation of Christianity, it pro- duced many great and worthy men: among these may be reckoned Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Assen, and St. Basil, commonly styled the Great. CAPTIVES. The treatment of persons taken in war among ancient nations throws great light upon many passages of Scripture. The eastern conqueror often stripped his un- happy captives naked, shaved their heads, and made them travel in that condition, exposed to, the burning heat of a vertical sun by day, and the chilling cold of the night. Such barbarous treatment was to modest women the height of cruelty and indignity ; especially to those who had been educated in softness and elegance, who had figured in all the superfluities of orna- mental dress, and whose faces had hardly ever been exposed to the sight of man. The Pro- phet Isaiah mentions this as the hardest part of the sufferings in which female captives are involved: “ The Lord will expose their naked- ness.” The daughter of Zion had indulged in all the softness of oriental luxury; but the offended Jehovah should cause her unrelenting enemies to drag her forth from her secret cham- bers into the view of an insolent soldiery; strip her of her ornaments, in which she so greatly delighted; take away her splendid and costly garments, discover her nakedness, and compel her to travel in that miserable plight to a far distant country, a helpless captive, the property of a cruel lord. Arrived in the land of their captivity, captives were often purchased at a very low price. The Prophet Joel complains of the contemptuous cheapness in which the people of Israel were held by those who made them captives: ‘‘ And they have cast lots for my people; and have given a boy for a harlot, and sold a girl for wine, that they might drink.” The custom of casting lots for the captives taken in war appears to have prevailed both among the Jews and the Greeks. The same allusion occurs in the prophecy of Obadiah: “Strangers carried away captive his forces, and foreigners entered into his gates, and cast lots upon Jerusalem,” Obadiah 11. With re- CAP ne to the Greeks, we have an instance in ryphiodorus :— “Shared out by lot the female captives stand, The spoils divided with an equal hand; Each to his ship conveys his rightful share, Price of their toil, and trophies of the war.” 2. By an inhuman custom which is still re- tained in the east, the eyes of captives taken in war were not seldom put out, sometimes literally scooped or dug out of their sockets. This dreadful calamity Samson had to endure from the unrelenting vengeance of his ene- mies. In a posterior age, Zedekiah, the last king of Judah and Benjamin, after being com- pelled to behold the violent death of his sons and nobility, had his eyes put out, and was carried in chains to Babylon. The barbarous custom long survived the decline and fall of the Babylonian empire; for by the testimony of Mr. Maurice, in his history of Hindostan, the ae princes of that country were often treated in this manner by their more fortunate rivals; a red hot iron was passed over their eyes, which effectually deprived them of sight, and at the same time of their title and ability toreign. To the wretched state of such prison- ers, the Prophet Isaiah alludes in a noble pre- diction, where he describes in very glowing colours the character and work of the promised Messiah: “ He hath sent me to heal the bro- ken hearted, to preach deliverance to the cap- tives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,” as cap- tives too frequently were by the weight of their fetters. 3. It seems to have been the practice of east- ern kings, to command their captives taken in war, especially those that had, by the atrocious- ness of their crimes, or the stoutness of their resistance, greatly provoked their indignation, to lie down on the ground, and then put to death a certain part of them, which they mea- sured with a line, or determined by lot. This custom was not, poner commonly practised by the people of God, in their wars with the nations around them; but one instance is re- corded in the life of David, who inflicted this unishment on the Moabites: “ And he smote oab, and measured them with a line, casting them down to the ground; even with two lines measured he to put to death, and with one full line to keep alive: and so the Moabites became David’s servants, and brought gifts,” 2 Sam. vili, 2. But the most shocking punishment which the ingenious cruelty of a haughty and unfecling conqueror ever inflicted on the mise- rable captive, is described by Virgil in the eighth book of the Amneid; and which even a Roman, inured to blood, could not mention without horror :— “ Quid memorem infandas cedes? quid facta tyran- wi,” &. Line 483. “What words can paint those execrable times, The subjects’ sufferings, and the tyrant’s crimes! That blood, those murders, O ye gods! replace On his own head, and on his impious race: The living and the dead at his command Were coupled face to face, and hand to hand, 219 CAP Till, choked with stench, in loathed embraces tied, The lingering wretches pined away, and died.” Dryden. It is to this deplorable condition of a captive that the Apostle refers, in that pathetic excla- mation, ‘O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death ?/ Who shall rescue me, miserable captive as 1 am, from this continual burden of sin which I carry about with me; and which is cumber- some and odious, as a dead carcass bound to a living body, to be dragged along with it where- ever it goes 3 CAPTIVITY. God generally punished the sins and infidelities of the Jews by different captivities or servitudes. The first captivity is that of EeyPt, from which they were de- livered by Moses, and which should be con- sidered rather as a permission of providence, than as a punishment for sin. Six captivities are reckoned during the government by judges : the first, under Chushanrishathaim, king of Mesopotamia, which continued about eight years; the second, under Eg]on, king of Moab, from which the Jews were delivered by Ehud ; the third, under the Philistines, from which they were rescued by Shamgar; the fourth, under Jabin, king of Hazor, from which they were delivered by Deborah and Barak; the fifth, under the Midianites, from which Gideon freed them; and the sixth, under the Ammon- ites and Philistines, during the judicatures of Jephthah, Ibzan, Elon, Abdon, Eli, Samson, and Samuel. But the greatest and most re- markable captivities were those of Israel and Judah, under their regal government. Captivities oF Israrn. In the year of the world 3264, Tiglath-pileser took several cities, and carried away captives, principally from the tribes of Reuben, Glad, and the half tribe of Manasseh, 2 Kings xv, 29. In the year of the world 3283, Shalmaneser took and destroyed Samaria, after a siege of three years, and trans- lanted the tribes that had been spared by Tig- fath-pileser, to provinces beyond the Euphrates, 2 Kings xviii, 10, 11. It is generally believed, there was no return of the ten tribes from this. second captivity. But when we examine care- fully the writings of the Prophets, we find a return of at least a great part of Israel from the captivity clearly pointed out. - Hosea says, “They shall tremble as a bird out of Egypt, and as a dove out of the land of Assyria; and I will place them in their houses, saith the Lord,” Hosea xi, 11. Amos says, “ And I will bring again my ve Israel from their cap- tivity: they shall build their ruined cities and inhabit them,” &c, Amos ix, 14. Obadiah observes, ‘The captivity of this host of the children of Israel shall possess that of the Ca- naanites,” &c, Obadiah 18, 19. To the same purpose speak the other Prophets. ‘‘'The Lord shall assemble the outcast of Israel, and gather .| together the dispersed of Judah,” Isa. xi, 12, 13 Ezekiel received an order from God to take two pieces of wood, and write on one, “For Judah and for the children of Israel;” and on the other, “For Joseph and for all the house of Israel ;” and to join these two pieces of wood, CAP that they.might become one, and designate the reunion of Judah and Israel, Ezek. xxxvii, 16. Jeremiah is equally express: “The house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel; and they shall come together out of the north, to the land which I have given for an inheritance to their fathers,” Jer. iii, 18. See also Jer. xxxi, 7-9, 16, 17, 20; xvi, 15; xlix, 2, &c; Zech. ix, 13; x, 6,10; Micah ii, 12. In the historical books of Scripture, we find that Israelites of the ten tribes, as well as of Judah and Benjamin, returned from the captivity. Among those that returned with Zerubbabel are reckoned some of Ephraim and Manasseh, who settled at Jerusalem with the tribe of Ju- dah. When Ezra numbered those who returned from the captivity, he only inquired whether they were of the race of Israel; and at the first passover which was then celebrated in the tem- ple, was a sacrifice of twelve he-goats for the whole house of Israel, according to the num- ber of the tribes, Ezra vi, 16, 17; viii, 35. Un- der the Maccabees, and in our Saviour’s time, we see Palestine peopled by Israelites of all the tribes indifferently. The Samaritan Chronicle asserts that in the thirty-fifth year of the pontifi- eate of Abdelus, three thousand Israelites, by per- mission of King Sauredius, returned from cap- eivity, under the conduct of Adus, son of Simon. Captivities oF Jupau. The captivities of Judah are generally reckoned four: the first, m the year of the world 3398, under King Je- hoiakim, when Daniel and others were carried 0 Babylon; the second, in the year of the world 3401, and in the seventh year of the reign of Jehoiakim, when Nebuchadnezzar carried three thousand and twenty-three Jews to Ba- bylon ; the third, in the year of the world 3406, und in the fourth of Jehoiachin, when this pines with part of his people, was sent to abylon; and the fourth in the year 3416, un- der Zedekiah, from which period begins the vaptivity of seventy years, foretold by the Pro- het Jeremiah. Dr. Hales computes that the yirst of these captivities, which he thinks formed the commencement of the Babylonish captivity, took place in the year before Christ 605. The Jews were removed to Babylon by Nebuchad- nezzar, who, designing to render that city the capital of the east, transplanted thither very great numbers of people, subdued by him in different countries. In Babylon the Jews had judges and elders, who governed them, and who decided matters in dispute juridically, ac- cording to their laws. Of this we see a proof in the story of Susanna, who was condemned by elders of her own nation. Cyrus, in the year of the world 3457, and in the first year of his reign at Babylon, permitted the Jews to return to their own country, Ezrai,1. How- ever, they did not obtain leave to rebuild the temple; and the completion of those prophe- cies which foretold the termination of their captivity after seventy years, was not till the ear of the world 3486. In that year, Darius ystaspes, by an edict, allowed them to rebuild the temple. In the year of the world 3537, Artaxerxes Longimanus sent Nehemiah to Je- rusalem. The Jews assert that only the refuse 220 CAR of their nation returned from the captivity, ana that the principal of them continued in and near Babylon, where they had heen settled, and where they became very numerous. It may, however, be doubted whether the refuse of Judah wag really carried to Babylon. It appears from incidental observations in Scripture that some remained; and Major Rennell has offered se- veral reasons for believing that Sn certain classes of the Jews were deported to Babylon, as well ag into Assyria. Nebuchadnezzar car- ried away only the principal inhabitants, the warriors, and artisans of every kind; and he left the husbandmen, the labourers, and in general, the poorer classes, that constitute the great body of the people. CARAITES, or KAR/KITES, an ancient Jewish sect. The name signifies Textualists, or Scripturists, and was originally given to the school of Shammai, (about thirty years or more before Christ,) because they rejected the tradi- tions of the elders, as embraced by the school of Hillel and the Pharisees, and all the fanci- ful interpretations of the Cabbala. They claim, however, a much higher antiquity, and produce a catalogue of doctors up to the time of Ezra. The rabbinists have been accustomed to call them Sadducees; but they believed in the in- spiration of the Scriptures, the resurrection of the dead, and the final judgment. They he- lieve that Messiah is not yet come, and reject all calculations of the ee his appearance: et they say, itis proper that even every da they shoul tepeine their salvation by Messich, the Son of David. Asio the practice of reli- gion, they differ from the rabbinists in the observance of the festivals, and keep the Sab- bath with more strictness. They extend their prohibition of marriage to more degrees of af- finity, and admit not of divorce on any slight or trivial grounds. The sect of Caraites still exists, but their number is inconsiderable. They are found chiefly in the Crimea, Lithu- ania, and Persia; at Damascus, Constantinople, and Cairo. Their honesty in the Crimea is said to be proverbial. CARBUNCLE npaa, Exod. xxviii, 17; xxxix, 10; Ezek. xxviii, 13; and dvOpag, Eccles. xxxil, 5; Tobit xiii, 17; a very elegant and rare gem, known to the ancients by the name avOpag, or coal, because, when held up before the sun, it appears like a piece of bright burn- ing charcoal: the name carbunculus has the same meaning. It was the third stone in the first row of the pectoral; and is mentioned among the glorious stones of which the new Jerusalem is figuratively said to be built. Bishop Lowth observes that the precious stones, mentioned Isa. liv, 11, 12, and Rev. xxi, 18, seem to be general images to express beauty, magnificence, purity, strength, and so- lidity, agreeably to the ideas of the eastern na- tions; and to have never been intended to be strictly scrutinized, and minutely and particu- larly explained, as if they had some precise moral or spiritual meaning. Tobit, in his pro- phecy of the final restoration of Israel, Tobit xii, 16, 17, describes the new Jerusalem in the same oriental manner. CAR CARMEL, inthe southern part of Palestine, where Nabal the Carmelite, Abigail’s husband, dwelt, Joshua xv, 55; 1 Sam. xxv. : 2. Carme. was also the name of a celebrated mountain in Palestine. Though spoken of in general as a single mountain, it ought rather to be considered as a mountainous region, the whole of which was known by the name of Carmel, while to one of the hills, more eleva- ted than the rest, that name was usually ap- plied by way of eminence. It had the plain of Sharon on the south; overlooked the port of Ptolemais on the north; and was bounded on the west by the Mediterranean sea; form- ing one of the most remarkable promontories that present themselves on the shores of that great sea. According to Volney, it is about two thousand feet in height, and has the shape of a flattened cone. Its sides are steep and rugged; the soil neither deep nor rich; and among the naked rocks stinted with plants, and wild forests which it presents to the eye, there are at present but few traces of that fer- tility which we are accustomed to associate with the idea of Mount Carmel. Yet even Volney himself acknowledges that he found among the brambles, wild vines and olive trees, which proved that the hand of industry had once been employed on a not ungrateful soil. Of its ancient productiveness there can be no doubt; the etymology and ordinary application of its name being sufficient evidence of the fact. Carmel is not only expressly mentioned in Scripture as excelling other districts in that respect; but, every place possessed of the same Kind of excellence obtained from it the same appellation in the language both of the pro- fo and the people. Mount Carmel is cele- rated in the Old Testament, as the usual place of residence of the Prophets Elijah and Elisha. It was here that Elijah so successfully opposed the false prophets of Baal, 1 Kings xviii; and there is a certain part of the mountain facing the west, and about cight miles from the point of the promontory, which the Arabs call Man- sur, and the Europeans the place of sacrifice, in commemoration of that miraculous event. Near the same place is also still shown a cave, in which it is said the Prophet had his resi- dence. The brook Kishon, which issues from Mount Tabor, waters the bottom of Carmel, and falls into the sea toward the northern side of the mountain, and not the southern, as some writers have erroneously stated. Its greatest elevation is about one thousand five hundred feet ; hence, when the sea coast on one side, and the plain on the other, are oppressed with sultry heat, this hill is refreshed by cooling breezes, and enjoys a delightful temperature. The fastnesses of this ragged mountain are so difficult of access, that the Prophet Amos classes them with the deeps of hell, the height of hea- ven, and the bottom of the sea: “ Though they dig into hell,” (or the dark and silent chambers of the grave,) ‘thence shall mine hand take them; Ronek they climb up to heaven, thence will I bring them down; and though they hide ‘themselves in the top of Carmel, T will search and take them out thence; and though they be 221 CAS hid from my sight in the bottom of the sea, thence will I command the serpent, and he shall bite them,’ Amos ix, 2, 3. Lebanon raises to heaven a summit of naked and barren rocks, covered for the greater part of the year with snow; but the top of Carmel, how naked and sterile soever its present condition, was clothed with verdure which seldom was known to fade. Even the lofty genius of Isaiah, stimulated and guided by the spirit of inspira- tion, could not find a more appropriate figure to express the flourishing state of the Redeem- er’s kingdom, than “the excellency of Carmel and Sharon.” CART, a machine used in Palestine to force the corn out of the ear, and bruise the straw, Isaiah xxviii, 27, 28. The wheels of these carts were low, broad, and shod with iron, and were drawn over the sheaves spread on the floor by means of oxen. CASTOR and POLLUX. It is said that the vessel which carried Paul to Rome had the sign of Castor and Pollux, Acts xxviii, 11. Castor and Pollux were sea-gods, and invoked by sailors; and even the light balls or meteors which are sometimes seen on ships, were called Castor and Pollux. An inscription in Gruter ee that seamen implored Castor and Pol- ux in dangers at sea. It is to be observed, that St. Luke does not mention the name, but the sign, of the ship. By the word sign, the sacred writer meant a protecting image of the deity, to whom the vessel was in some sort consecrated; as at present in Catholic coun- tries, most of their vessels are named after some saint, St. Xavier, St. Andero, St. Domi- nique, &c. It appears to be certain, that the figure which gave name to the ship was at the head, and the tutelary deity was placed on the oop. i CASUIST, one who studies and decides upon cases of conscience. Escobar has made a collection of the opinions of all the casuists before his time. M. Le Feore, preceptor to Louis XIII, said that the books of the casuists taught “ the art of quibbling with God;” which does not seem far from truth, by reason of the multitude of distinctions and subtleties with which they abound. Mayer has published a bibliotheca of casuists, containing an account of all the writers on cases of conscience, ranged under three heads; the first comprehending the Lutheran; the second, the Calvinistic; and the third, the Roman casuists. CASUISTRY, the doctrine and science of conscience and its cases, with the rules and principles of resolving the same; drawn partly from natural reason, or equity, and partly from the authority of Scripture, the canon law, councils, fathers, &c. To casuistry belongs the decision of all difficulties arising about what aman may lawfully do or not do; what is sin or not sin; what things a man is opliged to do in order to discharge his duty, and what he may let alone without breach of it. Al- though the morality of the Gospel is distin- guished by its purity and by its elevation, it is necessarily exhibited in a general form; cer- tain leading principles are laid down; but the CAS application of these to the innumerable cases which occur in the actual intercourse of life, is left to the understanding and the conscience of individuals. Had it been otherwise, the Christian code would have swelled to an ex- tent which would have rendered it in a great degree useless; it would have been difficult or impossible to recollect all its provisions ; and, minute as these would have been, they would still have been defective,—new situations or combinations of circumstances modifying duty continually arising, which it would have been impracticable or hurtful to anticipate. When the principles of duty are rightly unfolded, and when they are placed on a sound foundation, there is, to a fair mind, no difficulty in accom- modating them to its own particular exigen- cies. A few cases, it is true, may occur, where it is a matter of doubt in what way men should act; but these are exceedingly rare, and the lives of vast numbers may come to an end with- out any of them happening to occasion per- plexity. Every man may be, and perhaps is, sensible, that his errors are to be ascribed, not to his having been at a loss to know what he should have done, but to his deliberately or hastily violating what he saw to be right, or to his having allowed himself to confound, by vain and subtle distinctions, what, in the case of any one else, would have left in his mind no room for hesitation. The manner, however, in which the Gospel inculcates the law of God, combined with other causes in leading to a species of moral discussion, which, pretending to ascertain in every case what ought to be practised, and thus to afford plain and safe di- rections to the conscience, terminated in what has been denominated casuistry. The schoolmen delighted in this species of intellectual labour. hey transferred their zeal for the most fanciful and frivolous dis- tinctions in what respected the doctrines of religion to its precepts; they anatomized the different virtues; nicely examined all the cir- cumstances by which our estimate of them should be influenced; and they thus rendered the study of morality inextricable, confounded the natural notions of right and wrong, and so accustomed themselves and others to weigh their actions, that they could easily find some excuse for what was most culpable, while they continued under the impression that they were not deviating from what, as moral beings, was incumbent upon them. The corruption of manners which was introduced into the church during the dark ages rendered casuistry very popular ; and, accordingly, many who affected to be the most enlightened writers of their age, and perhaps really were so, tortured their un- derstanding or their fancy in solving cases of conscience, and often in poloane their own imaginations and those of others, by employ- ing them on possible crimes, upon which, how- ever unlikely was their occurrence in life, they were eager to pronounce a decision. The happy change which the Reformation produced upon the views of men respecting the sacred Scriptures, tended to erect that pure standard of duty which for ages had been laid in the 222 CAS dust. Yet for a considerable time Protestant divines occupied themselves with the intrica- cies of casuistry, thus in some degree shutting out the light which they had fortunately poured upon the world. The Lutheran theologians walked very much in the tract which the schoolmcn had opened, although their decisions were much more consonant with Christianity; and it was not uncommon in some countries for ecclesiastical assemblies to devote part of their time to the resolution of questions which might have been safely left unnoticed, which now are almost universally regarded as frivo- lous, and about which almost the most ignorant would be ashamed to ask an opinion. Even after much of the sophistry, and much of the moral perversion connected with casuistry, were exploded, the form of that science was preserved, and many valuable moral principles in conformity to it delivered. The venerable Bishop Hall published a celebrated work, to which he gave the appellation of “Cases of Conscience Practically resolved ;” and he in- troduces it with the following observations addressed to the reader: “ Of all divinity, that part is most useful which determines cases of conscience ; and of all cases of conscience, the practical are most necessary, as action is of more concernment than speculation; and of all practical cases, those which are of most common use are of so much greater necessity and benefit to be resolved, as the errors thereof are more universal, and therefore more prejudi- cial to the society of mankind. These I have selected out of many ; and having turned over divers casuists, have pitched upon those de cisions which I hold most comformable to en- lightened reason and religion; sometimes I follow them, and sometimes I leave them fora better guide.” He divides his work into four parts,—Cases of profit and traffic, Cases of life and liberty, Cases of piety and religion, and Cases matrimonial; under each of these solv- ing a number of questions, or rather giving a number of moral dissertations. Casuistry, as a systematic perversion of Christian morality, is now, in the Protestant world, very much unknown; though there still is, and perhaps always will be, that softening down of the strict rules of duty, to which man- kind are led either by self-deceit, or by the natural desire of reconciling, with the hope of the divine favour, considerable obliquity from that path of rectitude and virtue which alone is acceptable to God. But the most striking specimen of the length to which casuistry was carried, and of the dangerous consequences which resulted from it, is furnished by the history of the maxims and sentiments of the Jesuists, that celebrated order, which combined with profound literature, and the most zealous support of Popery, an ambition that perverted their understandings, or rather induced them to employ their rational powers in the melan- choly work of poisoning the sources of morality, and of casting the name and the appearance of virtue over a dissoluteness of principle and a profligacy of licentiousness, which, had they not been checked by sounder views, and by CAV feelings and habits favourable to morality, would have spread through the world the most degrading misery. Sce Jesuirs, ATERPILLAR. Sn. The word occurs Deut. xxviii, 38; Psa. lxviii, 46; Isa. xxxiii, 4; 1 Kings vili, 37; 2 Chron. vi, 28; Joel i, 4; ii, 25. In the four last cited texts, it is distinguished from the locust, properly so call- ed; and in Joel i, 4, is mentioned as “eating up” what the other species had left, and there- fore might be called the conswmer, by way of eminence. But the ancient interpreters are far from ae agreed what particular species it signifies. The Septuagint in Chronicles, and Aquila in Psalms, render it Bpodyos: so the Vulgate in Chronicles and Isaiah, and Jerom in Psalms, bruchus, the chafer, which is a great devourer of leaves. From the Syriac version, however, Michaélis is disposed to understand it the taupe grillon, “mole cricket,” which, in its grub state, is very destructive to corn and other vegetables, by feeding on their roots. See Locust. CATHOLIC denotes what is general or universal. The rise of heresies induced the primitive Christian church to assume to itself the appellation of catholic, as being a charac- teristic to distinguish itself from them. The Romish church now proudly assumes the title catholic, in opposition to all who have separated from her communion, and whom she considers as heretics and schismatics, while she herself remains the only true and Christian church. The church of Christ is called catholic, because it extends throughout the world, and endures through all time. 2, Carnouic, general, Epistles. They are seven in number; namely, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, and one of Jude. They are called catholic, because directed to Chris- tian converts generally, and not to any par- ticular church. Hug, in his “Introduction to the New Testament,” takes another view of the import of this term, which was certainly used at an early period, as by Origen and others :—‘‘ When the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles constituted one peculiar division, the works of Paul also another, there still remained writings of different authors, which might likewise form a collection of themselves, to which a name must be given. It might most aptly be called the common collection, xaOodtxav civraypa, of the Apostles, and the treatises con- tained in it, corvai and xaod\rcai, which are com- monly used by the Greeks as synonyms. For this we find a proof even in the most ancient ecclesiastical language. Clemens Alexandri- nus calls the epistle which was despatched by tke assembly of the Apostles, Acts xv, 23, the ‘catholic epistle,’ as that in which alJ the Apostles had a share, rnv émorohiy cabodtxhy rv *Arocréhwv xavrwv. Hence our seven epistles are catholic, or epistles of ald the Apostles who are authors.” CAVES, or CAVERNS. The country of Judea, being mountainous and rocky, is in many parts full of caverns, to which allusions frequently occur in the Old Testament. At Engedi, in particular, there was a cave so 223 CED large, that David, with six hundred men, hid themselves in the sides of it, and Saul entered the mouth of the cave without perceiving that any one was there, 1 Sam. xxiv. Jose- phus tells us of a numerous gang of banditti, who, having infested the country, and being pursued by Herod with his army, retired into certain caverns, almost inaccessible, near Ar- bela in Galilee, where they were with great difficulty subdued. ‘“ Beyond Damascus,” says Strabo, “‘ are two mountains, called Trachones, from which the country has the name of Tra- chonitis; and from hence, toward Arabia and Iturea, are certain rugged mountains, in which there are deep caverns; one of which will hold four thousand men.” Tavernier, in his “Travels in Persia,” speaks of a grotto between Aleppo and Bir, that would hold near three thousand horse. And Maundrell assures us, that ‘three hours distant from Sidon, about a mile from the sea, there runs along a high rocky mount- ain, in the sides of which are hewn a multitude of grottoes, all very little differing from each other. They have entrances about two foot square. There are of these subterrancous caverns two hundred in number. It may, with probability, at least, be concluded that these places were contrived for the use of the living, and not of the dead.” These extracts may be useful in explaining such passages of Scripture as the following: “ Because of the Midianites, the children of Israel made them dens which are in the mountains, and caves, and strong holds,” Judges vi, 2. To these they betook themselves for refuge in times of distress and hostile invasion :—‘ When the men of Israel saw that they were in a strait, for the people were distressed, then the people did hide them- selves in caves, and in thickets, and in rocks, and in high places, and in pits,” 1 Sam. xiii, 6. See also ics xli, 9: “ To enter into the holes of the rocks and into the caves of the earth,” became with the prophets a very proper and familiar image to express a state of terror and consternation. Thus Isa. ii, 19: “ They shall go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the earth, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth.” CEDAR, x. Thecedar is a large and noble evergreen tree. Its lofty height, and its far extended branches, afford spacious shelter and shade, Ezek. xxxi, 3,6, 8. The wood is very valuable; is of a reddish colour, of an aromatic smell, and reputed incorruptible. This isowing to its bitter taste, which the worms cannot endure, and to its resin, which preserves it from the injuries of the weather. The ark of the covenant, and much of the temple of Solo- mon, and that of Diana at Ephesus, were built of cedar. The tree is much celebrated in Scripture. It is called, ‘the glory of Lebanon,” Isa. lx, 18. On that mountain it must in for- mer times have flourished in great abundance. There are some cedars still growing there which are prodigiously large. But the travel- lers who have visited the place within these two or three centuries, and who describe trees of vast size, inform us that their number is CER diminished greatly; so that, as Isaiah says, ‘‘a child may number them,” Isa. x, 19. Maun- drell measured one of the largest size, and found it to be twelve yards and six inches in girt, and yet sound; and thirty-seven yards in the spread of its boughs. Gabriel Sionita, a very learned Syrian Maronite, who assisted in editing the Paris Polyglott, a man worthy of all credit, thus describes the cedars of mount Lebanon, which he had examined on the spot: “The cedar grows on the most elevated part of the mountain, is taller than the pine, and so thick, that five men together could scarcely encompass one. It shoots out its branches at ten or twelve feet from the ground: they are large and distant from each other, and are perpetually green. The wood is of a brown colour, very solid and incorruptible, if pre- served from wet. The tree bears a small cone like that of the pine.” CELSUS. A Pagan philosopher ofthe second century, who composed a work against Chris- tianity, in which he so expressly refers to the facts of the Gospels, and to the books of the New Testament, as to have furnished import- ant undesigned testimony to their antiquity and truth. CEMETERY. See Seputcure. CENSER, a sacred instrument made use of in the religious rites of the Hebrews. It was a vase which contained incense to be used in sacrifice. When Aaron made an atonement for himself and his house, he was to take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar of the Lord, Lev. xvi, 12. And Solomon, when he provided furniture for the temple of the Lord, made, among other things, censers of pure gold, 1 Kings vii, 50. CENTURION, an officer in the Roman army, who, as the term indicates, had the com- mand of a hundred men, Matt. viii, 5, &c. CEPHAS, Kndas, from xm, a rock. The Greek Ilérpos, and the Latin Petrus, have the same signification. See PETER. CEREMONY, an assemblage of several ac- tions, forms, and circumstances, serving to ren- der a thing maenfficent and solemn. Applied to religious services, it signifies the external rites and manner in which the ministers of re- ligion perform their sacred functions, and di- rect or lead the worship of the people. In 1646, M. Ponce published a history of ancient cere- monies, showing the rise, growth, and intro- duction of each rite into the church, and its gradual advancement to superstition. Many of them were borrowed from Judaism, but more from Paganism. In all religions adapted to the nature of man there must be some posi- tive institutions for fixing the mind upon spi- ritual objects, and counteracting that influence of material things upon habits and pursuits which is, and must be, constantly exerted. Without such institutions, religion might be preserved, indeed, by a few of superior under- etanding and of strong powers of reflection ; but among mankind in general all trace of it would soon be lost. When the end for which they are appointed is kept in view, and the simple examples of the New Testament are observed, 224 CER they are of vast importance to the production both of pious feelings and of virtuous conduct ; but there has constantly been a propensity in the human race to mistake the means for the end, and to consider themselves as moral and religious, when they scrupulously observe what was intended to produce morality and religion, The reason is obvious: ceremonial observances can be performed without any great sacrifice of propensities and vices; they are palpable; when they are observed by men who, in the tenor of public life, do not act immorally, they are re- garded by others as indicating high attainments in virtue; and through that self-deceit which so wonderfully misleads the reason, and inclines it to minister to the passions which it should re- strain, men have themselves become persuaded that their acknowledgment of divine authority, implied in their respect to the ritual which that authority is conceived to have sanctioned, may be taken as a proof that they have nothing to apprehend from the violation of the law under which they are placed. But, whatever be the causes of this, the fact itself is established b: the most extensive and the most incontrovertible evidence. We find it, indeed, wherever man- kind have had notions of superior power, and of théir obligation to yield obedience to the will of the supreme Being. Under the system of polytheism which pre- vailed in the most enlightened nations previous to the publication of Christianity, this was car- ried so far, that the connection between religion and morality was in a great degree dissolved, rites and ceremonies, sacrifices and oblations, were all that it was thought requisite to observe; when these were carefully performed, there was no hesitation in ascribing piety to the per- sons who did perform them, however deficient they might be in virtuous and pious disposi- tions. Even under the Mosaical dispensation, proceeding as it did, immediately from heaven, and adapted, as in infinite wisdom it was, to the situation of those to whom it was given, the same evil early began to be experienced; and although it was lamented and exposed by the prophets, and the most enlightened men among the Jews, it was so far from being era- dicated, that it continued to acquire strength, till it was exhibited in all its magnitude in the character prevalent among the Pharisees at the period of Christ’s manifestation. With this highly popular and revered class of men, reli- gion was either merely a matter of ceremony, or was employed, for base and interested pur- poses, to cast a veil of sanctity over their ac- tions. They said long prayers, but it was for a show; they gave alms, but it was after they had sounded a trumpet, that the eye of man might be fixed upon their beneficence ; and, as to the point now under review, they were most strikingly described by our Saviour, when he said of them, “They pay tithe of mint, and anise, and cummin, but ‘they neglect the weightier matters of the law, justice, and mer- cy, andtruth.” The Christian religion not only expressly guards against an evil which had be- come so prevalent, but its whole spirit is at va- riance with it, its own ceremonial observances CER oeing few, and obviously emblematical of what- ever is excellent and holy. But still the Gos- el finds human nature as other religions found it; and ecclesiastical history, even from the earliest periods, shows with what astonishing perverseness, and with what wonderful inge- nuity, men departed from the simplicity of Christianity, and substituted in its room the most childish, and often the most pernicious, aglt and observances. The power of god- iness was lost in forms; and the innovations of a profane will-worship became almost innu- merable. The effect was, that men regarded God as less concerned with the moral conduct of his creatures, than with the quantum of serv- ice they performed in his temples; and religion and morals were so disjoined, that one became the substitute for the other, to the universal corruption of the Christian world. CERINTHIANS. Of Cerinthus, the founder of this sect, Dr. Burton gives the following ac- count: Cerinthus is said to have been one of those Jews who, when St. Peter returned to Jerusalem, expostulated with him for having baptized Cornelius, Acts xi,2. He is also stat- ed to have been one of those who went down from Judea to Antioch, and said, “Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved,” Acts xv, 1. According to the same account, he was one of the false teachers who seduced the Galatians to Judaism ; and he is also charged with joining in the at- tack which was made upon St. Paul, for pollut- ing the temple by the introduction of Greeks, Acts xxi, 27, 28. I cannot find any older au- thority for these statements than that of Epi- phanius, who wrote late in the fourth century, and is by no means worthy of implicit credit. He asserts, also, that Cerinthus was one of the persons alluded to by St. Luke,as having alread undertaken to write the life of Jesus. But all these stories I take to be entirely inventions ; and there is no evidence that Cerinthus made himself conspicuous at so early a period. Ire- nzus speaks of the heresy of the Nicolaitans, as being considerably prior to that of the Ce- rinthians. According to the same writer, Car- pocrates also preceded Cerinthus; and if it be true, as so many of the fathers assert, that St. John wrote his Gospel expressly to confute this heresy, we can hardly come to any other con- clusion, than that it was late in the first cen- tury when Cerinthus rose into notice. He appears undoubtedly to have been a Jew; and there is evidence that, after having studied phi- losophy in Beypt, he spread his doctrines in Asia Minor. is will account for his embrac- ing the Gnostic opinions, and for his exciting the notice of St. John, who resided at Ephesus. He was certainly a Gnostic in his notion of the creation of the world, which he conceived to have been formed by angels; and his attach- ment to that philosophy may explain what otherwise seems inconsistent, that he retain- ed some of the Mosaic ceremonies, such as the observance of Sabbaths and circumcision; though, like other Gnostics, he ascribed the law and the prophets to the angel who created the world. This adepHed, et rejection of different 225 CER parts of the same system was a peculiar feature of the Gnostic philosophy; and the name of Cerinthus probably became eminent, because he introduced a fresh change in the notion con- cerning Christ. _The Gnostics, like their leader, Simon Magus, had all of them been Docetz and denied the real humanity; but Cerinthu: is said to have maintained that Jesus had a real body, and was the son of human parents, Jo- seph and Mary. In the other points he agreed with the Gnostics, and believed that Christ was one of the zons who descended on Jesus at his baptism. It is difficult to ascertain who was the first Gnostic that introduced this opinion. Some writers give the merit of it to Ebion; and yet it is generally said that Cerinthus and Ebion agreed in their opinions concerning Christ, and that Cerinthus preceded Ebion. Again Carpocrates is said to have held the same sentiments; and he is placed by Irenzus before Cerinthus: so that it is difficult, if not impossible, to decide the chronological pre- cedence of these heretics. Perhaps the safest inference to draw from so many conflicting tes- timonies is this: that Carpocrates was the first Gnostic of eminence who was not a Docetist ; but that the notion of Jesus being born of hu- man parents was put more ay and with more success by Cerinthus. Carpocrates is reported to have been distinguished by the gross immorality of his life; and whatever we may think of the imputations cast upon the Gnostics in general, it seems impossible to deny that this person, at least, professed and practis- ed a perfect liberty of action. There is also strong evidence that in this instance Cerinthus followed his example. There is a peculiar doctrine ascribed to this heretic, which, if it originated with him, may well account for the celebrity of his name. Cerinthus has been handed down as the first person who held the notion of a millennium ; and though the fathers undoubtedly believed that, previous to the general resurrection, the earth would undergo a renovation, and the just would rise to enjoy a long period of terrestrial happiness, yet there was a marked and palpa- ble difference between the millennium of the fathers and that of Cerinthus. The fathers conceived this terrestrial happiness to be per- fectly pure and freed from the imperfections of our nature; but Cerinthus is said to have pro- mised his followers a millennium of the grossest leasures and the most sensual gratifications. t is singular that all the three sources, to which we may trace the Gnostic doctrines, might furnish some foundation for this notion of a millennium. Thus Plato has left some speculations concerning the “ great year,” when, after the expiration of thirty-six thousand years, the world was to be renewed, and the golden age to return. It was the belief of the Persian magi, according to Plutarch, that the time would come, when Ahreman, or the evil principle, would be destroyed; when the earth would lose its impediments and inequalities, and all mankind would be of one language, and enjoy uninterrupted happiness. It was taught, in the Cabbala, that the world CHA was to last six thousand yan which would be followed by a period of rest for a thousand years more. There appears in this an evident allusion, though on a much grander scale, to the sabbatical years of rest. The institution of the jubilee, and the glowing descriptions iven by the prophets of the restoration of the ceri and the reign of the Messiah, may have led the later Jews to some of their mystical fancies ; and when all these systems were blended together by the Gnostics, it is not strange, if a millennium formed part of their creed long before the time of Cerinthus. It seems probable, however, that he went much farther than his predecessors in teaching that the millennium would consist in a course of sensual indulgence; and it may have been his notions upon this subject, added to those con- cerning the human nature of Christ, which led him to maintain, contrary to the generality of Gnostics, that Christ had not yet risen, but that he would rise hereafter. The Gnostics, as we have seen, denied the resurrection al- together. Believing Jesus to be a een they did not believe that he was crucified; and they could not therefore believe that he had risen. But Cerinthus, who held that Jesus was born, like other human beings, found no dif- ficulty in believing literally that he was cru- cified; and he is said also to have taught that he would rise from the dead at some future pe- riod. It is most probable that this period was that of the millennium; and the words of St. John in the Revelation would easily be pervert- ed, where it is said of the souls of the martyrs, that “they lived and reigned with Christ a thou- #and years,” Rev. xx, 4. -CHALCEDONY, yadkndav, Rev. xxi, 19; a precious stone. Arethas, who has written an account of Bithynia, says that it was so called from Chalcedon, a city of that country, oppo- site to Byzantium; and it was in colour like a carbuncle. Some have supposed this also to be the stone called 422, translated ‘“ emerald,” Exodus xxviii, 18. CHALDEA, or Babylonia, the country lying on both sides of the Euphrates, of which Ba- bylon was the capital; and extending south- ward to the Persian Gulf, and northward into Mesopotamia, at least as far as Ur, which is called Ur of the Chaldees. This country had also the name of Shinar. See Basyton. CHALDEAN PHILOSOPHY claims atten- tion on account of its very high antiquity. The most ancient people, next to the Hebrews, among the eastern nations, who appear to have been acquainted with philosophy, in its more general sense, were the Chaldeans; for though the Egyptians have pretended that the Chal- deans were an Egyptian colony, and that the derived their learning from Egypt, there is reason to believe that the kingdom of Baby- lon, of which Chaldea was a part, flourished before the Egyptian monarchy; and that the Egyptians were rather indebted to the Chal- deans, than the Chaldeans to the Egyptians. Nevertheless, the accounts that have been transmitted to us by the Chaldeans themselves, of the antiquity of their learning, are blended 226 CHA with fable, and involved in considerable uncer tainty. There are other circumstances, inde- pendently of the antiquity of the Chaldean philosophy, which render our knowledge of it imperfect and uncertain. We derive our ac- quaintance with it from other nations, and principally from the Greeks, whose vanity led them to despise and misrepresent the pretended learning of barbarous nations. The Chaldeang also adopted a symbolical mode of instruction, and transmitted their doctrines to posterity under a veil of obscurity, which it is not easy to remove. To all which, we may add that, about the commencement of the Christian era, a race of philosophers sprung up, who, with a view of gaining credit to their own wild and extravagant doctrines, passed them upon the world as the ancient wisdom of the Chaldeans and Persians, in spurious books, which they ascribed to Zoroaster, or some other eastern philosopher. Thus, the fictions of these im- postors were confounded with the genuine dogmas of the ancient eastern nations. Not- withstanding these causes of uncertainty, which perplex the researches of modern inquir- ers into the distinguishing doctrines and cha- racter of the Chaldean philosophy, it appears probable that the philosophers of Chaldea were the priests of the Babylonian nation, who in- structed the people in the principles of religion, interpreted its laws, and conducted its ceremo- nies. Their character was similar to that of the Persian magi, and they are often confound- ed with them by the Greek historians. Like the priests in most other nations, they employed religion in subserviency to the ruling powers, and made use of imposture to serve the pur- pees of civil policy. Accordingly, Diodorus iculus relates, that they pretended to predict future events by divination, to explain prodi- gies, and interpret dreams, and to avert evils, or confer benefits, by means of augury and in- cantations. For many ages, me retained a principal place among diviners. In the reign of Marcus Antonius, when the emperor and his army, who were perishing with thirst, were suddenly relieved by a shower, the prodigy was ascribed to the power and skill of the Chaldean soothsayers. Thus accredited for their miracu- lous powers, they maintained their conse- quence in the courts of princes. The principal instrument which they employed in support of their superstition, was astrology. The Chal- deans were probably the first people who made regular observations upon the heavenly bodies, and hence the appellation of Chaldean became afterward synonymous with that of astrono mer. Nevertheless all their observations were applied to the sole purpose of establishing the credit of judicial astrology ; and they employed their pretended skill in this art, in calculating nativities, foretelling the weather, predicting good and bad fortune, and other practices usual with impostors of this class. While they taught the vulgar that all human affairs are in- fluenced by the stars, and professed to be ac- quainted with the nature and laws of their influence, and consequently to possess a powef of prying into futurity, they encouraged much CHA idle superstition, and many fraudulent prac- tices. Hence other professors of these mis- chievous arts were afterward called Chaldeans, and the arts themselves were called Babylonian arts. Among the Romans these impostors were so troublesome, that, during the time of the republic, it became necessary'to issue an edict requiring the Chaldeans, or mathemati- cians, (by which latter appellation they were commonly known,) to depart from Rome and Italy within ten days; and, afterward, under the emperors, these soothsayers were put under the most severe interdiction. The Chaldean philosophy, notwithstanding the obscurity that has rendered it difficult of research, has been highly extolled, not only by the orientals and Greeks, but by Jewish and Christian writers: but upon recurring to au- thorities that are unquestionable, there seems to be little or nothing in this branch of the bar- baric philosophy which deserves notice. The following brief detail will include the most in- teresting particulars. From the testimony of Diodorus, and also from other ancient authori- ties collected by Eusebius, it appears, that the Chaldeans believedin God, the Lord and Pa- rent of all, by whose providence the world is governed. From this principle sprung their religious rites, the immediate object of which was a supposed race of spiritual beings or de- mons, whose existence could not have been imagined, without first conceiving the idea of a supreme Being, the source of all intelligence. The belief of a supreme Deity, the fountain of all the divinities which were supposed to pre- side over the several parts of the material world, was the true origin of all religious wor- ship, however idolatrous, not excepting even that which consisted in paying divine honours to the memory of dead men. Beside the su- reme Being, the Chaldeans supposed spiritual eings to exist, of several orders; gods, de- mons, heroes: these they probably distributed into subordinate classes, agreeably to their practice of theurgy or magic. The Chaldeans, in common with the eastern nations in gene- ral, admitted the existence of certain evil spi- rits, clothed in a vehicle of grosser matter ; and in subduing or counteracting these, they placed a great part of the efficacy of their religious incantations. These doctrines were the mys- teries of the Chaldean religion, imparted only to the initiated. Their popular religion con- sisted in the worship of the sun, moon, planets, and stars, as divinities, after the general prac- tice of the east, Job xxxi, 27. From the reli- gious system of the Chaldeans were derived two arts, for which they were long celebrated ; namely, magic and astrology. Their magic, which should not be confounded with witch- craft, or a supposed intercourse with evil spi- rits, consisted in the performance of certain religious ceremonies or incantations, which were supposed, by the interposition of good demons, to produce supernatural effects. Their astrology was founded upon the chimerical principle, that the stars have an influence, either beneficial or malignant, upon the affairs of men, which may be discovered, and made 227 CHA the certain ground of prediction, in particular cases ; and the whole art consisted in applying astronomical observations to this fanciful pur- pose, and thus imposing upon the credulity of the vulgar. CHAMBER. See Uprsr Room. CHAPTERS. The New Testament was early portioned out into certain divisions, which appear under various names. The custom of reading it ey in the Christian assemblies after the law and the prophets, would soon cause such divisions to be applied to it. The law and the prophets were for this end already divided into parashim and haptaroth, and the New Testament could not long remain with- out being treated in the same way. The dis- tribution into church lessons was indeed the oldest that took place in it. The Christian teachers gave the name of pericopes, to the sections read as lessons by the Jews. Justin Martyr avails himself of this expression, when he quotes prophetical passages. Such is the case also in Clemens of Alexandria; but this writer also gives the name of mepixéra: to larger sections of the Gospels and St. Paul’s Epistles. Pericopes therefore were nothing else but dvayvéopara, church lessons, or sections of the New Testament, which were read in the as- semblies after Moses and the Prophets. In the third century another division also into xegadaia occurs. Dionysius of Alexandria speaks of them in reference to the Apocalypse, and the controversies respecting it. Some, says he, went through the whole book, from chapter to chapter, to show that it bore no sense. In the fifth century Euthalius produced again adivision into chapters, which was ac- counted his invention. e himself however lays claim to nothing more than having com~- posed ri ray xepadaiwy éxOecty, the summaries of the contents of the chapters in the Acts of the Apostles and the Catholic Epistles. In the Epistles of St. Paul, not even these are his Property; but they are derived “ from one of the wisest of the fathers, and eas of Christ,” as he himself says, and he only incor- porated them into his stichometrical edition of the New Testament. The chapters must, therefore, have been in existence before Eu- thalius, if the father whom he mentions com- posed notices of their contents. But how old they are cannot easily be known. The Eutha- lian xepadaia are distinguished from the peri- copes, or reading portions, by their extent. The Jews had divided the law into fifty-three para- shim, according to the number of the Sabbaths, taking into account the leap year. Nearly so distributed were the Acts of the Apostles, St. Paul’s and the Catholic Epistles, according to the Alexandrine ritual, which Euthalius fol- lows in his stichometrical edition, namely, into fifty-six pericopes ; three more than the number of xvpedxat jpépar, Sundays, probably for three festivals, which might be observed at Christ- mas, Easter, and Whitsuntide. The Gospels too had naturally in the same way many per7- copes. Such in older times was the practice in Asia also; for Justin says, that vhe believers there assemble themselves for prayer and read- CHA ing on Sunday only, év rj rot jAiov fyepa. Since then the whole New Testament was distribut- ed into so few sections, these must necessarily have been great, and a pericope in Euthalius sometimes includes in it four, five, and even six chapters. We have spoken hitherto only of the chapters of the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles. In the Gospels there occur to us xepadaia of two sorts, the greater and the lesser. The lesser are the Ammonian which Eusebius rejected, after which he composed his ten ca- nons in order to point out in the Monotessaron of Ammonius the respective contents of every Evangelist. He has explained himself in the Epistle to Carpianus on theiruse, and on the formation of his ten canons, where he names his sections sometimes xedadaia, sometimes meptx6nat. Matthew has three hundred and fifty-five of these, Mark two hundred and thirty-six, Luke three hundred and forty-two, and John two hundred and thirty-two. The other chapters are independent of these, which from their extent are also named the greater. Of these, Matthew contains sixty-eight, Mark forty-nine, Luke eighty-three, and John only eighteen. There are but very few manuscripts which have not both of them together. As to the church lessons, to come back to them once more, various alterations took place in them. As the festival days multiplied, the old division could no longer subsist, and in many churches the pericopes were shortened. At last as the ritual of ceremonies was enlarged, only certain portions were extracted from the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles, which sometimes were very short. A codex of this sort was termed éxdoyddiov; in reference to the Gospels alone, edayyeordptov ; and in respect to the other books, tpatarécrodos. This seems to have taken place among the Latins much ear- lier than among the Greeks. There are per- fectly credible testimonies, which establish such an arrangement among the former at the middle of the fifth century, at which date nothing of the kindis perceptible among the latter. The expression, rpafandcrodos, appears indeed frequently in the Typicum of St. Sabas, who died in the beginning of the fifth century. But the Greeks do not disavow, that this Typi- cum or monastic ritual was not by himself, that it perished in the invasions of the bar- barians, and was composed anew by John of Damascus, with references memoriter, [from memory,]tothat of Sabas. Helived toward the middle of the eighth century, and with an ear- lier notice of lectionaries among the Greeks we are not acquainted. Finally, our present chapters come, as it is well known, from Car- dinal Hugo de St. Cher, who in the twelfth century composed a concordance, and to this end distributed the Bible according to his own discretion into smaller portions. They are now moreover generally admitted in the editions of the Hebrew and Greek texts. The verses, however, are from Robert Stephens, who first introduced them in his edition of the New Tes- tament, A. D. 1551. His son, Henry Stephens, was the first to record this for the information of posterity, in the preface to his Greek Con- 228 CHA cordance to the New Testament; in which he says, that two facts connected with it equally demand our admiration: “ The first is, that my father, while travelling from Paris to Lyons, finished this division of each chapter into verses, and indeed the greater part of it [inter equitandum] when riding on his horse. The second fact is, that, a short time prior to this journey, while he had the matter still in con- templation, almost all those to whom he men- tioned it told him plainly that he was an indis- creet man, as though he had a wish to spend his time and labour on an affair which would prove utterly useless, and which would not ob- tain for him any commendation, but, on the contrary, would expose him to much ridicule, But behold the result: in opposition to the opinion which condemned and _ discounte- nanced my father’s undertaking, as soon as his invention was published, every edition of the New Testament, whether in the Greek, Latin, French, German, or in any other language, which did not adopt it, was immediately dis- carded.” It perhaps will not be unedifying to add, that this passage has yielded mankind another proof that LEARNING is not always sy- nonymous with wispom : for the phrase respect- ing riding, which occurs in it, has furnished matter of warm dispute to literary men; some of them contending that inter equitandum means, that Robert Stephens performed the greater part of his task while actually on horse- back; but others, giving a more extended con- struction to the expression, assert that he was engaged in this occupation only when stopping for refreshment at inns on the road. Though the first interpretation would probably obtain the greatest number of suffrages from really learned and impartial men; yet, it is quite suf- ficient for mankind to know, in either way, that this division into verses was completed in the course of that journey. CHARIOTS OF WAR. The Scripture speaks of two sorts of these chariots, one for princes and generals to ride in, the other used to break the enemies battalions, by letting them loose armed with iron, which made dreadful havoc among the troops. The most ancient chariots of which we have any notice are Pha- raoh’s, which were overwhelmed in the Red Sea, Exodus xiv, 7. The Canaanites, whom Joshua engaged at the waters of Merom, had cavalry and a multitude of chariots, Joshua xi, 4. Sisera, the general of Jabin, king of Hazor, had nine hundred chariots of iron in his army, Judges iv, 3. The tribe of Judah could not get possession of all the lands of their lot, because the ancient inhabitants of the country were strong in chariots of iron. The Philis- tines, in the war carried on by them against Saul, had thirty thousand chariots and six thousand horsemen, 1 Sam. xiii, 5. David, having taken one thousand chariots of war from Hadadezer, king of Syria, hamstrung the horses, and burned nine hundred chariots, re- serving only one hundred to himself, 2 Sam. viii, 4. Solomon had a considerable number of chariots, but we know of no military expe dition in which they were employed, 1 Kings CHE x, 26. As Judea was a very mountainous country, chariots could be of no ee use there, except in the plains; and the Hebrews often evaded them by fighting on the mountains. The kings of the Hebrews, when they went to war, were themselves generally mounted in chariots from which they fought, and issued their orders; and there was always a second chariot empty, which followed each of them, that if the first was broken he might ascend the other, 2 Chron. xxxv, 24. Chariots were sometimes consecrated to the sun; and the Scripture observes, that Josiah burned those which had been dedicated to the sun by his predecessors, 2 Kings xxiii, 11. This super- stitious custom was borrowed from the Hea- thens, and principally from the Persians. CHARITY, considered as a Christian grace, ought in our translation, in order to avoid mis- take, to have been translated love. It is the love of God, and the love of our neighbour flowing from the love of God; and is described with wonderful copiousness, felicity, and even ee by St. Paul, 1 Cor. xiii; a portion of cripture which, as it shows the habitual tem- per of a true Christian, cannot be too frequently referred to for self-examination, and ought to be constantly present to us as our rule. 2. In the popular sense, charity is almsgiving; a duty of practical Christianity which is solemnly enjoined, and to which special promises are annexed. CHARM. See Divination. CHEBAR, a river of Chaldea, Ezek. i, 1. It is thought to have risen near the head of the Tigris, and to have run through Mesopotamia, to the south-west, and emptied itself into the Euphrates. CHEDORLAOMER, a king of the Elam- ites, who were either Persians, or people bor- dering upon the Persians. This was one of the four confederated kings, who made war upon the five kings of the pentapolis of Sodom; and who, after having defeated them, and made themselves masters of a great booty, were pur- sued and dispersed by Abraham, Gen. xiv. CHEMARIM. This word occurs only once in our version of the Bible: “I will cut off the remnant of Baal, and the name of the Chema- rims (Chemarim) with the priests,” Zeph. i, 4; but it frequently occurs in the Hebrew, and is generally translated “priests of the idols,” or priests clothed in black,” because chamar sig- nifies blackness. By this word the best com- mentators understand the priests of false gods, and in particular the worshippers of fire, be- cause they were, it is said, dressed in black. Le Clerc, however, declares against this last opinion. Our translators of the Bible would seem sometimes to understand by this word the idols or objects of worship, rather than their priests. This is also the opinion of Le Clerc. Calmet observes that camar in Arabic signifies the moon, and that Isis is the same deity. “Among the priests of Isis,” says Calmet, “were those called melanephori, that is, wear- ers of black; but it is uncertain whether this name was given them by reason of their dress- ing wholly in black, or because they wore a 229 CHE black shining veil in the processions of this goddess.” CHEMOSH, wo, an idol of the Moabites, Numbers xxi, 29. The name is derived from a root which in Arabic signifies to hasten. For this reason, many believe Chemosh to be the sun, whose precipitate course might well pro- cure it the name of swift. Some identify Chemosh with Ammon ; and Macrobius shows that Ammon was the sun, whose rays were de- noted by his horns. Calmet is of opinion that the god Hamanus and Apollo Chomeus, men- tioned by Strabo and Ammianus Marcellinus, was Chamos, or the sun. These deities were worshipped in many parts of the east. Some, from the resemblance of the Hebrew Chamos with the Greek Comos, have thought Chamos to signify Bacchus. Jerom and most interpre- ters consider Chemosh and Peor as the same deity; but some think that Baal-Peor was Tammuz, or Adonis. To Chemosh Solomon erected an altar upon the Mount of Olives, 1 Kings xi, 7. As to the form of the idol Che- mosh, the Scripture is silent; but if, according to Jerom, it were like Baal-Peor, it must have been of the beeve kind; as were, probably, all the Baals, though accompanied with various insignia. There can be little doubt that part of the religious services performed to Chemosh, as to Baal-Peor, consisted in revelling and drunkenness, obscenities and impurities of the grossest kinds. From Chemosh the Greeks seem to have derived their Kayos, called by the Romans Comus, the god of feasting and revel- ling. CHERETHIM. mom. Cherethim or Che- rethites, are denominations for the Philistines : “T will stretch out mine hand upon the Philis- tines, and will cut off the Cherethim, and de- stroy the remnant of the sea coast,” Ezek. xxv, 16. Zephaniah, exclaiming against the Philistines, says, ‘‘Wo unto the inhabitants of the sea coasts, the nation of the Chere- thites,” Zeph. ii, 5. It is said, 1 Sam. xxx, 14, that the Amalekites invaded the south of the Cherethites ; that is, of the Philistines. David, and some of the kings, his successors, had ards called Cherethites and Pelethites, 2 am. xv, 18; xx, 7. Calmet thinks that they were of the country of the Philistines; but several expositors of our own country are of a different opinion. ‘We can hardly suppose,” say the latter, ‘‘that David would employ any of these uncircumcised people as his body- guard, or that the Israelitish soldiers would have patiently seen foreigners of that nation advanced to such places of honour and trust.” It may, therefore, be inferred that guards were called Cherethites, because they went with David into Philistia, where they continued with him all the time he was under the protec- tion of Achish. These were the persons whe accompanied David from the first, and who remained with him in his greatest distresses; and it is no wonder, if men of such approved fidelity should be chosen for his body-guard. Beside, it is not uncommon for soldiers to de- rive their names, not from the place of their nativity, but of their residence, CHE CHERUB. 259, plural myn. It appears, from Gen. iii, 29, that this isa name given to angels; but whether it is the name of a dis- tinct class of celestials, or designates the same order as the seraphim, we have no means of determining. But the term cherubim generally signifies those figures which Moses was com- manded to make and piace at each end of the mercy seat, or propitiatory, and which covered the ark with expanded wings in the most holy pines of the Jewish tabernacle and temple. ee Exodus xxv, 18,19. The original mean- ing of the term, and the shape or form of these, any farther than that they were alata animata, “winged creatures,” is not certainly known. The word in Hebrew is sometimes taken for a calf or ox; and Ezekiel, x, 14, sets down the face of a cherub as synonymous to the face of anox. The word cherub, in Syriac and Chal- dee, signifies to till or plough, which is the proper work of oxen. Cherub also signifies strong and powerful. Grotius says they were figures much like that of a calf; and Bochart, likewise, thinks that they were more like the figure of an ox than any thing beside; and Spencer is of the same mind.. But Josephus says they were extraordinary creatures of a figure unknown to mankind. The opinion of most critics, taken, it seems, from Ezek. i, 9, 10, is, that they were figures composed of parts of various creatures; as a man, a lion, an ox, an eagle. But certainly we have no decided pret that the figures placed in the holy of olies, in the tabernacle, were of the same form with those described by Ezekiel. The contrary, mdeed, seems rather indicated, because they looked down upon the mercy seat, which is an attribute not well adapted to a four-faced crea- ture, like the emblematical cherubim seen by Ezekiel. The cherubim of the sanctuary were two in number ; one at each ena of the mercy seat; which, with the ark, was placed exactly in the middle, between the north and south sides of the tabernacle. It was here that atonement was made, and that God was rendered propi- tious by the high priest sprinkling the blood upon and before the mercy seat, Lev. xvi, 14, 15. Here the glory of God appeared, and here he met his high priest, and by him his people, and from hence he gave forth his oracles; whence the whole holy place was called v2, the oracle. These cherubim, it must be observ- ed, had feet whereon they stood, 2 Chron. iii, 13; and their feet were joined, in one con- tinued beaten work, to the ends of the mercy seat which covered the ark: so that they were wholly over or above it. Those in the taber- nacle were of beaten gold, being but of small dimensions, Exod. xxv, 18; but those in the temple of Solomon were made of the wood of the olive tree overlaid with gold; for they were very large, extending their wings to the whole breadth of the oracle, which was twenty cubits, 1 Kings vi, 23-28; 2 Chron. iii, 10-13. They are called “‘cherubim of glory,” not merely or chiefly on account of the matter or formation of them, but because they had the glory of God, or the glorious symbol of his presence, 230 CHE “the Shekinah,” resting between them. As this glory abode in tne inward tabernacle, and as the figures of the cherubim represented’ the angels who surround the manifestation of the divine presence in the world above, that taber- nacle was rendered a fit image of the court of heaven, in which light it is considered every where in the Epistle to the Hebrews. See chapters iv, 14; viii, 1; ix, 8, 9, 23, 24; xii, 22, 23. The cherubim, it is true, have been con- sidered by the disciples of Mr. Hutchinson as designed emblems of Jehovah himself, or rather of the Trinity of Persons in the God. head, with man taken into the divine essence, But that God, who is a pure Spirit, without parts or passions, pee separate and remote from all matter, should command Moses to make material and visible images or emblematical representations of himself, is utterly improba- ble: especially, considering that he had repeat edly, expressly, and solemnly forbidden every thing of this kind in the second commandment of the moral law, delivered from Mount Sinai, amidst thunder and lightning, “ blackziess, darkness, and tempest,” pronouncing with an audible and awful voice, while “the whole mount quaked preety and the sound of the trumpet waxed louder and louder, Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth.” Hence the solemn caution of Moses, Deut. iv, 15, &c: ‘‘ Take ye good heed unto yourselves, (for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire,) lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, of any beast that is on the earth, of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, of any thing that creepeth on the ground, of any fish that is in the waters.” Hence God’s demand by his pe “To what will ye liken me, or shall I be equal, saith the Holy One?” And hence the censure of the inspired penman, Psalm cvi, 20: ‘ They changed their glory into the similitude of an ox that eateth grass.” Add to this, that in most or all of the places where the cherubim are mentioned in the Scriptures, God is expressly distinguished from them. Thus, “ He,” the Lord, “ placed at the east of the garden cherubim, and a flam- ing sword,” Gen. iii, 24. “He rode on a cherub and did fly,” Psalm xviii, 10. ‘He sitteth between the cherubim,” Psalm xcix, 1. “He dwelleth between the cherubim,” Psalm lxxx,1. We also read of “ the glory of the God of Israel going up, from the cherub whereupon he was, to the threshold of the house,” Ezek. ix, 3. And again, “The glory of the Lord went up from the cherub, and the court was full of the brightness of the Lord’s glory,” Ezek. x, 4. And again, “ The glory of the Lord departed from off the threshold, and stood over the cherubim,” Ezek. x, 18. In all these passages the glory of the Lord, that is, the Shekinah, the glorious symbol of his pres- ence, is distinguished from the cherubim; and CHE not the least intimation is given in these pas- sages, or any others, of the Scripture, that the cherubim were images or emblematical repre- sentations of him. Mr. Parkhurst’s laborious effort to establish Mr. Hutchinson’s opinion on the subject of the cherubim, in his Hebrew Lexicon, sub voce, is so obviously fanciful and sontradictory, that few will be converted to this strange opinion. It seems much more probable that, as most eminent divines have supposed, the cherubim represented the angels who surround the divine presence in heaven. Accordingly, they had their faces turned to- ward the mercy seat, where God was supposed to dwell, whose glory the angels in heaven always behold, and upon which their eyes are continually fixed; as they are also upon Christ, the true propitiatory, which mystery of re- demption they “‘ desire,” St. Peter tells us, “ to look into,” I Peter i, 12: a circumstance evi- dently signified by the faces of the cherubim being turned inward, and their eyes fixed on the mercy seat. We may here also observe that, allowing St. Peter in this passage to allude to the cherubic figures, which, from his mode of expression, can scarcely be doubted, this amounts to a strong presumption that the cherubim represented, not so much one order, as ‘‘the angels” in general, all of whom are said to “desire to look into” the subjects of human redemption, and to all whose orders, “ the principalities and powers in heavenly laces, the manifold wisdom of God is made nown by the church.” In Ezekiel, the che- Tubic figures are evidently connected with the dispensations of providence; and they have therefore appropriate forms, emblematical of ine strength, wisdom, swiftness, and constancy, with which the holy angels minister in carry- ing on God’s designs: but in the sanctuary they are connected with the administration of grace; and they are rather adoring beholders, than actors, and probably aerated under forms more simple. As to the living creatures, im- roperly rendered “ beasts” in our translation, ev. iv, 7, some think them a_hieroglyphi- cal representation, not of the qualities of an- gels, but of those of real Christians ; especially of those in the suffering and active periods of the church. The first a lion, signifying their undaunted courage, manifested in meeting with confidence the greatest sufferings; the second a calf or ox, emblematical of unwearied pa- tience ; the third with the face of a man, repre- senting prudence and compassion ; the fourth a flying eagle, signifying activity and vigour. The four qualities thus emblematically set forth in these four living creatures, namely, undaunted courage, unwearied patience under sufferings, prudence united with kindness, and vigorous activity, are found, more or less, in the true members of Christ’s church in every age and nation. But others have imagined that this representation might be intended to intimate also that these qualities would espe- cially prevail in succeeding ages of the church, in the order in which they are here placed: that is, that in the first age true Christians would be eminent for the courage, fortitude, 231 CHI and success, wherewith they should spread the Gospel; that in the next age they would mani- fest remarkable patience in bearing persecu- tion, when they should be “ killed all the day,” like calves or oxen appointed for the slaughter ; that in the subsequent age or ages, when the storms of persecution were blown over, and Christianity was generally spread through the whole Roman empire, knowledge and wisdom, piety and virtue, should increase, and the church should wear the face of a man, and excel in prudence, humanity, love, and good works; and that in ages still later, being re- formed from various corruptions in doctrine and practice, and full of vigour and activity, it should carry the Gospel, as upon the wings of a flying eagle, to the remotest nations under heaven, “to every kindred, and tongue, and people.” This is a thought which deserves some consideration. The four great monarchies of the earth had their prophetic emblems, taken both from metals and from beasts and birds; and it is not unreasonable to look for prophetic emblems of the one kingdom of Christ, in its varied and successive states. Perhaps, how- ever, the most reasonable conclusion is, that, like the “living creatures” in the vision of Ezekiel, they are emblematical of the minis- trations of angels in what pertains to those providential events which more particularly concern the church. CHESNUT TREE, pory. This tree, which is mentioned only in Gen. xxx, 37, and Ezek. xxxi, 8, is by the Septuagint and Jerom ren- dered plane tree; and Drusius, Hiller, and most of the modern interpreters render it the same. The nameis derived from a root which signifies nakedness ; and it is often observed of the plane tree that the bark peels off from the trunk, leaving it naked, which peculiarity may have been the occasion of its Hebrew name. The son of Sirach says, “I grew up as a plane tree by the water,” Ecclesiasticus xxiv, 14. CHILD. Mothers, in the earliest times, suckled their offspring themselves, and that from thirty to thirty-six months. The day when the child was weaned was made a festi- val, Gen. xxi, 8; Exod. ii, 7,9; 1 Sam. i, 22 24; 2 Chron. xxxi, 16; 2 Mac. vii, 27, 28; Matt. xxi, 16. Nurses were employed, in case the mother died before the child was old enough to be weaned, and when from an circumstances she was unable to afford a suffi- cient supply of milk for its nourishment. In later ages, when matrons had become more delicate, and thought themselves too infirm to fulfil the duties which naturally devolved upon themg@nurses were employed to take their place, and were reckoned among the principa. members of the family. They are, accordingly, in consequence of the respectable station which they sustained, frequently mentioned in sacred history, Gen. xxxv, 8; 2 Kings xi, 2; 2 Chron. xxii, 1]. The sons remained till the fifth year in the care of the women; they then came. into the father’s hands, and were taught not. only the arts and duties of life, but were in- structed in the Mosaic law, and in all parts of their country’s religion, Deut. vi, 20-25; vii, CHI 19; xi, 19. ‘Those who wished to have them farther instructed, provided they did not deem it preferable to employ private teachers, sent them away to some priest or Levite, who some- times had a number of other children to instruct. It appears from 1 Sam. i, 24-28, that there wasa school near the holy tabernacle, dedi- cated to the instruction of youth. There had been many other schools of this kind, which had fallen into decay, but were restored again by the Prophet Samuel; after whose time, the members of the seminaries in question, who were denominated by way of distinction ‘the sons of the prophets,” acquired no little noto- riety. Daughters rarely departed from the apartments appropriated to the females, except when they went out with an urn to draw water. They spent their time in learning those domes- tic and other arts, which are befitting a wo- man’s situation and character, till they arrived at that period in life when they were to be sold, or, by a better fortune, given away in marriage, Prov. xxxi, 13; 2 Sam. xiii, 7. 2. In Scripture, disciples are often called shildren or sons. Solomon, in his Proverbs, says to his disciple, “Hear, my son.” The descendants of a man, how remote soever, are denominated his sons or children ; as “the chil- dren of Edom,” “the children of Moab,” “ the children of Israel.” Such expressions as “ the children of light,” ‘the children of darkness,” “the children of the kingdom,” signify those who follow truth, those who remain in error, and those who belong to the church. Persons arrived at almost the age of maturity are some- times called “children.” Thus, Joseph is termed “‘ the child,” though he was at least six- teen years old, Gen. xxxvii, 30; and Benjamin, even when above thirty, was so denominated, xliv, 20. By the Jewish law, children were reckoned the property of their parents, who could sell them for seven years to pay their debts. Their creditors had also the power of compelling them to resort to this measure. The poor woman, whose oil Elisha increased so much as enabled her to pay her husband’s debts, complained to the prophet, that, her husband being dead, the creditor was come to take away her two sons to be bondmen, 2 Kings iv, 1. “ Children, or sons of God,” is a name by which the angels are sometimes described: ‘‘ There was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord,” Job i, 6; ii, 1. Good men, in opposi- tion to the wicked, are also thus denominated ; the children of Seth’s family, in opposition to those of Cain: “ The sons of God saw the daughters of men,” Gen. vi, 2. Judges, ma- istrates, priests, are also termed children of fxod: “Ihave said, Ye are gods, and all of ou are the children of the Most High,” Psa. xxxii, 6. The Israelites are called “sons of God,” in opposition to the Gentiles, Hosea i, 10; John xi, 52. In the New Testament, be- lievers are commonly called “ children of God” by virtue of their adoption. St. Paul, in several places, extols the advantages of being adopted sons of God, Rom. viii, 14; Gal. iii, 26. “ Chil- drer or sons of men,” is a name given to 232 CHR Cain’s family before the deluge, and, mm par- ticular, to the giants who were violent men, and had corrupted their ways. Afterward, the impious Israelites were thus called: “O ye sons of men, how long will ye love vanity?” Psa. iv, 2. “The sons of men, whose teeth are spears and arrows,” lvii, 4. CHILD BIRTH. In oriental countries child birth is not an event of much difficulty; and mothers at such a season were originally the only assistants of their daughters, as any farther aid was deemed unnecessary, Exod. i, 19. In cases of more than ordinary difficulty, those matrons who had acquired some celebrit for skill and expertness on occasions of this kind, were invited in; and in this way there eventually rose into notice that class of women denominated midwives. The child was no sooner born, that it was washed ina bath, rubbed with salt, and wrapped in swaddling clothes, bnnn, Ezek. xvi, 4. It was the custom at avery ancient period, for the father, while music in the mean while was heard to sound, to clasp the new born child to his bosom, and by this ceremony was understood to declare it to be his own, Gen. 1, 23; Job iii, 12; Psa. xxii, 11. This practice was imitated by those wives who adopted the children of their maids, Gen. xvi, 2; xxx, 3-5. The birth day ofa son, especially, was made a festival, and on each successive year was ened with renewed demonstrations of festivity and joy, Gen. xl, 20; Job i, 4; Matt. xiv, 6. The mes- senger, who brought the news of the birth of ason, was received with joy, and rewarded with presents, Job 11,3; Jer. xx, 15. This is the case at the present day in Persia. i CHISLEU, the third month of the Jewish civil year, and the ninth of their sacred, an- swering to our November and December, Ne- hem. i, 1. It contains thirty days. CHITTIM. The country, or countries, im- plied by this name in Scripture, are variously interpreted by historians and commentators. Chittim has been taken, by Hales and Lowth, for all the coasts and islands of the Mediterra- nean; which appears most consonant with the general use of the word by the different inspired writers. CHRIST, an appellation synonymous with Messiah. The word Xpiorés, signifies anointed, from xpiw, I anoint. Sometimes the word Christ is used singly, by way of autonomasis, to denote a person sent from God, as an anointed prophet, king, or priest. ‘ Christ,” says Lactantius, “is no proper name, but one denoting power; for the a used to give this appellation to their kings, calling them Christ, or anointed, by reason of their sacred unction.” But he adds, “ The Heathens, by mistake, call Jesus Christ, Chrestus.” Accordingly, Sueto- nius, speaking of Claudius, and of his expelling the Jews from Rome, says that “he banished them because they were continually romoting tumults, under the influence of one Chyrestus :” “ Judaos, impulsore Chresto, assidué tumultu- antes, Roma expulit,” taking Christ to be a proper name. The names of Messiah and Christ were originally derived from the cere CHR mony of anointing, by which the kings and the high priests of God’s people, and sometimes the prophets, 1 Kings xix, 16, were consecrated and admitted to the exercise of their functions ; for all these functions were accounted holy among the Israelites. But the most eminent ap- plication of the word is to that illustrious person- age, typified and predicted from the beginning, who is described by the prophets, under the character of God’s Anointed, the Messiah, or the Christ. As to the use of the term in the New Testament, were we to judge by the com- mon version, or even by most versions into modern tongues, we should receive it rather as a proper name, than an appellative, or name of office, and should think of it only as our Lord’s surname. To this mistake our translators have contributed, by too seldom prefixing the article before Christ. The word Christ was at first as much an appellative as the word Bap- tist, and the one was as regularly accompanied with the article as the other. Yet our trans- lators, who would always say ‘the Baptist,” have, it should seem, studiously avoided say- ing “ the Christ.” The article, in such expres- sions as occur in Acts xvii, 3; xviii, 5, 28, adds considerable light to them, and yet no more than what the words of the historian manifestly convey to every reader who under- stands his language. It should therefore be, “ Paul testified to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ,” or the Messiah, &c. Many other similar instances occur. Should it be asked, Is the word Christ never to be understood in the New Testament as a proper name, but always as having a direct reference to the office or re Srey As it may be replied, that this word came at length, from the frequency of application to one individual, and only to one, to supply the place of a proper name. It would also very much accelerate this effect, that the name Jesus was common among the Jews at that time, and this rendered an addition ne- cessary for distinguishing the person. To this purpose, Grotius remarks, that in process of time the name Jesus was very much drop- ed, and Christ, which had never been used begs as the proper name of any person, and was, for that reason, a better distinction, was substituted for it; insomuch that, among the Heathens, our Lord came to be more known by the latter than by the former. This use seems to have begun soon after his ascension. During his life, it does not appear that the word was ever used in this manner; nay, the contrary is evident from several passages of the Gospels. The evangelists wrote some years after the period above mentioned; and therefore they adopted the practice common among Christians at that time, which was to employ the word as a surname for the sake of distinction. See Matt. i, 1, 18; Mark i, 1. CHRISTIAN, a follower of the religion of Christ. It is probable that the name Christian, like that of Nazarenes and Galileans, was given to the disciples of our Lord in reproach or con- tempt. What confirms this opinion is, that the people of Antioch in Syria, Acts xi, 26, where they were first called Christians, are 233 CHR observed by Zosimus, Procopius, and Zonaras, to have been remarkable for their scurrilous jesting. Some have indeed thought that this name was given by the disciples to themselves ; others, that it was imposed on them by divine authority ; in either of which cases surely we should have met with it in the subsequent his- tory of the Acts, and in the Apostclic Epistles, all of which were written some years after ; whereas it is found in but two more places in the New Testament, Acts xxvi, 28, where a Jew is the speaker, and in 1 Peter iv, 16, where reference appears to be made to the name as imposed upon them by their enemies. The word used, Acts xi, 26, signifies simply to be called or named, and when Doddridge and a few others take it to imply a divine appoint- ment, they disregard the wsus loguendi [esta- blished acceptation of the term] which gives no support to that opinion. The words of Tacitus, when speaking of the Christians per- secuted by Nero, are remarkable, “ vulgus Christianos appellabat,” “the vulgar called them Christians.” Epiphanius says, that they were called Jesseans, either from Jesse, the father of David, or, which is much more pro- bable, from the name of Jesus, whose disciples they were. They were denominated Chris- tians, A. D. 42 or 43; and though the name was first given reproachfully, they gloried in it, as expressing their adherence to Christ, and they soon generally assumed it. HRISTIANITY, the religion of Chris- tians. By Christianity is here meant, not that religious system as it may be understood and set forth in any particular society calling itself Christian; but as it is contained in the sacred books acknowledged by all these societies, or churches, and which contained the only au- thorized rule of faith and practice. 2. The lofty profession which Christianity makes as a religion, and the promises it holds forth to mankind, entitle it to the most serious consideration of all. For it may in truth be said, that no other religion presents itself un- der aspects so sublime, or such as are calcu- lated to awaken desires and hopes so enlarged and magnificent. It not only professes to be from God, but to have been taught to men by the Son of God incarnate in our nature, the Second Person in the adorable trinity of divine Persons, “the same in substance, equal in power and glory.” It declares that this divine personage is the appointed Redeemer of man- kind from sin, death, and misery ; that he was announced as such to our first parents upon their lapse from the innocence and blessedness of their primeval state; that he was exhibited to the faith and hope of the patriarchs in ex- press promises; and, by the institution of sacri- fices, as a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, so that man might be recon- ciled to God through Him, and restored to his forfeited inheritance of eternal life. It repre- sents all former dispensations of true religion, all revelations of God’s will, and all promises of grace from God to man, as emanating from the anticipated sacrifice and sacerdotal inter- cession of its Author, and es all preparatory to CHR the introduction of his perfect religion; and that as to the great political movements among the nations of antiquity, the rise and fall of empires were all either remotely or proximately connected with the designs of his advent among men. It professes to have completed the former revelations of God’s will and purposes ; to have accomplished ancient prophecies; fulfilled an- cient types; and iaken up the glory of the Mosaic religion into its own “ glory that ex- celleth ;” and to contain within itself a perfect system of faith, morals, and acceptable wor- ship. It not only exhibits so effectual a sacri- fice for sin, that remission of all offences against God flows from its merits to all who heartily confide in it; but it proclaims itself to be a remedy for all the moral disorders of our fallen nature; it casts out every vice, implants every virtue, and restores man to “ the image of God in which he was created,” even to “‘righteous- ness and true holiness.” 3. Its promises both to individuals and to so- ciety are of the largest kind. It represents its Founder as now exercising the office of the High Priest of the human race before God, and as having sat down at his right hand, a mediatorial and reconciling government being committed to him, until he shall come to judge all nations, and distribute the rewards of eter- nity to his followers, and inflict its never-ter- minating punishments upon those who reject him. By virtue of this constitution of things, it promises pardon to the guilty, of every age and country, who seek it in penitence and prayer, comfort to the afflicted and troubled, victory over the fear of death, a happy inter- mediate state to the disembodied spirit, and finally the resurrection of the body from the dead, and honour and immortality to be con- ferred upon the whole man glorified in the immediate presence of God. It holds out the loftiest hopes also to the world at large. It promises to introduce harmony among families and nations, to terminate all wars and all op- pressions, and ultimately to fill the world with truth, order, and purity. It represents the present and past state of society, as in contest with its own principles of justice, mercy, and truth; but teaches the final triumph of the lat- ter over every thing contrary to itself. It exhibits the ambition, the policy, and the rest- lessness of statesmen and warriors, as but the overruled instruments by which it is working out its own purposes of wisdom and benevo- lence ; and it not only defies the proudest array of human power, but professes to subordinate it by a secret and irresistible working to its own designs. Finally, it exhibits itself as en- larging its plans, and completing its designs, by moral suasion, the evidence of its truth, and the secret divine influence which accompanies it. Such are the professions and promises of Christianity, a religion which enters into no compromise with other systems; which repre- sents itself as the only religion now in the world having God for its author; and in his name, and by the hope of his mercy, and the terrors of his frown, it commands the obedi- ence of faith to all people to whom it is pub- 234 CHR lished upon the solemn sanction, “He thar believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned.” 4. Corresponding with these professions, which throw every other religion that pretends to offer hope to man into utter insignificance it is allowed that the evidence of its truth ought to be adequate to sustain the weight of so vast a fabric, and that men have a right to know that they are not deluded with a grand and impressive theory, but are receiving from this professed system of truth and salvation “the true sayings of God.” Such evidence it has afforded in its splendid train of mmaczzs; in its numerous appeals to the fulfilment of ancient PROPHECIES; in its own powerful m- TERNAL evidence; in the INFLUENCE which it has always exercised, and continues to exert, upon the happiness of mankind; and in vari- ous collateral circumstances. Under the heads of Miracles and Prophecy, those important branches of evidence will be discussed, and to them the reader is referred. It is only neces- sary here to say, that the miracles to which Christianity appeals as proofs of its divine au- thority, are not only those which were wrought by Christ and his Apostles, but also those which took place among the patriarchs, under the law of Moses, and by the ministry of the Prophets; for the religion of those ancient times was but Christianity in its antecedent revelations. All these miracles, therefore, must be taken collectively, and present attesta- tions of the loftiest kind, as being manifestly the work of the “ finger of God,” wrought un- der circumstances which precluded mistake, and exhibiting an immense variety, from the staying of the very wheels of the planetary system,—as when the sun and moon paused in their course, and the shadow on the dial of Ahaz went backward,—to the supernatural changes wrought upon the elements of matter, the healing of incurable diseases, the expulsion of tormenting demons, aud the raising of the dead. Magnificent as this array of miracles is, it is equalled by the prophetic evidence, founded upon the acknowledged principle, that future and distant contingencies can only be known to that Being, one of whose attributes is an absolute prescience. And here, too, the variety and the grandeur presented by the pro- phetic scheme exhibit attestations to the truth of Christianity suited to its great claims and its elevated character. "Within the range of prophetic vision all time is included, to the final consummation of all things: and the greatest as well as the smallest events are seen with equal distinctness, from the subver- sion of mighty empires and gigantic cities, to the parting of the raiment of our Lord, and the casting of the lot for his robe by the Roman guard stationed at his cross. 5. These subjects are discussed under the articles assigned to them; as also the INTERNAL EVIDENCE of the truth of Christianity, which arises from the excellence and beneficial ten- dency of its doctrines. Of its just and sublime conceptions and exhibitions of the divine cha- racter ; of the truth of that view of the moral CHR state of man upon which its disciplinary treat- ment is founded; of the correspondence that there is between its views of man’s mixed re- lation to God as a sinful creature, and yet Titied and cared for, and that actual mixture of good and evil, penalty and forbearance, which the condition of the world presents; of the connection of its doctrine of atonement with hope; of the adaptation of its doctrine of divine influence to the moral condition of man- kind when rightly understood, and the affect- ing benevolence and condescension which it implies; and of its noble and sanctifying reve- lations of the blessedness of a future life, much might be said :—they are subjects indeed on which volumes have been written, and they can never be exhausted. But we confine our- selves to the MORAL TENDENCY, and the conse- ent BENEFICIAL INFLUENCE, of Christianity. o where except in the Scriptures have we a perfect system of morals; and the deficiencies of Pagan morality only exalt the purity, the comprehensiveness, the practicability of ours. The character of the Being acknowledged as supreme must always impress itself upon moral feeling and practice; the obligation of which rests upon his will. The God of the Bible is ‘holy,’ without spot ; “just,” without partiali- zy ; “ good,” boundlessly benevolent and benefi- cent; and his law is the image of himself, “holy, just, and good.” These great moral qualities are not made known to us merely in the abstract, so as to be comparatively feeble in their influence: but in the person of Christ, our God, incarnate, they are seen exemplified in action, displaying themselves amidst human relations, and the actual circumstances of hu- man life. With Pagans the authority of moral rules was either the opinion of the wise, or the tradition of the ancient, confirmed, it is true, in some degree, by observation and experience ; but to us, they are given as commands imme- diately issuing from the supreme Governor, and ratified as his by the most solemn and ex- plicit attestations. With them many great moral principles, being indistinctly apprehend- ed, were matters of doubt and debate; to us, the explicit manner in which they are given excludes both: for it cannot be questioned, whether we are commanded to love our neigh- bour as ourselves ; to do to others as we would that they should do to us, a precept which comprehends almost all relative morality in one plain principle; to forgive our enemies; to love all mankind; to live righteously and soberly, as well as godly; that magistrates must be a terror only to evil doers, and a praise to them that do well; that subjects are to ren- der honour to whom honour, and tribute to whom tribute, is due; that masters are to be just and merciful, and servants faithful and obedient. These, and many other familiar pre- cepts, are too explicit to be mistaken, and too authoritative to be disputed; two of the most owerful means of rendering law effectual. hose who never enjoyed the benefit of reve- lation, never conceived justly and comprehen- sively of that moral state of the heart from which right and beneficent conduct alone can 235 CHR flow, and therefore when they speak of the same virtues as those enjoined by Christianity, they are to be understood as attaching to them a lower idea. In this the infinite superiority of Christianity displays itself. The principle of obedience is not ony a sense of duty to God, and the fear of his displeasure ; but a ten- der love, excited by his infinite compassions to us in the gift of his Son, which shrinks from offending. To this influential motive as a rea- son of obedience, is added another, drawn from its end: one not less influential, but which Heathen moralists never knew,—the testimony that we please God, manifested in the accept- ance of our prayers, and in spiritual and feli- citous communion with him. By Christianity, impurity of thought and desire is restrained in an equal degree as are their overt acts in the lips and conduct. Humanity, meekness, gentleness, placability, disinterestedness, and charity are all as clearly and solemnly enjoined as the grosser vices are prohibited ; and on the unruly tongue itself is impressed “ the law of kindness.” Nor are the injunctions feeble ; they are strictly Law, and not mere advice and recommendations: ‘‘ Without holiness no man shall see the Lord ;” and thus our entrance into heaven, and our escape from perdition, are made to depend upon this preparation of mind To all this is added possibility, nay certainty, of attainment, if we use the appointed means. A Pagan could draw, though not with lines so perfect, a beau ideal of virtue, which he never thought attainable; but the “ full assurance of hope” is given by the religion of Christ to all who are seeking the moral renovation of their nature; because “it is God that worketh in us to will and to do of his good pleasure.” 6. When such is the moral nature of Chris- tianity, how obvious is it that its tendency both as to individuals and to society must be in the highest sense beneficial! From every passion which wastes, and burns, and frets, and en- feebles the spirit, the individual is set free, and his inward peace renders his obedience cheer- ful and voluntary: and we might appeal to in- fidels themselves, whether, if the moral princi- ples of the Gospel were wrought into the hearts, and embodied in the conduct, of all men, the world would not be happy ; whether if govern- ments ruled, and subjects obeyed, by the laws of Christ ; whether if the rules of strict justice which are enjoined upon us regulated all the transactions of men, and all that mercy to the distressed which we are taught to feel and to practise came into operation; and whether, if the precepts which delineate and enforce the duties of husbands, wives, masters, servants, parents, children, did, in fact, fully and gene- rally govern all these relations,—whether a bet- ter age than that called golden by the poets, would not then be realized, and Virgil’s Jam redit et Virgo, redeunt Saturnia regna, (Now Astraea returns, and the Saturnian reign,] be far too weak to express the mighty change ? [It was in the reign of Saturn that the Heathen poets fixed the golden age. At that period, ac- cording to them, Astraea, (the goddess of jus- CHR tice,) and many other deities lived on earth; but being offended with the wickedness of men, they successively fled to heaven. Astraea staid longest, but at last retired to her native seat, and was translated into the sign Virgo, next to Libra, who holds her balance.] Such is the tendency of Christianity. On immense numbers of individuals it has superinduced these moral changes; all nations, where it has been fully and faithfully exhibited, bear, amidst their remaining vices, the impress of its hallow- ing and benevolent influence: it is now in ac- tive exertion in many of the darkest and worst parts of the earth, to convey the same bless- ings; and he who would arrest its progress, were he able, would quench the only hope which remains to our world, and prove himself an enemy, not only to himself, but to all man- kind. What then, we ask, does all this prove, but that the Scriptures are worthy of God, and propose the very ends which rendered a revela- tion necessary ? Of the whole system of prac- tical religion which it contains we may say, as of that which is embodied in our Lord’s ser- mon on the mount, in the words of one, who, in a course of sermons on that divine compo- sition, has entered most deeply into its spirit, and presented a most instructive delineation of the character which it was intended to form : “Behold Christianity in its native form, as delivered by its great Author. See a picture of God, as far as he is imitable by man, drawn by God’s own hand. What beauty appears in the whole! How just a symmetry! What exact proportion in every part! ow desir- able is the happiness here described! How venerable, how lovely is the holiness!” “If,” says Bishop Taylor, “wisdom, and mercy, and justice, and simplicity, and holiness, and purity, and meekness, and contentedness, and charity, be images of God, and rays of divinity, then that doctrine, in which all these shine so gloriously, and in which nothing else is ingre- dient, must needs be from God. If the holy Jesus had come into the world with less splen- dour of power and mighty demonstrations, yet the excellency of what he taught makes him alone fit to be the master of the world ;” and agreeable to all this, has been its actual influ- ence upon mankind. Although, says Bishop Porteus, Christianity has not always been so well understood, or so honestly practised, as it ought to have been; although its spirit has been often mistaken, and its precepts misappli- ed, yet, under all these disadvantages, it has gradually produced a visible change in those points which most materially concern the peace and quiet of the world. Its beneficent spirit has spread itself through all the different rela- tions and modifications of life, and communi- cated its kindly influence to almost every pub- lic and private concern of mankind. tt has insensibly worked itself into the inmost frame and constitution of civil states. It has given a tinge to the complexion of their governments, to the temper and administration of their laws. It has restrained the spirit of the prince, and the madness of the people. It has softened the rigours of despotism, and tamed the insolence of 236 CHR conquest. It has, in some ne taken away the edge of the sword, and thrown even over the horrors of war a veil of mercy. It hag descended into families; has diminished the pressure of private tyranny ; improved every domestic endearment; given tenderness to the parent, humanity to the master, respect to su- periors, to inferiors ease; so that mankind are, upon the whole, even in a temporal view, under infinite obligations to the mild and pacific tem. per of the Gospel, and have reaped from it more substantial worldly benefits than from any other institution upon earth. As one proof of this, among many others, consider only the shocking carnage made in the human species by the exposure of infants, the gladiatorial shows, which sometimes cost Rome twenty or thirty lives in a month; and the exceedingly cruel usage of slaves allowed and practised b the ancient Pagans. These were not the acci- dental and temporary excesses of a sudden fury, but were legal and established, and constant methods of murdering and tormenting man- kind. Had Christianity done nothing more than brought into disuse, as it confessedly has done, the two former of these inhuman cus- toms entirely, and the latter to a very great degree, it has justly merited the title of the be- nevolent religion. But this is far from being all. Throughout the more enlightened parts of Christendom there prevails a gentleness ot manners widely different from the ferocity ot the most civilized nations of antiquity; and that liberality with which every species of dis- tress is relieved, is a virtue peculiar to the Christian name. But we may ask farther, What success has it had on the mind of man, as it respects his eternal welfare? How many thousands have felt its power, rejoiced in its benign influence, and under its dictates been constrained to devote themselves to the glory and praise of God! Burdened with guilt, inca- pable of finding relief from human resources, the mind has here found peace unspeakable in beholding that sacrifice which alone could atone for transgression. Here the hard and impeni- tent heart has been softened, the impetuous pas- sions restrained, the ferocious temper subdued, powerful prejudices conquered, ignorance dis- pelled, and the obstacles to real happiness remov- ed. Here the Christian, looking round on the glories and blandishments of this world, has been enabled, with a noble contempt, to despise all. Here death itself, the king of terrors, has lost his sting; and the soul, with a holy magnani- mity, has borne up in the agonies of a dying hour, and sweetly sung itself away to everlast- ing bliss. In respect to its future spread, we have reason to believe that all nations shall feel its happy effects. The prophecies are pregnant with matter as to this belief. It seems that not only a nation, or a country, but the whole habitable globe, shall become the king- dom of our God, and of his Christ. And who is there that has ever known the excellency of this system; who is there that has ever expe- rienced its happy efficacy ; who is there that. has ever been convinced of its divine origin, its delightful nature and peaceful tendency, but GHR must join the benevoient and royal poet in say- ing, “Let the whole earth be filled with its glory ? Amen and amen!” 7. Among the collateral proofs of the truth and divine origin of Christianity, its rapid and wonderful success justly holds an important place. Of its early triumphs, the history of the Acts of the Apostles is a splendid record; and in process of time it made a wonderful pro- gress through Europe, Asia, and Africa. In the third century there were Christians in the camp, in the senate, and in the palace; in short, every where, as we aré informed, except in the temples and the theatres: they filled the towns, the country, and the islands. Men and women of all ages and ranks, and even those of the first dignity, embraced the Christian faith; insomuch that the Pagans complained that the revenues of their temples were ruin- ed. They were in such great numbers in the empire, that, as Tertullian expresses it, if they had retired into another country, they would have left the Romans only a frightful ‘solitude. (See the next article.) For the illustration of this argument, we may observe, that the Chris- tian religion was introduced every where in opposition to the sword of the magistrate, the craft and interest of the priests, the pride of the philosophers, the passions and prejudices of the people, all closely combined in support of the national worship, and to crush the Chris- tian faith, which aimed at the subversion of Heathenism and idolatry. Moreover, this re- ligion was not propagated in the dark, by per- sons who tacitly endeavoured to deceive the credulous ; nor delivered out by little and little, so that one doctrine might prepare the way for the reception of another; but it was fully and without disguise laid before men all at once, that they might judge of the whole under one view. Consequently mankind were not delud- ed into the belief of it, but received it upon proper examination and conviction. Beside, the Gospel was first preached and first believed by multitudes in Judea, where Jesus exercised his ministry, and where every individual had the means of knowing whether the things that were told him were matters of fact; and in this country, the scene of the principal transac- tions on which its credibility depended, the history of Christ could never have been receiv- ed, unless it had been true, and known to all as truth. Again: the doctrine and history of Jesus were preached and believed in the most noted countries and cities of the world, in the very age when he is said to have lived. On the fiftieth day after our Lord’s crucifixion, three thousand persons were converted in Je- rusalem by a single sermon of the Apostles; and a few weeks after this, five thousand who believed were present at another sermon preach- ed also in Jerusalem, Acts ii, 41; iv, 4; vi, 7; viii, 1; ix, 1, 20. About eight or ten years after our Lord’s death, the disciples were be- come so numerous at Jerusalem and in the adjacent country, that they were objects of jea- lousy and alarm to Herod himself, Acts xii, 1. In the twenty-second year after the crucifixion, the disciples in Judea are said to have been 237 CHR many myriads, Acts xxi,20. Theage in which Christianity was introduced and received, was famous for men whose faculties were improved by the most perfect state of social life, but who were good judges of the evidence offered in support of the facts recorded in the Gospel his- tory. For it should be recollected, that the success of the Gospel was not restricted to Ju- dea; but it was preached in all the different pro- vinces ofthe Romanempire. The first triumphs of Christianity were in the heart of Greece it- self, the nursery of learning and the polite arts; for churches were planted at a very early pe- riod at Corinth, pheaue Berea, Thessalonica, and Philippi. Even Rome herself, the seat of wealth and empire, was not able to resist the force of truth at a time when the facts related were recent, and when they might, if ey been false, have easily been disproved. From Greece and Rome, at a period of cultivation and refinement, of general peace, and exten- sive intercourse, when one great empire united different nations and distant people, the confu- tation of these facts would very soon have passed from one country to another, to the ut- ter confusion of the persons who endeavoured to propagate the belief of them. Nor ought it to be forgotten that the religion to which such numbers were proselyted, was an exclusive one. It denied, without reserve, the truth of every article of Heathen mythology, and the exist- ence of every object of their worship. It ac- cepted no compromise; it admitted of no com- prehension. If it prevailed at all, it must pre- vail by the overthrow of every statue, altar, and temple in the world. It pronounced all other gods to be false, and all other worship vain. These are considerations which must have strengthened the opposition to it; aug- mented the hostility which it must encounter; and enhanced the difficulty of gaining prose- lytes: and more especially when we recollect, that among the converts to Christianity in the earliest age, a number of persons remarkable for their station, office, genius, education, and fortune, and who were personally interested by their emoluments and honours in either Juda- ism or Heathenism, appeared among the Chris- tian proselytes. Its evidences approved them- selves, not only to the multitude, but to men of the most refined sense and most distinguish- ed abilities; and it dissolved the attachments which all powerful interest and authority creat- ed and upheld. Among the proselytes to Chris- tianity we find Nicodemus, and Joseph of Ari- mathea, members of the senate of Israel; Jai- rus, a ruler of the synagogue; Zaccheus, the chief of the publicans at Jericho ; Apollos, dis- tinguished for eloquence; Paul, learned in the Jewish law; Sergius Paulus, governor of the island of Cyprus; Cornelius, a Roman captain ; Dionysius, a judge and senator of the Athenian areopagus; Erastus, treasurer of Corinth; Ty- rannus, a teacher of grammar and rhetoric at Corinth; Publius, governor of Malta; Philemon, a person of considerable rank at Colosse; Simon, a noted sophist in Samaria; Zenas, a lawyer; and even the domestics of the emperor himself. These are noticed in the sacred writings; and CHR the Heathen historians also mention some per- sons of great note who were converted at an early period. To all the preceding circum- stances we may add a consideration of peculiar moment, which is, that the profession of Chris- tianity led all, without exception, to renounce the pleasures and honours of the world, and to expose themselves to the most ignominious suf- ferings. And now, without adding any more to this argument, we may ask, How could the Christian religion have thus prevailed had it not been introduced by the power of God and of truth? And it has been supported in the world by the same power through a course of many ages, amidst the treachery of its friends, the opposition of its enemies, the dangers of prosperous periods, and the persecutions and violence of adverse cir- cumstances ; all which must have destroyed it, if it had not been founded in truth, and guarded by the protection of an almighty Providence. CHRISTIANITY: Sketch of its History. The Christian religion was published by its great Author in Judea, a short time before the death of Herod the Great, and toward the con- clusion of the long reign of Augustus. While other religions had been accommodated to the peculiar countries in which they had taken their origin, and had indeed generally grown out of incidents connected with the history of those to whom they were addressed, Chris- tianity was so framed as to be adapted to the whole human race; and although, for the wisest reasons, it was first announced to the Jews, who had peculiar advantages for form- ing an accurate judgment with regard to it, it was early declared that, in conformity to pre- dictions which had long been known, and long interpreted, as referring to a new communica- tion of the divine will, it was to be a light to lighten the Gentiles, and was to carry salva- tion to the ends of the earth. Although Chris- tianity originated in Judea, it was not long confined within the narrow limits of the Holy Land. The open manner in which it was an- nounced, the length of time during which its Author publicly addressed his countrymen, the innumerable miracles which he performed, and, above all, the report of the resurrection under circumstances which must have been commu- nicated to the imperial government at Rome, excited the deep attention of the numerous Jews and proselytes who, from surrounding nations, regularly went up to Jerusalem, and of whom vast numbers were actually in that city when the resurrection must have been the subject of universal discussion. They very naturally carried to the different countries in which they usually resided, the astonishing intelligence with which they had been furnish- ed; and provision was soon made for fulfilling the prediction which Jesus had uttered, that his Gospel would, before the destruction of Je- rusalem, be circulated and embraced by many through the wide extent of the Roman empire. The Apostle Peter, in consequence of what he knew to be a solemn injunction from heaven, communicated to a Gentile the truths of Chris- tianity. St. Paul, who had distinguished him- self by his enmity to the Christians, and by the 238 CHR cruelty with which he had persecuted them having been converted, devoted himself to lay the foundations of the Gospel through a large portion of the most enlightened part of the world; and the miraculous gift of tongues, by which humble and illiterate men found them- selves at once able to speak the languages of different nations, left no doubt that they were bound to preach their faith as extensively as had been marked out to them by the last in- structions which they had received from their Master. They had to struggle with the most formidable difficulties in prosecuting this un- dertaking; for which, had they trusted merely to their own strength, and their own natural endowments, they were wholly unqualified. 2. The Roman empire at the period of ther commencing the attempt, comprehended almost the whole of the civilized world, and thus in- cluded within it nations whose habits, customs, and sentiments essentially differed, and whom it required the most dexterous policy to unite in one community, or to subject to one govern- ment. The most effectual method by which, during the commonwealth, and at the rise of the empire, this had been accomplished, was a politic respect to the religious opinions which all these nations entertained. Not only were their modes of worship treated with scrupulous reverence, but their gods, in conformity with the genius of Paganism, were incorporated or associated with the deities of Rome, and they were thus joined to their conquerors by the strongest ties by which the affections can he secured. At all times religion had been an ob- ject of prominent interest with the Romans: at the foundation of the city, Romulus had professed to be directed by Heaven; during the whole period of the republic, the most sacred attention had been paid to the rites and cere- monies sanctioned by the prevailing supersti- tion, the prosperity of the state was invariably ascribed to the protection of the gods, and the most impressive solemnities, combined with the richest splendour and magnificence, cast around polytheism a mysterious sanctity, which even the philosophers affected to revere. Pre- cautions accordingly had been early taken to prevent innovations upon the established ritual; foreign rites were prohibited till they had ob- tained the sanction of the senate; and when the solicitation of this sanction was neglected, the persons guilty of the neglect were fre- quently punished. From the nature of Pagan- ism, it was perfectly consistent with its spirit to conjoin, with any particular mode of it, the forms which elsewhere prevailed. These ad- ditions left all which had’ been previously ho- noured in unimpaired vigour and _ influence, and, in fact, only increased the appearance of profound regard for religion, which the Romans so long assumed. But this part of the political constitution, lightly as it affected other reli- gions, at once struck at the root of Christianity, which, unlike the prevailing modifications of idolatry, prohibited the worship of all the dei- ties before whose altars mankind had for ages bent, and required, as essential for obtaining the divine favour, that they who believed in it CHR should pay undivided homage to the one God, whose existence it revealed. The extension of the Gospel thus necessarily carried with it opposition to the most ancient and most revered law of the empire, and it was impossible for those who judged of it merely from this cir- cumstance, without investigating its nature and tendency, to hesitate in directing against it the statutes which the zeal of their fathers had provided, to prevent such a revolution as would be produced by so thorough and so alarming a change in their religious principles. No sooner, however, had the message of sal- vation been addressed indiscriminately to all men, and, from the evidence by which it was accompanied, had brought aundbers to acknow- ledge the heavenly source from which it is derived, than the detestation of it previously entertained burst forth in all its violence; and it is apparent that this had been widely and openly expressed before any imperial edicts were directed against the Christians. Tacitus, in the celebrated passage in which he mentions the disciples of Jesus, and which refers to a period not more than thirty years distant from the ascension, represents it as notorious in Rome, that Christ, during the reign,of Tibe- rius, had been put to death as a criminal; he asserts that his adherents had long been odious on account of their enormities; he laments that their destructive superstition had found its way to the capital of the empire; and he attri- butes the melancholy fate to which they were condemned to the general persuasion, that they were actuated by hatred to the whole human race. It is necessary to keep this fact steadily in view, to form an accurate idea of that op- poaien which Christianity had to encounter. his opposition is not to be estimated merely by reference to particular statutes, or even to be considered as fully exhibited when we have gathered together the public proceedings which have been recorded in history, or deplored in the writings of those who sought to avert them. It is to be remembered that even when the laws which the frantic zeal of some of the emperors had enacted were repealed, the general law of the empire was still in force; that it was com- petent for every one who had the cruelty to do 60, to turn it against the Christians; and that the firm, though mistaken, conviction that the Christian profession involved in it the most revolting impiety, the most tremendous guilt, and the most dangerous hostility to the best interests of the state, would lead numbers to indulge their antipathy, when little notice was taken of the sufferers, and would keep the dis- ciples of the hated faith in a state of unceasing. alarm. (See Persecution.) What was the effect of this depressing situation? Did it check the dissemination of the Gospel, or confine it to the men by whom it was preached? So far was this from being the case, that from the period of the death, and, as it must here be termed, the alleged resurrection of Jesus, it was emoraced by immense numbers in all the countries to which it was conveyed; and even while they were contemplating the sacrifices and the trials to which, by attaching them- 239 CHR selves to it, they would be exposed, they did not hesitate to relinquish the religion in which they had been educated, and to exchange for misery and death all the comforts which the strongest feelings and propensities of our na- ture lead men to value and to pursue. Finally, imperial Rome bowed to the religion it had persecuted, and the emperor Constantine be- came a Christian. 3. The propagation of Christianity assumes a new aspect after it became the religion of the empire, and was guarded by the protection and surrounded by the munidicence of imperial power. The causes which, in the first stage of its existence, had most powerfully acted against it, were now turned to its support; and all the motives by which men are usually guided led them to enter with, at least, appa- rent conviction into its sanctuaries. Not only was persecution, after the reign of Constan- tine, at an end, but with the exception of the short reign of Julian, who, having apostatized from Christianity, and become intoxicated with the fascinating speculations of the Platonic philosophy, was eager to raise the temples which his predecessor had laid in ruins, pro- motion and wealth and honour could be most effectually secured by transferring to the Gos- pel the zeal which had been in vain exhausted to preserve the sinking fabric of Paganism and idolatry. The emperors, who had displayed their zeal and their attachment to the religion of Jesus, by forcing their own subjects to profess it, conceived it to be their duty to communicate so great a blessing to all the nations which they could influence; and when they found it ne- cessary to declare war against ie savage tribes which pressed upon the frontiers, or forced themselves within the precincts of the empire, they carried on hostilities with the view of rendering these instrumental no less to the diffusion of their religious tenets, than to the vindication of their authority, and the security of their dominions. The vanquished invaders felt little reluctance to purchase the forbearance or the clemency of their conquerors, by sub- mitting to receive their religion; and this spe- cies of conversion, so little connected with the great objects which revelation was designed to accomplish, leaving, in fact, all the gross su- perstitious practices and all the immoral abo- minations which had previously existed, was boastfully held forth as a decisive proof of the ee of the Gospel. 4. The foundation of the empire, not long after the days of Constantine, began to be shaken: and it experienced numberless assaults and convulsions, till it was finally divided inte the eastern and western empires. The luxury and wealth which had enervated their possess- ors, and destroyed the heroism and intrepidity by which their ancestors had been distinguished, poe the most powerful temptations to the awless bands which, driven from the sterile regions of the north of Europe, had pressed forward to seek for new and more favoured habitations. The feeble attempts to turn aside, by bribery, these ferocious barbarians, increased the danger which they were intended to re- CHR move; and the history of Europe presents, for several ages, the disgusting spectacle of war, conducted with an atrocity eclipsing the stern virtues which sometimes were strikingly dis- played. But although the insubordination of this turbulent and sanguinary period was little favourable to the mild influence of genuine Christianity, it did not prove so fatal to it as might have been apprehended ; and it was even instrumental in extending its nominal domi- nion. Mankind, when scarcely emerged from barbarism, and attached to no particular coun- try, but seeking wherever it can be found the food necessary for themselves and the flocks upon which they in a great measure depend, although they entertain those sentiments with regard to religion which seem almost interwo- ven with our nature, feel little attachment to any one system of superstition, and are open to the reception of new doctrines, which an association with what they value may have led them to venerate. When, accordingly, the tribes which finally overran the Roman empire had ceased from the destructive contests by which they got possession of the regions that had long been blessed with civilization and enlightened by science, they surveyed with amazement and with admiration the people whom they had conquered ; they were delight- ed with the luxuries which abounded among them; they were charmed with their manners ‘and customs; and they eagerly conformed to institutions from which they hoped that they should reap what the original inhabitants of their settlement had enjoyed. The religion of the vanquished they contemplated with rever- ence; they connected it with the wealth, the refinement, and the power which they saw spread around them ; and they easily exchanged the rude and careless worship of their native deities, for the polished and splendid devotional rites, which, with the most imposing solem- nity, were celebrated by the Christians. Hence, they soon embraced the religion by which it was believed that these rites were prescribed; and they communicated it to the nations with whom they still maintained an alliance. There is no doubt that motives very little connected with the conviction of the understanding led to the progress of Christianity now described ; and, in fact, that progress was occasioned by causes so different from those which should have produced it, that, had circumstances been changed, and had the religion of Jesus been continued to be persecuted by the most power- ful states, multitudes who affected to revere it would, upon the same ground on which their veneration rested, have exerted themselves to deride its tenets, and to exterminate its pro- fessors. 5. But it was not the secular arm alone that was stretched forth to lead men to the reception of Christianity. The church, after it had been firmly established, and had, amidst the riches and honours with which it was endowed, forgotten that it should not have been of this world, conceived it incumbent, as an evidence of its zeal, or, as was too often the case, for extending its power and its influence, to make 240 CHR attempts to substitute the cross of Christ for the emblems of Paganism. In accomplishing this object, it employed different means. But although the conversions which took lace, from the establishment of Christianity till the restoration of learning, or the reformation, which forms a new era in the dissemination of the Gospel, were often unfortunately very far from planting the word of life in the hearts of those to whom it was conveyed, they were very extensive. They reached to almost every country in Europe; to Arabia, China, Judea, and many other parts of Asia; and the obscure tribes, to whom no missionaries were des- patched, gradually conformed to the religion of those more powerful states upon which they depended, or to which they looked with respect or veneration. 6. Mohammedanism, however, arrested the progress of Christianity in some of these coun- tries, and humbled it and oppressed it in others; but since the reformation, and especially within the last century, it has becn extended, not so much by conquest, as by the legitimate means of colonization, and by missions and education, to the most distant and important parts of the world, to China, India, Africa, the American Islands, and those of the Pacific Ocean. The zeal, self-denial, and successes, of those mission- aries, who have been sent forth within a few years by various Protestant societies, and their great successes form, indeed, a splendid section in the modern history of the church. They have sown the seed in almost every land, and the fruit has spread itself throughout the world. CHRONICLES, Books of. This name is given to two historical books of Scripture, which the Hebrews call ,Dibri-Jamim, “ Words of Days,” that is, ‘ Diaries,” or ‘“ Journals.” They are called in the LXX, Paralipomena, which signifies, ‘‘ things omitted ;” as if these books were a supplement of what had been omitted, or too much abridged, in the books of Kings, and other historical books of Scripture. And, indeed, we find in them many particulars which are not extant elsewhere: but it must not be thought that these are the records, or books of the acts, of the kings of Judah and Israel, so often referred to. Those ancient registers were much more extensive than these are; and the books of Chronicles themselves refer to those original memoirs, and make long extracts from them. They were compiled, and probably by Ezra, from the ancient chronicles of the kings of Judah and Israel just now men- tioned, and they may be considered as a kind of supplement to the preceding books of Scrip- ture. The former part of the first book of Chronicles contains a great variety of genea- logical tables, beginning with Adam; and in particular gives a circumstantial account of the twelve tribes, which must have been very valu- able to the Jews after their return from cap- tivity. The descendants of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David, from all of whom it was predicted that the Saviour of the world should be born, are here marked with precision. These enealogies occupy the first nine chapters, and 1m the tenth is recorded the death of Saul. CHU From the eleventh chapter to the end of, the book, we have a history of the reign of David, with a detailed statement of his preparation for the building of the temple, of his regula- tions respecting the priests and Levites, and nis appointment of musicians for the public service of religion. The second book of Chro- nicles contains a brief sketch of the Jewish his- tory, from the accession of Solomon to the return from the Babylonian captivity, being a eriod of four hundred and eighty years; and in both these books we find many particulars not noticed in the other historical books ‘of Scripture. CHRYSOLITE, Rev. xxi, 20, a precious stone of a golden colour. Schroder says it is the gem now called the Indian topaz, which is of a yellowish green colour, and very beau- tiful. CHRYSOPRASUS, Rev. xxi, 20, a pre- cious stone, which Pliny classes among the beryls; the best of which, he says, are of a sea-green colour; after these he mentions the chrysoberyls, which are a little paler, inclining to golden colour; and next, a sort still paler, and by some reckoned a distinct species, and called chrysoprasus. CHURCH. The Greek word ékxkAnoia, so rendered, denotes an assembly met about busi- ness, whether spiritual or temporal, Acts xix, 32, 39. It is understood also of the collective body of Christians, or all those over the face of the earth who profess to believe in Christ, and acknowledge him to be the Saviour of mankind; this is called the visible church. £rt by the word church, we are more strictly to tuaerstand the whole body of God’s true people, in every period of time: this is the in- visible or spiritual church. The people of God on earth are called the church militant, and those in heaven the church triumphant. It has been remarked by Dr. John Owen, that sin having entered into the world, God was pleased to found his church (the catholic or uni- versal church) in the promise of the Messiah given to Adam ; that this promise contained in It something of the nature of a covenant, in- cluding the grace which God designed to show to sinners in the Messiah, and the obedience which he required from them ; and that conse- quently, from its first promulgation, that pro- mise became the sole foundation of the church and of the whole worship of God therein. Prior to the days of Abraham, this church, though scattered up and down the world, and subject to many changes in its worship through the addition of new revelations, was still but one and the same, because founded in the same covenant, and interested thereby in all the benefits or privileges that God had granted, or would at any time grant. In process of time, God was pleased to restrict his church, as far as visible acknowledgment went, in a great measure, to the seed of Abraham. With the latter he renewed his covenant, requiring that he should walk before him and be upright. He also constituted him the father of the faith- ful, or of all them that believe, and the “heir of the world.” So that since the days of Abra- 17 241 CHU ham, the church has, in every age, been fouud- ed upon the covenant made with that patriarch, and on the work of redemption which was to be performed according tothat covenant. Now wheresoever this covenant made with Abra. ham is, and with whomsoever it is established, with them is the church of God, and to them all the promises and privileges of the church really belong. Hence we may learn that at the coming of the Messiah, there was not one church taken away and another set up in its room; but the church continued the same, in those that were the children of Abraham, ac- cording to the faith. It is common with divines to speak of the Jewish and the Chris- tian churches, as though they were two distinct and totally different things; but that is not a éorrect view of the matter. The Christian church is not another church, but the very same that was before the coming of Christ, having the same faith with it, and interested in the same covenant. Great alterations in- deed were made in the outward state and con- dition of the church, by the coming of the Messiah. The carnal privilege of the Jews, in their separation from other nations to give birth to the Messiah, then failed, and with that also their claim on that account to be the children of Abraham. The ordinances of worship suited to that state of things then ex- pired, and came to an end. New ordinances of worship were appointed, suitable to the new light and grace which were then bestowed upon the church. The Gentiles came into the faith of Abraham along with the Jews, being made joint partakers with them in his blessing. But none of these things, nor the whole tale lectively, did make such an alteration in the church, but that it was still one and the same. The olive tree was still the same, only some- branches were broken off, and others grafted into it. The Jews fell, and the Gentiles came in their room. And this may enable us to de- termine the difference between the Jews and Christians relative to the Old Testament pro- mises. They are all made to the church. No individual has any interest in them except by virtue of his membership with the church. The church is, and always was, one and the same. The Jewish plea, is, that the church is with them, because they are the children of Abraham according to the flesh. Christians reply, that their privilege on that ground was of another nature, and ended with the coming of the Messiah: that the church of God, unto whom all the promises belong, are only those who are heirs of the faith of Abraham, believ- ing as he did, and are consequently interested in his covenant. These are Zion, Jerusalem, Israel, Jacob, the temple, or church of God. 2. By a particular church we understand an assembly of Christians united together, and meeting in one place, for the solemn worship of God. To this agrees the definition given. by the compilers of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England: “A congregation of faithful men, in which the true word of God is. preached, and the sacraments duly administer- ed according to Christ’s ordinances, in all: CHU those things that of necessity are requisite to the same,” Acts ix, 31; xx, 17; Gal. i, 2, 22; 1 Cor. xiv, 34; Col. iv, 15. The word is now also uscd to denote any particular denomina- tion of Christians, distinguished by particu- lar doctrines, ceremonies, &c, as the Rom- ish church, the Greek church, the English church, &c. 3. On the subject of the church, opinions as opposite or varying as possible have been held, from that of the Papists, who contend for its visible unity throughout the world under a visible head, down to that of the Independents, who consider the universal church as compos- ed of congregational churches, each perfect in itself, and entirely independent of every other. The first opinion is manifestly contradicted by the language of the Apostles, who, while they teach that there is but one church, composed of believers throughout the world, think it not at all inconsistent with this to speak of “ the churches of Judea,” “of Achaia,” ‘“ the seven churches of Asia,” ‘“‘the church at Ephesus,” &c. Among themselves the Apostles had no common head; but planted churches and gave directions for their government, in most cases without any apparent correspondence with each other. The Popish doctrine is certainly not found in their writings; and so far were they from making provision for the govern- ment of this one supposed church, by the ap- pointment of one visible and exclusive head, that they provide for the future government of the respective churches raised up by them in a totally different manner, that is, by the ordina tion of ministers for each church, who are in- differently called bishops, and presbytcrs, and pastors. The only unity of which they speak is the unity of the whole church in Christ, the invisible head, by faith; and the unity pro- duced by “fervent love toward each other.” Nor has the Popish doctrine of the visible unity of the church any countenance from early antiquity. The best ecclesiastical histo- rians have showed, that, through the greater part of the second century, the Christian churches were independent of each other. “Each Christian assembly,” says Mosheim, “was a little state governed by its own laws, which were either enacted, or at least approv- ed, by the society. But in process of time, all the churches of a province were formed into -one large ecclesiastical body, which, like con- federate states, assembled at certain times in -order to deliberate about the common interests of the whole.” So far indeed this union of churches appears to have been a wise and use- ful arrangement, although afterward it was carried to an injurious extreme, until finally it ave birth to the assumptions of the bishop of ‘Rome, as universal bishop; a claim, however, -which, wher most successful, was but partially submitted to, the eastern churches having, for the most part, always maintained their in- dependence. No very large association of churches of any kind existed till toward the close of the second century, which sufficiently refutes the papal argument from antiquity. The independence of the early Christian Ae CHU churches does not, however, appear to have resembled that of the churches which, in modern times, are called Independent. Dur- ing the lives of the Apostles and Evangelists they were certainly subject to their counsel and ccntrol, which proves that the independency of separate societies was not the first form of the church. It may, indeed, be allowed, that some of the smaller and more _ insulated churches might, after the death of the Apos- tles and Evangelists, retain this form for some considerable time; but the larger churches, in the chief cities, and those planted in populous neighbourhoods, had many presbyters, and, as the members multiplied, they had several sepa- rate assemblies or congregations, yet all under the same common government. And when churches were raised up in the neighbourhood of cities, the appointment of cherepiscopi, or country bishops, and of visiting presbyters, both acting under the pee oy of the city, with the bishop at its head, is sufficiently in proof, that the ancient churches, especially the larger and more prosperous of them, existed in that form which, in modern times, we should call a religious connection, subject to a common government. This appears to have arisen out of the very circumstance of the increase of the church, through the zeal of the first Christians, and it was doubtless much more in the spirit of the very first discipline exercised by the Apostles and Evangelists, (when none of the churches were independent, but remained une der the government of those who had been chiefly instrumental in raising them up,) to place themselves under a common inspection, and to unite the weak with the strong, and the newly converted with those who were “in Christ before them.” There was also in this, greater security afforded both for the con- tinuance of wholesome doctrine, and of godly discipline. 4, Church members are those who compose or belong to the visible church. As to the real church, the true members of it are such as come out from the world, 2 Cor. vi, 17; who are bom again, 1 Peter i, 23; or made new creatures, 2Cor. v, 17; whose faith works by love to God and all mankind, Gal. v, 6; James ii, 14, 26; who walk in all the ordinances of the Lord blameless. None but such are members of the true church; nor should any be admitted into any particular church without some evidence of their earnestly seeking this state of salvation. 5. Church fellowship is the communion that the members enjoy one with another. The ends of church fellowship are, the maintenance and exhibition cf a system of sound doctrine; the support of the ordinances of evangelical worship in their purity and simplicity; the im- partial exercise of church government and discipline; the promotion of holiness in all manner of conversation. The more particular duties are, earnest study to keep peace and unity; bearing of one another’s burdens, Gal. vi, 1,2; earnest endeavours to prevent each other’s stumbling, 1 Cor. x, 23-33; Heb. x, 24-27; Rom. xiv, 13; steadfast continuance in the faith and worship of the Gospel, Acts ii, 49; CHU raying for and sympathizing with each other, Sam. xii, 23; Eph. vi, 18. The advantages are, peculiar incitement to holiness; the right to some promises applicable to none but those who attend the ordinances of God. and hold communion with the saints, Psalm xcii, 13; exxxii, 13, 16; xxxvi, 8; Jer. xxx1, 12; the being placed under the watchful eye of pastors, Heb. xiii, 7; that they may restore each other if they fall, Gal. vi, 1; and the more effectually promote the cause of true religion. 6. As to church order and discipline, with- out entering into the discussion of the many questions which have been raised on this sub- ject, and argued in so many distinct treatises, it may be sufficient generally to observe, that the church of Christ being a visible and perma- nent society, bound to observe certain rites, and to obey certain rules, the existence of government in it is necessarily supposed. All religious rites suppose order, all order direction and control, and these a directive and control- ling power. Again: all laws are nugatory with- out enforcement, in the present mixed and im- perfect state of society; and all enforcement supposes an executive. If baptism be the door of admission into the church, some must judge of the fitness of candidates, and administrators of the rite must be appointed ; if the Lord’s Sup- per must be partaken of, the times and the mode are to be determined, the qualifications of com- municants judged of, and the administration placed in suitable hands; if worship must be social and public, here again there must be an appointment of times, an order, and an admi- nistration; if the word of God is to be read and preached, then readers and preachers are necessary ; if the continuance of any one in the fellowship of Christians be conditional upon good conduct, so that the purity and credit of the church may be guarded, then the power of enforcing discipline must be lodged some where. Thus government flows necessarily from the very nature of the institution of the Christian church; and since this institution has the authority of Christ and his Apostles, it is not to be supposed, that its government was left unprovided for; and if they have in fact made such a provision, it is no more a matter of mere option with Christians whether they will be subject to government in the church, than it is optional with them to confess Christ by becoming its members. The nature of this government, and the persons to whom it is com- mitted, are both points which we must briefly examine by the light of the Holy Scriptures. As to the first, it is wholly spiritual :— My kingdom,” says our Lord, ‘is not of this world.” The church is a society founded upon faith, and united by mutual love, for the per- sonal edification of its members in holiness, and for the religious benefit of the world. The nature of its government is thus determined; it is concerned only with spiritual objects. It cannot employ force to compel men into its pale; for the only door of the church is faith, to which there can be no compulsion ;—“ he that believeth and is baptized” becomes a mem- ber. It cannot inflict pains and penalties upon 243 CHU the disobedient and refractory, like civil go- vernments; for the only punitive discipline authorized in the New Testament, is comprised in “admonition,” “reproof,” “sharp rebukes,” and, finally, ‘excision from the society.” The last will be better understood, if we consider the special relations in which true Christians stand to each other, and the duties resulting from them. They are members of one body, and are therefore bound to tenderness and sym- pathy; they are the conjoint instructers of others, and are therefore to strive to be of ‘ one judgment;” they are brethren, and they are to love one another as such, that is, with an affection more special than that general good will which they are commanded to bear to all mankind; they are therefore to seek the inti- macy of friendly society among themselves, and, except in the ordinary and courteous intercourse of life, they are bound to keep themselves separate from the world; they are enjoined to do good unto all men, but “es- pecially to them that are of the household of faith ;” and they are forbidden ‘“‘to eat” at the Lord’s table with immoral persons, that is, with those who, seg they continue their Christian profession, dishonour it by their prac- tice. With these relations of Christians to each other and to the world, and their corres- pondent duties, before our minds, we may easily interpret the nature of that extreme discipline which is vested in the church. ‘“ Persons who will not hear the church” are to be held ‘as Heathen men and publicans,” as those who are not members of it; that is, they are to be sepa- rated from it, and regarded as of ‘the world,” quite out of the range of the above mentioned relations of Christians to each other, and their correspondent duties; but still, like “‘ Heathen men and publicans” they are to be the objects of pity, and general benevolence. Nor is this extreme discipline to be hastily inflicted before “a first and second admonition,” nor before those who are “ spiritual” have attempted “ to restore a brother overtaken by a fault;” and when the “ wicked person” is “put away,” still the door is to be kept open for his reception again upon repentance. The true excommu- nication of the Christian church is therefore a merciful and considerate separation of an in- corrigible offender from the body of Christians, without any infliction of civil pains or penal- ties. “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which ye have received from us,” 2 Thess. iii, 6. “Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump,” 1 Cor. v, 7. “ But now Lhave written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornica- tor, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one, no not to eat,” 1 Cor. v, 11. This then is the moral discipline which is imperative upon the church of Christ, and its government is crimi- nally defective whenever it is not enforced. On the other hand, the disabilities and penal- ties which established churches in differen’ CHU places have connected with these sentences of excommunication, have no countenance at all in Scripture, and are wholly inconsistent with the spiritual character and ends of the Chris- tian association. 7. As to the persons to whom the govern- ment of the church is committed, it is necessary to consider the composition, so to speak, of the primitive church, as stated in the New Testa- ment. A full enunciation of these offices we find in Ephesians iv, 11: “And he gave some, Apostles; and some, Prophets; and some, Evan- gelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” Of these, the office of Apostle is allowed by all to have been confined to those immediately commissioned by Christ to witness the fact of his miracles, and of his resurrection from the dead, and to reveal the complete system of Christian doctrine and duty; confirming their extraordinary mission by miracles wrought by themselves. If by ‘“ prophets” we are to un- derstand persons who foretold future events, then the office was from its very nature extra- ordinary, and the gift of prophecy has passed away with the other miraculous endowments of the first age of Christianity. If, with others, we understand that these prophets were extra- ordinary teachers raised up until the churches were settled under permanent qualified in- structers; still the office was temporary. The “Evangelists” are generally understood to be assistants of the Apostles, who acted under their especial authority and direction. Of this num- ber were Timothy and Titus ; and as the Apos- tle Paul directed them to ordain bishops or presbyters in the several churches, but gave them no authority to ordain successors to them- selves in their particular office as Evangelists, it is clear that the Evangelists must also be reckoned among the number of extraordinary and temporary ministers suited to the first age of Christianity. Whether by “pastors and teachers” two offices be meant, or one, has been disputed. The change in the mode of expression seems to favour the latter view, and so the text is interpreted by St. Jerom, and St. Augustine; but the point is of little conse- quence. A pastor was a teacher, although every teacher might not be a pastor; but in many cases his office might be one of subor- dinate instruction, whether as an expounder of doctrine, a catechist, or even a more private instructer of those who as yet were unacquaint- ed with the first principles of the Gospel of Christ. The term pastor implies the duties both of instruction and of government, of feeding and of ruling the flock of Christ; and, as the presbyters or bishops were ordained in the several hurehes, both by the Apostles and Evangelists, and rules are left, by St. Paul as to their appointment, there can be no doubt but that these are the “ pastors” spoken of in the Epistle to the Ephesians, and that they were designed to be the permanent ministers of the church ; and that with them both the govern- ment of the church and the performance of its feading religious services were deposited. Dea- 244 CHU cons had the charge of the gifts and offerings for charitable purposes, although, it appears from Justin Martyr, not in every instance; for he speaks of the weekry oblations as being de- posited with the chief minister, and distributed by him. These pastors appear to have been indifferently called Bisnors and Pressyrers, and with them the regulation of the churches was, doubtless, deposited ; not without checks and guards, the principal of which, however, was, in the primitive church, and continues to be in all modern churcnes which have no support from the magistracy, or are made independent of the people by endowments, the voluntariness of the association. A perfect religious liberty is always supposed by the Apostles to exist among Christians; no com- pulsion of the civil power is any where assumed by them as the basis of their advices or direc- tions; no binding of the members to one church, without liberty to join another, by any ties but those involved in moral considerations, of sufficient weight, however, to prevent the evils of faction and schism. It was this which created a natural and oe check upon the ministers of the church; for being only sustained by the opinion of the churches, they could not but have respect to it; and it was this which gave to the sound part of a fallen church the advantage of renouncing, upon suf- ficient and well-weighed grounds, their com- munion with it, and of kindling up the light of a pure ministry and a holy discipline, by form- ing a separate association, bearing its testi- mony against errors in doctrine, and failures in practice. Nor is it to be conceived, that, had this simple principle of perfect religious liberty been left unviolated through subsequent ages, the church could ever have become so corrupt, or with such difficulty and slowness have been recovered from its fall. This an- cient Christian liberty has happily been re- stored in a few parts of Christendom. See Eprscopacy and PRESBYTERIANISM. CHURCH OF ENGLAND and IRELAND is that established by law in England and Ire- land, where it forms a part of the common law of the land, or constitution of the country. 1. When and by whom Christianity was first introduced into Britain, cannot at this distance of time be exactly ascertained. Eusebius, in- deed, positively declares that it was by the Apostles and their disciples; Bishops Jewel and Stillingfleet, Dr. Cave, and others, insist that it was by St. Paul; and Baronius affirms, on the authority of an ancient manuscript in the Vatican Library, that the Gospel was planted in Britain by Simon Zelotes, the Apostle, and Joseph of Arimathea; and that the latter came over A. D. 35, or about the twenty-first year of Tiberius, and died in this country. Accord- ing to Archbishop Usher, the British churches had a school of learning in the year 182, to pro- vide them with proper teachers; and it would appear that they flourished, without depend- ence on any foreign church, till the arrival of Austin the monk, in the latter part of the sixth Cay ; 2. Episcopacy was early established in this CHU country; and it ought to be remembered, to the honour of the British bishops and clergy, that during several centuries they withstood the encroachments of the see of Rome. Popery, however, was at length introduced into Eng- land, and, as some say, by Austin, the monk; and we find its errors every where prevalent during several ages preceding the reformation, till they were refuted by Wickliffe. The seed which Wickliffe had sown ripened after his death, and produced a glorious harvest. How- ever, it was not till the reign of Henry VIII, that the reformation in England in reality commenced. When Luther declared war against the pope, Henry wrote his treatise on the seven sacraments against Luther’s book, “ Of the Captivity of Babylon,” and was repaid by the pontiff with the title of “ Defender of the Faith.” This title, in a sense diametrically opposite, and by a claim of higher desert, was transmitted by Henry with his crown, and now belongs to his successors. Henry’s affec- tions being estranged from his queen Catha- rine, and fixed on Anne Boleyn, he requested a divorce from his wife; but the pope hesitat- ing, the archbishop of Canterbury annulled his former marriage. The sentence of the arch- bishop was condemned by the pope, whose au- thority Henry therefore shook off, and was de- clared by parliament “supreme head of the church.” In the year 1800, when the king- doms of Britain and Ireland were united, the churches of England and Ireland, which had always been the same in government, faith, and worship, became one united church. 3. The acknowledged standards of the faith and doctrines of the united church are, after the Scriptures, the Book of Homilies and the Thir- ty-nine Articles. Heer liturgy is also doctrinal, as well as devotional. The homilies were com- posed by Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley, men of unexceptionable learning and orthodoxy ; or, according to others, the first book was writ- ten principally by Cranmer, and the second by Jewel. They were appointed to be read in churches at the beginning of the reformation, when, by reason of the scarcity of learned di- vines, few ministers were found who could safely be trusted to preach their own composi- tions. The first draught of the Articles was composed by Archbishop Cranmer, assisted by Bishop Ridley, in the year 1551; and after be- ing corrected by the other bishops, and approy- ed by the convocation, they were published in Latin and English in 1553, and amounted to forty-two in number. In 1562 they were re- vised and corrected. Being then reduced to vhirty-nine, they were drawn up in Latin only; but in 1571 they were subscribed by the mem- bers of the two houses of convocation, both in Latin and English; and therefore the Latin and English copies are to be considered as equally authentic. The original manuscripts, subscribed by the houses of convocation, were ourned in the fire of London; but Dr. Bennet has collated the oldest copies now extant, in which it appears that there are no variations of any importance. During the last century, dis- putes arose among the clergy respecting the 45 CHU ropriety of subscribing to any human formu- ary of religious sentiments. Parliament, in 1772, was applied to for the abolition of the subscription, by certain clergymen and others, whose petition received the most ample discus- sion, but was rejected by a large majority. It has been generally held by most, if not all, Calvinists, both in and out of the church, that the doctrinal parts of our Articles are Calvin- istic. This opinion, however, has been warm- ly controverted. It is no doubt nearer the truth to conclude that the Articles are framed with comprehensive latitude; and that neither Calvinism nor Arminianism was intended to be exclusively established. In this view such liberal sentiments as the following, from the Apology of the Church of England, in 1782, are not of uncommon oecurrence: “ This, I know, Iam myself an Anti-Calvinian ; and yet, were I to compile articles for the church, I would abhor the thoughts of forming them so fully according to my own scheme of thinking, or of descending so minutely into all the particular branches of it, that none but Arminians should be able to subscribe, or that the church should lose the credit and service of such valuable « men as the Abbots, Davenant, Usher, and other Calvinists undoubtedly were. And since our reformers were men of temper and mode- ration, it seems but justice, I am sure it is but reasonable, to think they intended such a lati- tude as I contend for, so that both parties, the followers of Arminius as well as of Calvin, might subscribe.” In a subsequent page, how- ever, the same author says, “ But what, if there was not so entire a harmony among the com- plete or imposers, as was before supposed ? hat if several of them were Anti-Calvinian ? This will incline the balance still more in our favour, and enlarge the probability of the arti- cles being drawn up in a moderate, indefinite way. The divines who fled for refuge, in Queen Mary’s reign, to Geneva, Zurich, and other places beyond sea, (where, by conceiving a great veneration for Calvin, they were mighti- im changed in their sentiments and ways of thinking,) began to propagate his notions soon after their return in the next reign: and this seems to have been the prime occasion of Cal- vinism taking any considerable root in this kingdom. In King Edward’s time it doth not appear to have prevailed, except among a few ‘ gospelers,’ and how they were reflected on by Bishop Latimer and Hooper has been already observed. When the articles were formed in 1552, Ido not find that any deference was paid to Calvin’s judgment or authority: instead of that, the assistance he offered was, to his no little rief and dissatisfaction, refused. Next to the criptures and the doctrine of the primitive church, the compilers had an eye to the Au- gustan Confession, as appears from the identi-~ ty of many of the articles; to the writings ot Melancthon, whose assistance they desired, and whom King Edward invited over hither : the works of Erasmus; and the Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian Man, This last book was published by King Henry’s authority in 1543: and because it then had the CIN approbation of most of those who compiled the rticles nine years afterward, it will be of con- sequence to see how it stands affected toward Calvinism. It teaches the cardinal point of universal redemption in several places; which strikes directly at the root of the Calvinian sys- tem, and, as Dr. Whitby expresses it, ‘draws all the rest after it, on which side soever the truth lies.’”” This judicious amplitude has re- ceived much elucidation in Dr. Puller’s Modera- tion of the Church of England considered, 1679 ; and in other works of more recent date. 4. In this church, divine service is conduct- ed by a liturgy, which was composed in 1547, and has undergone several alterations, the last of which took place in 1661, in the reign of Charles II. Many applications have been since made for a review; and particular alterations were proposed in 1689, by several learned and excellent divines, in the number of whom were Archbishops Tillotson andTenison,and Bishops Patrick, Burnet, Stillingfleet, Kidder, &c. This subject has been recently revived; and it is be- lieved that some changes are under considera- tion. To this liturgy every clergyman pro- mises at his ordination to conform in his public ministrations. 5. Ever since the reign of Henry VII, the sovereigns of England have been styled ‘ su- preme heads of the church,” as well as “ defend- ers of the faith ;” but this title is said to convey no spiritual meaning; or, in other words, it only substitutes the king in place of the pope, with respect to temporalities, and the external economy of the church. The church of Eng- land is governed by two archbishops and twen- ty-four bishops, beside the bishop of Sodor and Man. The benefices of the bishops were con- verted by William the Conqueror into temporal baronies; and, therefore, all of them, except the bishop of Man, are barons or lords of par- liament, and sit and vote in the house of lords, where they represent the clergy. The bishops’ representatives and assistants are the aychdea- cons, of whom there are sixty in England. The other dignitaries of the church are the deans, prebendaries, canons, &c; and the inferior clergy are the rectors, vicars, and curates. The united church knows only three orders of minis- ters; bishops, priests, and deacons: but in these orders are comprehended archbishops, bishops, deans, archdeacons, rectors, vicars, and curates. The church of Ireland is govern- ed by four archbishops and eighteen bishops. Since the union of Britain and Ireland, one archbishop and three bishops sit alternately in the house of peers, by rotation of sessions. CILICIA, a country in the south-east of Asia Minor, and lying on the northern coast, at the east end of the Mediterranean Sea: the capital city thereof was Tarsus, the native city of St. Paul, Acts xxi, 39. CINNAMON, po3p, an agreeable aromatic ; the inward bark of the cahelia, a small tree of the height of the willow. It is mentioned, Exodus xxx, 23, among the materials in the composition of the holy anointing oil; and in Proverbs vii, 17; Canticles iv, 14; Ecclesiasti- cus xxiv, 15; and Revelation xviii, 13, among ; 246 CIR the richest perfumes. This spice is now brought from the east Indies ; but as there was no traffic with India in the days of Moses, it was then brought, probably, from Arabia, or some neigh- bouring country. We learn, however, from Pliny, that a species of it grew in Syria. CINNEROTH, or CINNERETH, a city on the north-western side of the sea of Galilee; which, from it, is frequently called in the Old Testament the sea of Cinneroth: from which word, that of Genesaret, in the New Testa- ment, is conjectured by Dr. Wells to have been framed. CIRCUMCISION is from the Latin, circum- cidere, “to cut all around,” because the Jews, in circumcising their children, cut off after this manner the skin which covers the prepuce. God enjoined Abraham to use circumcision, as a sign of his covenant. In obedience to this order, Abraham, at ninety-nine years of age, was circumcised: also his son .shmael, and all the males of his property, Gen. xvii, 10, God repeated the precept of circumcision to Moses: he ordered that all who were to par- take of the paschal sacrifice should receive cir- cumcision ; and that this rite should be per- formed on children, on the eighth day after their birth. The Jews have always been very exact in observing this ceremony, and it qj pears that they did not neglect it when in Egypt. But Moses, while in Midian with Je thro his father-in-law, did not circumcise his two sons born in that country ; and during the journey of the Israelites in the wilderness, their children were not circumcised. Circumcision was practised among the Arabians, Saracens, and Ishmaelites. These people, as well as the Israelites, sprung from Abraham. Cireumci- sion was introduced with the law of Moses among the Samaritans and Cutheans. The Idumeans, though descended from Abraham and Isaac, were not circumcised till subdued by John Hircanus. Those who assert that the Phenicians were circumcised, mean, probably, the Samaritans; for we know, from other au- thority, that the Phenicians did not observe this ceremony. As to the Egyptians, circum- cision never was of general and indispensable obligation on the whole nation ; certain priests only, and particular professions, were obliged to it. Circumcision 1s likewise the ceremony of initiation into the Mohammedan religion. There is, indeed, no law in the Koran which enjoins it, and they have the precept only in tradition. They say that Mohammed com manded it out of respect to Abraham, the head of his race. They have no fixed day for the performance of this rite, and generally wait till the child is five or six years of age. Circumcision, Covenant of. "That the cove- nant with Abraham, of which circumcision was made the sign and seal, Genesis xvii, 7-14, was the general covenant of grace, and not wholly, or even chiefly, a political and national cove- nant, may be satisfactorily established. The first engagement: in it was, that God would “ ereatly bless” Abraham; which promise, al- though it comprehended temporal blessings, referred, as we learn from St. Paul, more fully CIR to the blessing of his justification by the impu- tation of his faith for righteousness, with all the spiritual advantages consequent upon the relation which was thus established between him and God, intime andeternity. The second romise in the covenant was, that he should e “the father of many nations;” which we are also taught by St. Paul to interpret more with reference to his spiritual seed, the fellow- ers of that faith whereof cometh justification, than to his natural descendants. ‘“ That the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to that which is by the law, but to that also which is by the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,”—of all believing Gentiles as well as Jews. The third stipulation in God’s covenant with the patriarch, was the gift to Abraham and to his seed of “the land of Ca- naan,” in which the temporal promise was manifestly but the type of the higher prome of a heavenly inheritance. Hence St. Paul says, “By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise;” but this “faith” did not respect the fulfilment of the temporal promise; for St. Paul adds, “they looked for a city which had foundations, whose builder and maker is God,” Heb. xi, 19. The next promise was, that God would always be “a God to Abraham and to his seed after him,” a promise which is connected with the highest spiritual blessings, such as the remission of sins, and the sanctification of our nature, as well as with a visible church state. It is even used to express the felicitous state of the church in heaven, Rev. xxi, 3. The final engagement in the Abrahamic covenant was, that in Abra- ham’s “ seed, all nations of the earth should be blessed,” and this blessing, we are expressly taught by St. Paul, was nothing less than the justification of all nations, that is, of all believ- ers in all nations, by faith in Christ: “ And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would jus- tify the Heathen by faith, preached before the Gospel to Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham ;” they receive the same blessing, justification, by the same means, faith, Gal. ij, 8,9. This cove- nant with Abraham, therefore, although it re- spected a natural seed, Isaac, from whom a numerous progeny was to spring; and an earth- ly inheritance provided for this issue, the land of Canaan; and a special covenant relation with the descendants of Isaac, through the line of Jacob, to whom Jehovah was to be ‘‘a God,” visibly and specially, and they a visible and “peculiar people;” yet was, under all these temporal, earthly, and external advantages, but a higher and spiritual grace embodying itself under these circumstances, as types of a dis- pensation of salvation and eternal life, to all who should follow the faith of Abraham, whose justification before God was the pattern of the justification of every man, whether Jew or Gen- tile, in all ages. Now, of this covenant, in its spiritual as well as in its temporal provisions, 247 circumcision was most certainly the sacrament, that is, the “ sign” and the “ seal ;” for St. Paul CIR thus explains the case: “ And he received the sIGN of circumcision, a sEaL of the righteous- ness of the faith which he had yet being un- circumcised.” And as this rite was enjoined upon Abraham’s Loe so that every “un circumcised man-child whose flesh of his fore- skin was not circumcised on the eighth day,” was to be “cut off from his people,” by the special judgment of God, and that because “ he had broken God’s covenant,” Gen. xvii, 14; it therefore follows that this rite was a constant publication of God’s covenant of grace among the descendants of Abraham, and its repetition a continual confirmation of that covenant, on the part of God, to all practising it in that faith of which it was the ostensible expression. 2. As the covenant of grace made with Abra- ham was bound up with temporal promises and privileges, so circumcision was a sign and seal of the covenant in both its parts,—its spiritual and its temporal, its superior and inferior pro- visions. ‘The spiritual promises of the cove- nant continued unrestricted to all the descend- ants of Abraham, whether by Isaac or by Ish- mael; and still lower down, to the descendants of Esau as well as to those of Jacob. Circum- cision was practised among them all by virtue of its divine institution at first; and was ex- tended to their foreign servants, and to prose- lytes, as well as to their children; and where- ever the sign of the covenant of grace was by divine appointment, there it was a seal of that covenant, to all who believingly used it; for we read of no restriction of its spiritual blessings, that is, its saving engagements, to one line of descent from Abraham only. But over the temporal branch of the covenant, and the external religious privileges arising out of it, God exercised a rightful sovereignty, and expressly restricted them first to the line of Isaac, and then to that of Jacob, with whose descendants he entered into special covenant by the ministry of Moses. The temporal bless- ings and external privileges comprised under general expressions in the covenant with Abra- ham, were explained and enlarged under that of Moses, while the spiritual blessings remain- ed unrestricted as before. This was probably the reason why circumcision was reénacted under the law of Moses. It was a confirmation of the temporal blessings of the Abrahamic cove- nant, now, by a covenant of peculiarity, made over to them, while it was still recognized as a consuetudinary rite which had descended to them from their fathers, and as the sign and seal of the covenant of grace, made with Abraham and with all his descendants without exception. This double reference of circumci- sion, both to the authority of Moses and to that of the patriarchs, is found in the words of our Lord, John vii, 22: ‘‘ Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision, not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers ;” or, as it is bet- ter translated by Campbell, ‘‘ Moses instituted circumcision among you, (not that it is from Moses, but from the patriarchs,) and ye circum- cise on the Sabbath. If on the Sabbath a child receive circumcision, that the law of Moses may not be violated,” &c. CIR 3. From these observations, the controversy m the Apostolic churches respecting circum- cision will derive much elucidation. 'The cove- nant with Abraham prescribed circumcision as an act of faith in its promises, and as a pledge to perform its conditions on the part of his de- scendants. But the object on which this faith rested, was “the Seed of Abraham,” in whom the nations of the earth were to be blessed: which Seed, says St. Paul, ‘is Christ,”—Christ as promised, not yet come. When the Christ had come, so as fully to enter upon his redeem- ing offices, he could no longer be the object of faith, as still to come; and this leading pro- mise of the covenant being accomplished, the sign and seal of it vanished away. Nor could circumcision be continued in this view by any, without an implied denial that Jesus was the Christ, the expected Seed of Abraham. Cir- cumcision also as an institution of Moses, who continued it as the sign and seal of the Abra- hamic covenant both in its spiritual and tem- poral provisions, but with respect to the latter made it also a sign and seal of the restriction of its temporal blessings and peculiar religious privileges to the descendants of Israel, was ter- minated by the entrance of our Lord upon his office of Mediator, in which office all nations were to be blessed in him. The Mosaic edi- tion of the covenant not only guaranteed the land of Canaan, but the peculiarity of the Israelites, as the people and visible church of God to the exclusion of others, except by pro- selytism. But when our Lord commanded the Gospel to be preached to “all nations,” and opened the gates of the “common salvation” to all, whether Gentiles or Jews, circumci- sion, as the sign of a covenant of peculiarity and religious distinction, was also done away. It had not only no reason remaining, but the continuance of the rite involved the re- cognition of exclusive privileges which had been terminated by Christ. This will explain the views of the Apostle Paul on this great question. He declares that in Christ there is neither circumcision nor uncircumcision ; that neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but ‘faith that worketh by love ;” faith in the Seed of Abraham already come and already engaged in his mediatorial and redeeming work; faith, by virtue of which the Gentiles came into the church of Christ on the same terms as the Jews themselves, and were justified and saved. The doctrine of the non-necessity of circumcision, he applies to the Jews as well as to the Gentiles, although he specially resists the attempts of the Judaizers ‘to impose this rite upon the Gentile converts ; in which he was supported by the decision of the Holy Spirit when the appeal upon this question was made to “ the Apostles and elders at Jerusalem,” from the church at Antioch. At the same time it is clear that he takes two different views of the practice of circumcision, as it was continued among many of the first Christians. The first is that strong one which is expressed in Gal. v, 2-4, ‘“ Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing ; for I testify again to 248 CIR every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is made of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justi- fied by the law, ye are fallen from grace.” “ The second is that milder view which he himself must have had when he circumcised Timothy to render him more acceptable to the Jews; and which also appears to have led him to ab- stain from all allusion to this practice when writing his epistle to the believing Hebrews although many, perhaps most of them, con- tinue to circumcise their children, as did the Jewish Christians for a long time afterward, These different views of circumcision, held by the same person, may be explained by consider- ing the different principles on which circum- cision might be practised after it had become an obsolete ordinance. (1.) It might be taken in the simple view of its first institution, as the sign and seal of the Abrahamic covenant; and then it was to be condemned as involving a denial that Abra- ham’s Seed, the Christ, had already come, since, upon his coming, every old covenant gave place to the new covenant introduced by him. (2.) It might be practised and enjoined as the sign and seal of the Mosaic covenant, which was still the Abrahamic covenant with its spiritual blessings, but with restriction of its temporal promises and _ special ecclesiastical privileges to the line of Jacob, with a law of observances which was obligatory upon all entering that covenant by circumcision. In that case it involved, in like manner, the no- tion of the continuance of an old covenant, after the establishment of the new; for thus St. Paul states the case in Galatians iii, 19: “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed should come.” After that therefore it had no effect:—it had waxed old, and had vanished away. (3.) Again: circumcision might imply an - obligation to observe all the ceremonial usages and the moral precepts of the Mosaic law, along with a general belief in the mission of Christ, as necessary to justification before God. This appears to have been the view of those among the Galatian Christians who submitted to circumcision, and of the Jewish teachers who enjoined it upon them; for St. Paul in that epistle constantly joins circumcision with legal observances, and ‘as involving an obliga- tion to do “the whole law,” in order to justifi- cation.— I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law ; whosoever of you are justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace.” ‘‘ Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ,” Gal. ii, 16. To all persons therefore practising cir- cumcision in this view it was obvious, that “Christ was become of none effect,” the very principle of justification by faith alone in him was renounced even while his divine mission was still admitted. (4.) But there are two grounds on which cir- cumcision ay be conceived to have been inno- cently, though not wisely, practised, among CIR the Christian Jews. The first was that of preserving an ancient national distinction on which they valued themselves; and were a converted Tew in the present day disposed to perform that rite upon his children for this pur- pose only, renouncing in the act all considera- tion of it as a sign and seal of the old cove- nants, or as obliging to ceremonial acts in order to justification, no one would censure him with severity. It appears clear that it was under some such view that St. Paul cir- cumcised Timothy, whose mother was a Jewess; he did it because of “the Jews which were in those quarters,” that is, because of their na- tional prejudices, “for they knew that his father was a Greek.” The second was a lin- gering notion, that, even in the Christian church, the Jews who believed would still re- tain some degree of eminence, some superior relation to God; a notion which, however un- founded, was not one which demanded direct rebuke, when it did not proudly refuse spiritual communion with the converted Gentiles, but was held by men who “rejoiced that God had granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life.” These considerations may account for the silence, of St. Paul on the subject of circum- cision in his Epistle to the Hebrews. Some of them continued to practise that rite, but they were probably believers of the class just men- tioned ; for had he thought that the rite was continued among them on any principle which affected the fundamental doctrines of Chris- tianity, he would no doubt have been equally prompt and fearless in pointing out that apos- tasy from Christ which was implied in it, as when he wrote to the Galatians. Not only might circumcision be practised with views so opposite that one might be wholly innocent, although an infirmity of prejudice ; the other such as would involve a rejection of the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ; but some other Jewish observances also stood in the same circumstances. St. Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians, a part of his writings from which we obtain the most information on these questions, grounds his “ doubts” whether the members of that church were not seeking w be “justified by the law” upon their observ- ing “ days, and months, and times, and years.” Had he done more than “doubt,” he would have expressed himself more positively. He saw their danger on this point; he saw that they were taking steps to this fatal result, by such an observance of these “days,” &c, as had a strong leaning and dangerous approach to that dependence upon them for justification, which would destroy their faith in Christ’s solely sufficient sacrifice; but his very doubt- ing, not of the fact of their being addicted to these observances, but of the animus with which they regarded them, supposes it possible, how- ever dangerous this Jewish conformity might be, that they might be observed for reasons which would still consist with their entire reliance upon the merits of Christ for salva- tion. Even he himself, strongly as he resisted the imposition of this conformity to Jewish customs upon the converts to Christianitv as a 249 cIT matter of necessity, yet in practice must have conformed to many of them, when no sacrifice of principle was understood; for in order to gain the Jews, he became “ asa Jew.” See AprauaM, and Baptism. CISLEU, the ninth month of the ecclesias- tical, and the third of the civil, year among the Hebrews. It answers nearly to our No- vember. CISTERN, a reservoir chiefly for rain wa- ter. Numbers of these are still to be seen in Palestine, some of which are a hundred and fifty paces long, and sixty broad. The reason of their being so large was, that their cities were many of them built in elevated situations ; and the rain falling only twice in the year, namely, spring and autumn, it became necessary for them to collect a quantity of water, as well for the cattle as for the people. A broken cis- tern would of course be a great calamity to a family, or in some cases even to a town; and with reference to this we may see the force of the reproof, Jer. ii, 13. CITIES. By referring to some peculiari- ties in the building, fortifying, &c, of eastern cities, we shall the better understand several allusions and expressions of the Old Testament. It is evident that the walls of fortified cities were sometimes partly constructed of com- bustible materials; for the Prophet, denouncing the judgments of God upon Syria and other countries, declares, “I will send a fire on the wall of Gaza, which shall devour the palaces thereof,” Amos i, 7. The walls of Tyre and Rabbah seem to have been of the same perish- able materials; for the Prophet adds, “I will send a fire upon the wall of Tyrus, which shall devour the palaces thereof;” and again, “I will kindle a fire in the walls of Rabbah, and it shall devour the palaces thereof with shout- ing in the day of battle,” verses 10,14. One method of securing the gates of fortified places, among the ancients, was to cover them with thick plates of iron; a custom which is still used in the east, and seems to be of great an- tiquity. We learn from Pitts, that Algiers has five gates, and some of these have two, some three, other gates within them; and some of them are plated all over with thick iron. The place where the Apostle was imprisoned seems to have been secured in the same manner; for, says the inspired historian, ‘‘ When they were past the first and second ward, they came unto the iron gate that leadeth unto the city ; which opened to them of its own accord,” Acts xii, 10. Pococke, speaking of a bridge not far from Antioch, called the iron bridge, says, there are two towers belonging to it, the gates of which are covered with iron plates; which he sup- poses is the reason of the name it bears. Some of their gates are plated over with brass; such are the enormous gates of the principal mosque at Damascus, formerly the church of John the Baptist. To gates like these, the Psalmist probably refers in these words: ‘ He hath broken the gates of brass,” Psalm cvii, 16; and the Prophet, in that remarkable passage, where God promises to go before Cyrus his anointed, and “break in pieces the gates cf cIT brass, and cut in sunder the bars iron,” Isa. xlv, 2. But, conscious that all these precau- tions were insufficient for their security, the orientals employed watchmen to patrol the city during the night, to suppress any disorders in the streets, or to guard the wall against the attempts of a foreign enemy. ‘To this custom Solomon refers in these words: “ The watch- men that went about the city found me, they smote me, they wounded me; the keepers of the wall took away my veil from me,” Song v, 7. This custom may be traced to a very remote antiquity; so early as the departure of Israel from the land of Egypt, the morning watch is mentioned, certainly indicating the time when the watchmen were commonly re- lieved. In Persia, the watchmen were obliged to indemnify those who were robbed in the streets; which accounts for the vigilance and severity which they display in the discharge of their office, and illustrates the character of watchman given to Ezekiel, and the duties he was required to perform. If the wicked perished in his iniquities without warning, the Prophet was to be accountable for his blood; but if he duly pointed out his danger, he delivered his own soul, Ezek. xxxiii, 2. They were also charged, as with us, to announce the progress of the night to the slumbering city : “ The bur- den of Dumah; he calls to me out of Seir, Watchman, what of the night? watchman, what of the night? The watchman said, The morning cometh, and also the night,” Isa. xxi, 11. This is confirmed by an observation of Chardin upon these words of Moses: “ For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yester- day when it is past, and as a watch in the night:” that as the people of the east have no clocks, the several parts of the day and of the night, which are eight in all, are announced. In the Indies, the parts of the night are made known, as well by instruments of music, in great cities, as by the rounds of the watchmen, who, with cries and small drums, give them notice that a fourth part of the night is past. Now, as these cries awaked those who had slept all that quarter part of the night, it ap- peared to them but as a moment. It is evi- dent the ancient Jews knew, by some public notice, how the night watches passed away; but, whether they simply announced the ter- mination of the watch, or made use of trum- pets, or other sonorous instruments, in making the proclamation, it may not be easy to deter- mine; and still less what kind of chronometers the watchmen used. The probability is, that the watches were announced with the sound of a trumpet; for the Prophet Ezekiel makes it a part of the watchman’s duty, at least in time of war, to blow the trumpet, and warn the people. The watchman, in a time of danger, seems to have taken his station in a tower, which was built over the gate of the city. The fortified cities in Canaan, as in some other countries, were commonly strengthened with a citadel, to which the inhabitants fled when they found it impossible to defend the place. The whole inhabitants of Thebez, un- able tc resist the repeated and furious assaults 250 CLA of Abimelech, retired into one of these towers, and bid defiance to his rage: “‘ But there was a strong tower within the city, and thither fled all the men and women, and all they of the city, and shut it to them, and gat them up to the top of the tower.” The extraordina strength of this tower, and the various means of defence which were accumulated within itg narrow walls, may be inferred from the vio- lence of Abimelech’s attack, and its fatal issue. “ And Abimelech came unto the tower, and fought against it, and went hard unto the door of the tower, to burn it with fire. And a certain woman cast a piece of a millstone upon Abimelech’s head, and all to break his skull,” Judges ix, 52. The city of Shechem had a tower of the same kind, into which the people retired, when the same usurper took it and sowed it with salt, Judges ix, 46. These strong towers which were built within a fortified city, were commonly placed on an eminence, to which they ascended by a flight of steps. Such was the situation of thecity of David, a strong tower upon a high eminence at Jerusalem; and the manner of entrance, as described by the sacred writer: ‘‘ But the gate of the fount- ain repaired Shallum, unto the stairs that go down from the city of David,” Nehemiah iii, 15. Cities or Reruce. See Rerver. CLAUDIUS, a Roman emperor; he sue- ceeded Caius Caligula, A. D. 41, and reigned thirteen years, eight months, and nineteen days, dying A. D.54. King Agrippa was the principal means of persuading Claudius to ac- cept the empire, which was tendered him b the soldiers. As an acknowledgment for this service, he gave Agrippa all Judea, and the kingdom of Chalcis to his brother Herod. He put an end to the dispute which had for some time existed between the Jews of Alexandria and the other freemen of that city, and con- firmed the Jews in the possession of their right of freedom, which they had enjoyed from the beginning, and every where maintained them in the free exercise of their religion. But he would not permit them to hold any assemblies at Rome. King Agrippa dying A. D. 44, the emperor again reduced Judea into a province, and sent Cuspius Fadus to be governor. About the same time the famine happened which is mentioned Acts xi, 28-30, and was foretold b the Prophet Agabus. Claudius, in the nint year of his reign, published an edict for ex- pelling all Jews out of Rome, Acts xviii, 2. It is very probable that the Christians, who were at that time confounded with the Jews, were banished likewise. 2. Ciaupius FEurx, successor of Cumanus in the government of Judea. Felix found means to solicit and engage Drusilla, sister of Agrippa the Younger, to leave her husband Azizus, king of the Emessenians, and to marry him, A. D.53. Felix sent to Rome Eleazar, son of Dinzus, captain of a band of robbers, who had committed great ravages in Palestine; he procured the death of Jonathan, the high puee ee sometimes freely represented to m his duty; he defeated a body of three CLE thousand men, whom an Egyptian, a false prophet, had assembled upon the Mount of Olives. St. Paul being brought to Cesarea, where Felix usually resided, was well treated by this governor, who permitted his friends to see him, and render him services, hoping the Apostle would procure his redemption by a sum of money. He however neither con- demned Paul, nor set him at liberty, when the Jews accused him; but adjourned the deter- mination of this affair till the arrival of Lysias, who commanded the troops at Jerusalem, where he had taken Paul into custody, and who was expected at Cesarea, Acts xxiii, 26, 27, &c; xxiv, 1-3, &e. While the Apostle was thus detained, Felix, with his wife Drusilla, who was a Jewess, sent for him, and desired him to explain the religion of Jesus Christ. The Apostle spoke with his usual boldness, and discoursed to them on jus- tice, temperance, and the last judgment. Felix trembled before this powerful exhibition of truths so arousing to his conscience; but he remanded St. Paul to his confinement. He farther detained him two years at Cesarea, in compliance with the wishes of the Jews, and in order to do something to propitiate them, because they were extremely dissatisfied with his government. Being recalled to Rome, A. D.60; and many Jews going thither to complain of the extortions and violence com- mitted by him in Judea, he would have been ut to death, if his brother Pallas, who had een Claudius’s slave, and was now his freed- man, had not preserved him. Felix was suc- ceeded in the goverment of Judea by Porcius Festus. CLAY, nn, is often mentioned in Scripture, nor is it necessary to explain the various refer- ences to what is so well known. It may be remarked, however, that clay was used for sealing doors. Norden and Pococke observe, that the inspectors of the granaries in Egypt, after closing the door, put their seal upon a handful of clay, with which they cover the lock. This may help to explain Job xxxviii, 14, in which the earth is represented as assum- ing form and imagery from the brightness of the rising sun, as rude clay receives a figure from the impression of a seal or signet. CLEOPAS, according to Eusebius and Epiphanius, was brother of Joseph, both being sons of Jacob, He was the father of Simeon, of James the Less, of Jude, and Joseph or Joses. Cleopas married Mary, sister to the blessed virgin. He was therefore uncle to Jesus Christ, and his sons were first cousins to him. Cleopas, his wife, and sons, were dis- ciples of Christ. Having beheld our Saviour expire upon the cross, he, like the other dis- ciples, appears to have lost all hopes of seeing the kingdom of God established by him on earth. The third day after our Saviour’s death, on the day of his resurrection, Cleopas, with another disciple, departed from Jerusa- lem to Emmaus; and in the way discoursed on what had lately happened. Our Saviour join- ed them, appearing as a traveller; and, taking up their discourse, he reasoned with them, 251 CLO convincing them out of the Scriptures, that it was necessary the Messiah should suffer death, reviously to his being glorified. At Emmaus, ae seemed as if inclined to go farther; but Cleopas and his companion detained him, and made him sup with them. While they were at table, Jesus took bread, blessed it, brake, and gave it to them, and by this action their eyes were opened, and they knew him. Upon his disappearing they instantly returned to Jerusalem, to announce the fact to the Apos- tles, who in their turn declared that ‘the Lord was risen indeed and had appeared to Peter.” In our translation of Luke xxiv, 31, it is said that Jesus “ vanished out of their sight;” but the original is more properly rendered, “‘ He suddenly went away from them,” the word being often applied by the Greck writers to those who in any way, but especially suddenly and abruptly, withdraw from any one’s com- pany. No other actions of Cleopas are known. It is the opinion of Jerom, that his residence was at Emmaus, and that he invited our Sa- viour into his own house. Supposing Cleopas to have been the brother of Joseph, and father of James, &c, Calmet thinks it more probable that as he was a Galilean, he dwelt in some city of Galilee. CLOUD, a collection of vapours suspended in the atmosphere. When the Israelites had left Egypt, God gave them a pillar of cloud to direct their march, Exod. xiii, 21, 22. Accord- ing to Jerom, in his Epistle to Fabiola, this cloud attended them from Succoth; or, according to others, from Rameses; or, as the Hebrews say, only from Ethan, till the death of Aaron; or, as the generality of commentators are o opinion, to the passage of Jordan. This pillar was commonly in front of the Israelites; but at Pihahiroth, when the Egyptian army ap- proached behind them, it placed itself between Israel and the Egyptians, so that the Egyptians could not come near the Israelites all night, Exod. xiv, 19, 20. In the morning, the cloud moving on over the sea, and following the Israelites who had passed through it, the Egyptians pressing after were drowned. From that time, this cloud attended the Israelites; it was clear and bright during night, in order to afford them light; but in the day it was thick and gloomy, to defend them from the exces- sive heats of the deserts. ‘‘The angel of God which went before the camp of Israel, remov- ed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them,” Exod. xiv, 19. Here we may observe, that the angel and the cloud made the same motion, as it would seem, in company. The cloud by its motions gave the signal to the Israelites to encamp or to decamp Where, therefore, it stayed, the people stayed till it rose again; then they broke up their camp, and followed it till it stopped. It was called a pillar, by reason of its form, which was high and elevated. Some interpreters suppose that there were two clouds, one to oalehten, the other to shade, the camp. The Lord appeared at Sinai in the midst of a cloud, Exod. xix, 9; xxiv, 5; and after Mo- coc ses had built and consecrated the tabernacle, the cloud filled the court around it, so that neither Moses nor the priests could enter, Exod. xl, 34,35. The same happened at the dedication of the temple of Jerusalem by So- lomon, 2 Chronicles v, 13; 1 Kings vii, 10. When the cloud appeared upon the tent, in front of which were held the assemblies of the people in the desert, it was then indicated that God was present; for the tent was a sign of God’s presence. The angel descended in the cloud, and thence spoke to Moses, without be- ing seen by the people, Exod. xvi, 10; Num. xi, 25; xvi, 5. It 1s common in Scripture, when mentioning God’s appearing, to represent him as encompassed with clouds, which serve as a chariot, and contribute to veil his dread- ful majesty, Job xxii, 14; Isaiah xix, 1; Matt. xvii, 5; xxiv, 30, &c; Psalm xviii, 11, 12; xevii, 2; civ, 3. Cloud is also used for morn- ing mists: “ Your goodness is as a morning cloud; and as the early dew it goeth away,” Hosea vi, 4; xiii, 3. Job, speaking of the chaos, says, that God had confined the sea or the water, as it were with a cloud, and covered it with darkness, as a child is wrapped in its blankets. The author of Ecclesiasticus, xxiv, 6, used the same expression. The Son of God, at his second advent, is described as descend- ing upon clouds, Matt. xxiv, 30; Luke xi, 27; Rev. xiv, 14-16. COCCEIANS, the disciples of John Coc- ceius, a celebrated Dutch divine, born at Bre- men, in 1608, where he was appointed profes- sor of Hebrew, at the age of twenty-seven, and afterward filled the theological chair at Leyden, where he died in 1669. His works make ten volumes in folio. He was a man of good learn- ing, and a vivid imagination. He considered the Old Testament as a mirror, which held forth figuratively the transactions and events that were to happen in the church under the dispensation of the New Testament, and unto the end of the world. He maintained, that by far the greater part of the ancient prophecies related to Christ’s ministry and mediation, and the rise, progress, and revolutions of the church; not only under the figure of typical persons and transactions, but in a more direct manner ; and that Christ was, indeed, as much the sub- stance of the Old Testament as of the New. Cocceius also taught, that the covenant made between God and the Jews was of the same nature as the new covenant by Jesus Christ; that the law was promulgated by Moses, not merely as a rule of obedience, but also as a re- presentation of the covenant of grace; that when the Jews had provoked the Deity by their various transgressions, particularly by the worship of the golden calf, the severe yoke of the ceremonial law was added as a punishment ; that this yoke, which was painful in itself, be- came doubly so on account of its typical sig- nification; since it admonished the Israelites from day to day of the imperfection of their state, filled them with anxiety, and was a per- petual proof that they had merited the righteous Judgment of God, and could not expect, before the coming of the Messiah, the entire remis- 252 coc sion of their iniquities; that indeed good men. under the Mosaic dispensation, were, after death, made partakers of glory; but that, ne- vertheless, during the whole course of their lives they were far removed from that assur. ance of salvation, which rejoices the believer under the dispensation of the Gospel; and that their anxiety flowed from this consideration, that their sins, though they remained unpun- ished, were not yet pardoned ;-because Christ had not as yet offered himself up to make an atonement for them. Cocceius was also a millennarian, and expected a personal reign of Christ on earth in the last days. Many of his opinions were afterward adopted by the Hutch- insonians. COCK, ddéxrwp, a well known domestic fow!. Some derive the Greek name from a, and )éxzpo», a bed, because the crowing of cocks rouses men from their beds; but Mr. Parkhurst asks, “ May not this name be as properly deduced from the Hebrew noon un, the coming of the light, of which this ‘bird of dawning,’ as Shakspeare calls him, gives such remarkable notice, and for doing which he was, among the Heathen, sacred to the sun, who in Homer is himself called ddékrop Y’? In Matt. xxvi, 34, our Lord is represented as saying, that before cock-crow Peter should deny him thrice ; so Luke xxii, 34, and John xiii, 39. But according to Mark xiv, 30, he says, “‘ Before the cock crow twice thou shalt deny me thrice.” These texts may be very satisfactorily reconciled, by observing, that ancient authors, both Greek and Latin, mention two cock-crowings, the one of which was soon after midnight, tlfe other about three o'clock in the morning; and this latter being most noticed by men as the signal of their ap- proaching labours, was called by way of emi- nence, the cock-crowing; and to this alone, Matthew, giving the general sense of our Sa- viour’s warning to Peter, refers; but Mark, recording his very words, mentions the two cock-crowings, The rabbies tell us that cocks were not per- mitted to be kept in Jerusalem on account of the holiness of the place ; and that for this rea- son some modern Jews cavil against this de- claration of the Evangelists; but the cock is not among the birds prohibited in the law of Moses. If there was any restraint in the use and domestication of the animal, it must have been an arbitrary practice of the Jews, and could not have been binding on foreigners, of whom many resided at Jerusalem as officers or traders. Strangers would not be willing to forego an innocent kind of food in compliance with a conquered people; and the trafficking spirit of the Jews would induce them to supply aliens, if it did not expressly contradict the letter of their law. This is sufficient to ac- count for fowl of this kind being there, even admitting a customary restraint. The cele- brated Reland admits that it was not allowed to breed cocks in the city, but that the Jews were not prohibited from buying them to eat, and that therefore the cock mentioned in the Gospel might be in the house of a Jew who designed to kill it for his own table; or may coc have been kept in the precincts of Pilate, or of a Roman officer or soldier. ‘ During the time of our Saviour, the night was divided into four watches, a fourth watch having been introduced among the Jews from the Romans, who derived it from the Greeks. The second and third watches are mentioned in Luke xii, 38; the fourth, in Matthew xiv, 25; and the four aré all distinctly mentioned in Mark xiii, 35: ‘“ Watch, therefore ; for ye know not when the master of the house cometh; at even,” dy, or the late watch, “ or at midnight,” pecovexriov, “or at the cock-crowing,” ddexropo- guvias, “or in the morning,” zpwi, the early watch. Here, the first watch was at even, and continued from six till nine; the second com- menced at nine, and ended at twelve, or mid- night; the third watch, called by the Romans galliciniwm, lasted from twelve to three; and the morning watch closed at six. COCKATRICE, «ys, or es, Proverbs xxiii, 32; Isaiah xi, 8; xiv, 29; lix, 5; Jer. viii, 17. A venomous serpent. The original Hebrew word has been variously rendered, the aspic, the regulus, the hydra, the hemorhoos, the viper, and the cerastes. In Isaiah xi, 8, this serpent is evidently intended for a proportion- ate advance in malignity beyond the peten which precedes it; and in xiv, 29, it must mean a worse kind of serpent than the nahash. In lix, 5, it is referred to as oviparous. In Jer. viii, 17, Dr. Blaney, after Aquila, retains the rendering of basilisk. Bochart, who thinks it to be the regulus or basilisk, says that it may be so denominated by an onomatopeia from its hissing; and accordingly it is hence called in Latin sibilus, ‘the hisser.” So the Arabic saphaa signifies “ flatu adurere,” [to scorch with a blast.] The Chaldee paraphrast, the Syriac, and the Arabic, render it the hurman or horman ; which rabbi Selomo on Gen. xlix, 17, declares to be the ¢ziphoni of the Hebrews: “ Hurman vocatur species, cujus morsus est in- sanabilis. Is est Hebrais tziphoni, et Chaldaicé dicitur harman, quia omnia facit Drn vastati- onem; id est, quia omnia vastat, et ad inter- necionem destruit.” [The species is called hurman, whose bite is incurable. It is the tziphont of the Hebrews, and is called in Chaldee hurman, because it makes all things min—a waste; that is, because it lays waste and utterly destroys every thing.] COCKLE, nwx2. This word occurs only in Job xxxi, 40. By the Chaldee it is rendered noxious herbs; by Symmachus, dredeopdpnra, plants of imperfect fruit; by the Septuagint, Béros, the blackberry bush ; by Castelio, ebulus, “dwarf elder;” by Celsius, aconite; and by Bishop Stock and Dr. Good, the night-shade. M. Michaélis maintains, after Celsius, that both this word and mwxa, Isaiah v, 2, 4, de- note the aconite, a poisonous plant, growing spontaneously and luxuriantly on_sunny hills, such as are used for vineyards. He says that this interpretation is certain, because, as Cel- sius had observed, v2, in Arabic, denotes the aconite ; and he intimates that it best suits Job xxxi, 40, where it is mentioned as growing instead of barley. ‘The word appears to im- 253 coL Bee weed not only noxious, but of a fetid smell. CGLO-SYRIA, hollow or depressed Syria; Syria in the vale, 1 Mace. xiii, 10. This name imports the hollow land, or region, situatec between two long ridges of mountains ; and those mountains have been always understood to be Libanus and Anti-libanus. As these ridges run parallel for many leagues, they con- tain between them a long, extensive, and ex- tremely fruitful valley. COLOSSE, a city of Phrygia Minor, which stood on the river Lyceus, at an equal distance between Laodicea and Hierapolis. These three cities, says Eusebius, were destroyed by an earthquake, in the tenth of Nero, or about two years after the date of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians. Laodicea, Hierapolis, and Colosse, were at no great distance from each other; which accounts for the Apostle Paul, when writing to his Christian brethren in the latter of these places, mentioning them all in con- nection with each other, Col. iv, 13. Of these cities, however, Laodicea was the greatest, for it was the metropolis of Phrygia, though Co- losse is said to have been a great and wealthy lace. The inhabitants of Phrygia, says Dr. acknight, were famous for the worship of Bacchus, and Cybele the mother of the gods; whence the latter was called Phrygia mater, by way of eminence. In her worship, as well as in that of Bacchus, both sexes practised every species of debauchery in speech and action, with a frantic rage which they pretended was occasioned by the inspiration of the deities whom they worshipped. These were the or- gies, from épyi, rage, of Bacchus and Cybele, so famed in antiquity, the lascivious rites of which being perfectly adapted to the corrup- tions of the human heart, were performed by both sexes without shame or remorse. Hence as the Son of God came into the world to de- stroy the works of the devil, it appeared, in the eye of his Apostle, a matter of great im- portance to carry the light of the Gospel into countries where these abominable impurities were not only practised, but even dignified with the honourable appellation of religious worship ; especially as nothing but the heaven- descended light of the Gospel could dispel such a pernicious infatuation. That this salutary purpose might be effectually accomplished, aul, accompanied by Silas and Timothy, went at different times into Phrygia, and preached the Gospel in many cities of that country with great success; but it is thought by many per- sons, that the Epistle to the Colossians con- tains internal marks of his never having been at Colosse when he wrote it. This opinion rests principally upon the following passage: “For I would that ye knew what great con- flict Ihave for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh,” Col. ii, 1; but these words, if they prove any thing upon this question, prove that St. Paul had never been either at Laodicea or Co- losse; but surely it is very improbable that he should have travelled twice into Phrygia for the purpose of preaching the Gospel, and not COM have gone either to Laodicea or Colosse, which were the two principal cities of that country ; -especially as in the second journey into those parts it is said, that he “went over all the country of Gallatia and Phrygia, strengthening all the disciples ;” and moreover, we know that it was the Apostle’s practice to preach at the most considerable places of every district into which he went. ip. Lanier, after arguing this point, says, ‘‘ From all these considera- tions, it appears to me very probable that the church at Colosse had been planted by the Apostle Paul, and that the Christians there were his friends, disciples, and converts.” The Epistle greatly resembles that to the Ephesians, both in sentiment and expression. After saluting the Colossian Christians in his own name, and that of Timothy, St. Paul as- sures them, that since he had heard of their faith in Christ Jesus, and of their love to all Christians, he had not ceased to return thanks to God for them, and to pray that they might increase in spiritual knowledge, and abound in every good work; he describes the dignity of Christ, and declares the universality of the Gospel dispensation, which was a mystery formerly hidden, but now made manifest ; and he mentions his own appointment, through the grace of God, to be the Apostle of the Gen- tiles; he expresses a tender concern for the Colossians and other Christians of Phrygia, and cautions them against being seduced from the simplicity of the Gospel, by the subtlety of Pagan philosophers, or the superstition of Ju- daizing Christians ; he directs them to set their affections on things above, and forbids every species of licentiousness; he exhorts to a va- riety of Christian virtues, to meekness, veracity, humility, charity, and devotion; he enforces the duties of wives, husbands, children, fathers, servants, and masters; he inculcates the duty of prayer, and of prudent behaviour toward unbelievers; and after adding the salutations of several persons then at Rome, and desiring that this epistle might be read in the church of their neighbours the Laodiceans, he concludes witha salutation from himself, written, as usual, with his own hand. COMFORTER, one of the titles by which the Holy Spirit is designated in the New Tes- tament, John xiv, 16, 26; xv, 26. The name has no doubt a reference to his peculiar office in the economy of redemption; namely, that of imparting consolation to the hearts of Christ’s disciples, which he effects by “taking of the things that are Christ’s,” and explaining them ; or, in other words, by illuminating their minds as to the meaning of the Scriptures, assuring them of the Saviour’s love, bringing to their recollection his consolatory sayings, and filling their souls with peace and joy in believing ticm.—The word has also been rendered Ad- vocate, Helper, Monitor, Teacher, &c. The first does not apply to the office of the Spirit; and the others are not so well supported by the connection of our Lord’s discourse, which fa- vours the translation, Comforter ; because what- ever gracious offices the Holy Spirit was to perform for the disciples, the great end of all 254 COM was to remove that sorrow which the approach of the departure of Christ had produced, and to render their joy full and complete. COMMERCE. Merchandise, in its various branches, was carried on in the east at the earliest period of which we have any account; and it was not long before the traftic between nations, both by sea and land, was very con- siderable. Accordingly, frequent mention is made of public roads, fords, bridges, and beasts of burden; also of ships for the transportation of property, of weights, measures, and coin, both in the oldest books of the Bible, and in the most ancient profane histories. The Phe- nicians anciently held the first rank as a com- mercial nation. They were in the habit of purchasing goods of various kinds throughout all the east. They then carried them in ships down the Mediterranean, as far as the shores of Africa and Europe, brought back in return merchandise and silver, and disposed of these again in the more eastern countries. The first metropolis of the Phenicians was Sidon; after- ward Tyre became the principal city. Tyre was built two hundred and forty years before the temple of Solomon, or twelve hundred and fifty-one before Christ. The Phenicians had ports of their own in almost every country; the most distinguished of which were Carthage and Tarshish, or Tartessus, in Spain. The ships from the latter place undertook very dis- tant voyages: hence, any vessels that per- formed distant voyages were called “ ships of Tarshish,” wean max. Something is said of the commerce of the Phenicians in the twenty- seventh and twenty-eighth chapters of Ezekiel, and the twenty-third chapter of Isaiah. The inhabitants of Arabia Felix carried on a com- merce with India. They carried some of the articles which they brought from India through the straits of Babelmandel into Abyssinia and Egypt; some they transported to Babylon through the Persian Gulf and the Euphrates. and some by the way of the Red Sea to the port of Eziongeber. They thus became rich: though it is possible their wealth may have been too much magnified by the ancients. The eminence of the Egyptians, as a commercia. nation, commences with the reign of Necho Their commerce, nevertheless, was not great, till Alexander had destroyed Tyre and built Alexandria, 2. The Phenicians sometimes received the goods of India by way of the Persian Gulf, where they had colonies in the islands of De- dan, Arad, and Tyre. Sometimes they re ceived them from the Arabians, who either brought them by land through Arabia, or up the Red Sea to Eziongeber. Tn the latter case, having landed them at the port mentioned, they transported them through the country by the way of Gaza to Phenicia. The Phenicians increased the amount of their foreign goods by the addition of those which they themselves fabricated; and were thus enabled to supply all parts of the Mediterranean. The Egyptians at first received their goods from the Pheni- cians, Arabians, Africans, and Abyssinians; in all of which countries there are still the re COM mauns of large trading towns; but in a subse- quent age, they imported goods from India in their own vessels; and eventually carried on an export trade with various ports on the Mediterranean. Oriental commerce, however, was chiefly carried on by land: accordingly, vessels are hardly mentioned in the Bible, ex- ST in Psalm cvii, 23-30, and in passages where the discourse turns upon the Pheni- cians, or upon the naval affairs of Solomon and Jehoshaphat. The two principal routes from Palestine into Egypt were, the one along the shores of the Mediterranean from Gaza to Pelusium, and the other from Gaza by the way of Mount Sinai and the Elanitic branch of the Red Sea. 3. The merchants transported their goods upon camels; animals which are patient of thirst, and are easily supported in the deserts. For the common purpose of security against depredations, the oriental merchants travelled in company, as is common in the east at the present day. A large travelling company of this kind is called a caravan or carvan, a smaller one was called kafile or kafle, Job vi, 18-20; Gen. xxxvii, 25; Isa. xxi, 13; Jer. ix, 2; Judges v, 6; Luke ii, 44. The furniture car- ried by the individuals of a caravan consisted of a mattress, a coverlet, a carpet for sitting upon, a round piece of leather, which answered the purpose of a table, a few pots and kettles of copper covered with tin; also a tin-plated zup, which was suspended before the breast under the outer garment, and was used for drinking, 1 Sam. xxvi, 11, 12, 16: leathern bags for holding water, tents, lights, and pro- visions in quality and abundance as each one could afford. Every caravan had a leader to conduct it through the desert, who was ac- quainted with the direction of its route, and with the cisterns and fountains. These he was able to ascertain, sometimes from heaps of stones, sometimes by the character of the soil, and, when other helps failed him, by the stars, Num. x, 29-32; Jer. xxxi, 21; Isa. xxi, When all things are in readiness, the individuals who compose the caravan assemble at a distance from the city. The commander of the caravan, who is a different person from the conductor or leader, and is chosen from the wealthiest of its members, appoints the day of their departure. A similar arrangement was adopted among the Jews, whenever they tra- velled in large numbers to the city of Jerusa- lem. The caravans start very early, sometimes before day. They endeavour to find a stop- ping place or station to remain at during the night, which shall afford them a supply of wa- ter, Job vi, 15-20. They arrive at their stop- ping place before the close of the day; and, while it is yet light, prepare every thing that is necessary for the recommencement of their journey. In order to prevent any one from wandcrizg away from the caravan, and getting Jost durixg the night, lamps or torches are elevated upon poles and carried before it. The as of fire answered this purpose for the raclites, when wandering in the wilderness. Sometimes the caravans lodge in cities; but 255 COM when they do not, they pitch their tents so as to form an encampment; and during the night keep watch alternately for the sake of security. In the cities there are public inns, called Chan and Curvanserai, in which the caravans are lodged without expense. They are l=: ge square buildings, in the centre o which is an area, or open court. Carvanserais are denominated in the Greek of the New Testament, zavdoyetov, karddvots, and xarédvpa, Luke ii, 7; x, 34. The first mention of one in the Old Testament is in Jer. xli, 17, pana ma. It was situated near the city of Bethlehem. 4. Mase enacted no laws in favour of com- merce, although there is no question that he saw the situation of Palestine to be very favour- able for it. The reason of this was, that the Hebrews, who were designedly set apart to pre- serve the true religion, could not mingle with foreign idolatrous nations without injury. He therefore merely inculcated good faith and honesty in buying and selling, Lev. xix, 36, 37; Deut. xxv, 13-16; and left all the other interests of commerce to a future age. By the establish- ment, however, of the three great festivals, he gave occasion for some mercantile intercourse. At these festivals all the adult males of the nation were yearly assembled at one place. The consequence was, that those who had any thing to sell brought it; while those who wished to buy articles came with the expectation of having an opportunity. As Moses, though he did not encourage, did not interdict foreign commerce, Solomon, at a later period, not onl carried on a traffic in horses, as already stated, but sent ships from the port of Eziongeber through the Red Sea to Ophir, probably the coast of Africa, 1 Kings ix, 26; 2 Chron. ix, 21. This traffic, although a source of emolument, appears to have been neglected after the death of Solomon. The attempt made by Jehosha- phat to restore it was frustrated, by his ships being dashed upon the rocks and destroyed, 1 Kings xxii, 48, 49; 2 Chron. xx, 36. Joppa, though not a very convenient one, was pro- perly the port of Jerusalem; and some of the large vessels which went to Spain sailed from it, Jonah i, 3. In the age of Ezekiel, the com- merce of Jerusalem was so great, that it gave an occasion of envy even to the T'yrians them- selves, Ezek. xxvi, 2. After the captivity, a great number of Jews became merchants, and travelled for the purpose of traffic into all coun- tries. About the year 150 B. C. prince Simon rendered the port at Joppa more convenient than it had hitherto been. In the time of Pompey the Great, there were so many Jews abroad on the ocean, even in the character of Pirates, that King Antigonus was accused be- fore him of having sent them out on purpose. A new port was built by Herod at Cesarea. COMMUNION, in a religious sense, refers chiefly to the admission of persons to the Lord’s Supper. This is said to be open, when all are admitted who apply, as in the Church of Eng- land; to be strict, when confined to the mem- oers of a single society, or, at least, to mem- bers of the same denomination; and it is mixed when persons are admitted from societies of CON different denominations, on the profession _of their faith, and evidence of their piety. The principal difficulty on this point arises between the strict Baptists and Pedo-Baptists. CONCUBINE, wah», This term, in west- ern authors, commonly signifies, a woman, who, without being married to a man, yet lives with him as his wife; but, in the sacred writers, the word concubine is understood in another sense; meaning a lawful wife, but one not wedded with all the ceremonies and solemnities of matrimony ; a wife of the second rank, in- ferior to the first wife, or mistress of the house. Children of concubines did not inherit their father’s fortune; but he might provide for, and make presents to, them. Thus Abraham, by Sarah his wife, had Isaac, his heir; but, by his two concubines, Hagar and Keturah, he had other children, whom he did not make equal to Isaac. As polygamy was tolerated in the east, it was common to see in every family, be- side lawful wives, several concubines. Since the abrogation of polygamy by Jesus Christ, and the restoration of marriage to its primitive institution, concubinage is ranked with adultery or fornication. CONEY, jew, Levit. xi, 5; Deut. xiv, 7; Psalm civ, 8; and Prov. xxx, 26. Bochart and others have supposed the saphan of the Scrip- tures to be the jerboa; but Mr. Bruce proves that the ashkoko is intended. This curious animal is found in Ethiopia, and in great num- bers on Mount Lebanon, &c. Instead of holes, they seem to delight in more airy places, in the mouths of caves, or clefts in the rock. They are gregarious, and frequently several dozens of them sit upon the great stones at the mouths of caves, and warm themselves in the sun, or come out and enjoy the freshness of the summer evening. They do not stand up- right upon their feet, but seem to steal along as in fear, their belly being nearly close to the ground; advancing a few steps at a time, and then pausing. They have something very mild, feeble-like, and timid, in their deport- ment; are gentle and easily tamed, though, when roughly handled at the first, they bite very severely. Many are the reasons to be- lieve this to be the animal called saphan in Hebrew, and erroneously by our translators, ‘the coney,” or rabbit. The latter are gre- garious indeed, and so far resemble the other, as-also in size; but they seek not the same place of retreat; for the rabbit burrows most enerally in the sand. Wor is there any thing in the character of rabbits that denotes excel- lent wisdom, or that they supply the want of strength by any remarkable sagacity. The saphan, then, is not the rabbit; which last, un- less it was brought to him by his ships from Europe, Solomon never saw. Let us now apply the characters of the ash- koko to the saphan. “He is above all other animals so much attached to the rocks, that I never once,” says Mr. Bruce, “saw him on the ground, or from among large stones in the Mouth of caves, where is his constant resi- dence. He lives in families or flocks. He is in Judea, Palestine, and Arabia, and conse- 256 CON quently must have been familiar to Solomon, David describes him very pertinently, and joing him to other animals perfectly known: ‘The hills are a refuge for the wild goats, and the rocks for the saphan:’ and Solomon says that ‘the are exceeding wise,’ that they are ‘ but a feeble folk, yet make their houses in the rocks.’ Now this, I think, very obviously fixes the ashkoko to be the saphan; for his weakness seems to allude to his feet, and how inadequate these are to dig holes in the rock, where yet, however, he lodges. From their tenderness these are very liable to be excoriated or hurt; notwith- standing which, they build houses in the rocks more inaccessible than those of the rabbit, and in which they abide in greater safety, not by exertion of strength, for they have it not, but are truly, as Solomon says, ‘a feeble folk,’ but by their own sagacity and judgment; and are therefore justly described as wise. Lastly, what leaves the thing without doubt is, that some of the Arabs, particularly Damir, say that the saphan has no tail, that it is less than a cat, that it lives in houses or nests, which it builds of straw, in contradistinction to the rabbit and the rat, and those animals that burrow in the ground.” CONFESSION signifies a public acknow- ledgment of any thing as our own: thus Christ will confess the faithful in the day of judgment, Luke xii, 8. 2. To own and profess the truths of Christ, and to obey his commandments, in spite of cprediten and danger from enemies, Matt. x, 32. 3. To utter or speak the praises of God, or to give him thanks. 4. To ac- knowledge our sins_and offences to God, either by private or public confession; or to our neighbour whom we have wronged; or to some pious persons from whom we expect to receive comfort and spiritual instruction; or to the whole congregation when our fault is pub- lished, Psalm xxxii, 5; Matt. iii, 6; James y, 16; 1 Johni, 9. 5. To acknowledge a crime before a judge, Josh. vii, 19. 2. In the Jewish ceremony of annual expia- tion, the high priest confessed in general his own sins, the sins of other ministers of the temple, and those of all the people. When an Israelite offered a sacrifice for sin, he put his hand on the head of the victim, and confessed his faults, Lev. iv. On the day of atonement, the Jews still make a private confession of their sins, which is called by them céppur, and which is said to be done in the following manner: Two Jews retire into a corner of the syna- gogue. One of them bows very low before the other, with his face turned toward the north. He who performs the office of confessor gives the penitent nine-and-thirty blows on the back with a leathern strap, repeating these words, “God, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity, and destroyed them not; yea, many a time turned he his anger away, and did not stir up all his wrath.” As there are only thirteen words in this verse recited in the He- brew, he repeats it three times, and at evel word strikes one blow; which makes nine-and+ thirty words, and asmany lashes. In the mean- time, the penitent declares his sins, and at the t Powe CON 29 confession of every one beats himself on his breast. This being finished, he who has per- formed the office of confessor prostrates him- self on the ground, and receives in turn from his penitent nine-and-thirty lashes. 3. The Romish church not only requires confession as a duty, but has advanced it to the dignity of a sacrament. ‘These confessions are made in private to the priest, who is not to reveal them under poe of the highest punish- ment. The council of Trent requires “ secret confession to the priest alone, of all and every mortal sin, which, upon the most diligent search and examination of our consciences, we can remember ourselves to be guilty of since our baptism ; together with all the circum- stances of those sins, which may change the nature of them; because, without the perfect knowledge of these, the priest cannot make a judgment of the nature and quality of men’s sins, nor impose fitting penance for them.” This is the confession of sins which the same council confidently affirms “to have been insti- tuted by our Lord, and by the law of God, to be necessary to salvation, and to have been always practised in the catholic church.” It is, however, evident, that such confession is unscriptural. St. James, indeed, says, ‘ Con- fess your faults one to another,” James v, 16; but priests are not here mentioned, and the word faults seems to confine the precept to a mutual confession among Christians, of those offences by which they may have injured each other. Certain it is, that from this passage the necessity of auricular confession, and the power of priestly absolution, cannot be infer- red. Though many of the early ecclesiastical writers earnestly recommend confession to the clergy, yet they never recommend it as essen- tial to the pardon of sin, or as having connec- tion with a sacrament. They only urge it as entitling a person to the prayers of the congre- gation; and as useful for supporting the au- thority of wholesome discipline, and for main- taining the purity of the Christian church. Chrysostom condemns all secret confession to men, as being obviously liable to great abuses; and Basil, Hilary, and Augustine, all advise confession of sins to God only. It has been proved by M. Daillé, that private, auri- cular, sacramental confession of sins was un- known in the primitive church. But, though private auricular confession is not of divine authority, yet, as Archbishop Tillotson pro- perly observes, there are many cases in which men, under the guilt and trouble of their sins, can neither appease their own minds, nor suf- ficiently direct themselves, without recourse to some pious and prudent guide. In these cases, men certainly do very well, and many times prevent a great deal of trouble and perplexity to themselves, by a timely discovery of their condition to some faithful minister, in order to tuieir direction and satisfaction. ‘To this pur- pose a general confession is for the most part sufficient; and where there is occasion for Q more particular discovery, there is no need of raking into the minute and foul circum- stances of men’s sins Gre that advice which 7 CON is necessary for the cure and ease of the pen tent. Auricular confession is unquestionabl one of the greatest corruptions of the Romis church. It goes upon the ground that the priest has power to forgive sins; it establishes the tyrannical influence of the priesthood; it turns the penitent from God who only can for- give sins, to man who is himself a sinner ; and it tends to corrupt both the confessors and the confessed by a foul and particular disclosure of sinful thoughts and actions of every kind with- out exception. Conressions oF Fairu, simply considered, is the same with creed, and signifies a summary of the principal articles of belief adopted by any individual or society. In its meze com- mon acceptation, it is restricted to tle summa- ries of doctrine published by particular Chris- tian churches, with the view of preventing their religious sentiments from being misun- derstood or misrepresented, .or, by requiring subscription to them, of securing uniformity of opinion among those who join their com- munion. Except a single sentence in one of the Ignatian Epistles, (A. D. 180,) which re- lates exclusively to the reality of Christ’s per- sonality and sufferings in opposition to the Docet@, the earliest document of this kind is to be found in the writings of Irenzus, who flourished toward the end of the second cen- tury of the Christian era. In. his treatise against heresies, this father affirms that “ the faith of the church planted throughout the whole world,” consisted in the belief of “ one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven: and earth and sea, and al that are in them ;. and one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who. became incarnate for our salvation; and one Holy Spirit, who foretold, through the Pro- phets, the dispensations and advents, and the generation by the virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascen- sion in the flesh into heaven, of Jesus Christ our beloved Lord, and his appearing from hea- ven in the glory of the Father, to unite toge- ther all things under one head, and to raise every individual of the human race; that unto Christ Jesus, our Lord and God, and Saviour and King, every knee may bow, and every tongue confess; that he may pronounce just sentence upon all.” In various parts of Ter- tullian’s writings similar statements occur, (A. D. 200,) which it is unnecessary particu- larly to quote. We shall only remark, that in one of them, the miraculous conception of Christ by the power of the Holy Ghost is dis- tinctly mentioned ; that in another, he declares it to have been the uniform doctrine from the beginning of the Gospel, that Christ was born of the virgin, both man and God, ex ed natum hominem et Dewm ; and that in each of these, faith in the Father, Son, and Spirit, is recog- nised as essential to Christianity. The follow- ing passage we cite, for the purpose of marking its coincidence with the A auetlee? Creed, to which we shall have occasion soon to advert: “This,” says he, “is the sole, immovable, irre- formable rule of faith; namely, to believe in the only God Almighty, maker of the world ;. CON and his Son Jesus Christ, born of the virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, the third day raised from the dead, received into heaven, now sitting at the right hand of the Father, about to come and judge the quick and the dead, by the resurrection also of the flesh.” The summaries contained in the works of Ori- gen (A. D. oat pany resemble the preceding ; any difference between them being easily ac- counted for, from the tenets of the particular neresies against which they were directed. In his “Commentary on St. John’s Gospel,” he thus writes: ‘“ We believe that there is one God, who created all things, and framed and made all things to exist out of nothing. We must also believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and in all the truth concerning his Deity and hu- manity ; and we must likewise believe in the Holy Spirit; and that, being free agents, we shall be punished for the things in which we sin, and rewarded for those in which we do well.” According to Cyprian, the formula, to which assent was required from adults at their baptism, was in these terms: ‘“ Dost thou be- lieve in God the Father, Christ the Son, the Holy Spirit, the remission of sins, and eternal life, through the holy church?” This was called by him symboli lex, “the law of the treed;” and by Novatian, regula veritatis, “ the rule of truth.” %. From these and similar sources, the dif- fereut clauses of what is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed appear to have sprung. For, ‘though it was long believed to be the compo- -sition of the Apostles, its claims to such an inspired origin are now universally rejected. Of its great antiquity, however, there can be no doubt; the whole of it, as it stands in the English liturgy, having been generally received as an authoritative confession in the fourth cen- tury. Toward the end of that century, Rufinus wrote a commentary on it, which is still extant, in which he acknowledges that the clause re- specting Christ’s descent into hell was not ad- mitted into the creeds either of the western or the eastern churches. We learn also that the epithet catholic was not at that time applied in itto the church. Its great simplicity and con- ciseness, beside, prove it to have been con- siderably earlier than the council of Nice, when the heretical speculations of various sects led the defenders of the orthodox faith to fence the interests of religion with more complicated and cumbrous barriers. This confession of faith was then preémi- nently: named symbolwm ; which might be un- derstood in the general acceptation of sign, as the characteristic, representative sign of the Christian faith; or, in a more restricted sense, in reference to the cipBodoy orpartwrtxéy, or tes- sera militaris, the watch word of the Christian soldier, communicated to each man at his first entrance into the service of Christ. Perhaps this word, at first, only denoted the formula of baptism, and was afterward transferred to the confession of faith. 3. In the celebrated council of Nice, (A. D. 325,) in which Arianism was not only con- demned, but proscribed, the confession esta- 268 CON blished as the universal standard of truth and orthodoxy runs thus: “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father, before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and ‘or our sal- vation, descended from heaven, and became incarnate by the Holy Ghost, of the virgin Mary; and was made man, was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again ac- cording to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father ; and he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, of whose ingdom there will be no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost who spake by the Prophets; and one catholic, and Apostolical church, acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins, and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.” It were endless to specify the particular shades of difference by which the Arian con- fessions (the number of which amounted nearly to twenty in the space of a very few years) were distinguished from each other; suffice it to say, that while they agreed generally in sub- stance, especially in rejecting the Nicene term, 5poosct0s, as applied to the Son, their variations of expression concerning the nature of his sub- ordination to the Father were so astonishingly minute, as almost to bid defiance to any at- tempt which might be made, at this distance of time, to determine in what their real and essential differences consisted. 4, “ The Book of Armagh,” a very ancient collection of interesting national documents, which have recently been published by Sir William Betham in the second part of his cu- rious “ Trish Antiquarian Researches,” contains the Confession of St. Patrick; who has been supposed, from several collateral circumstances, to have flourished some years prior to the time of St. Jerom, or about the commencement of the fourth century. The subjoined are the first two paragraphs in it, and will be admired for the orthodoxy, artlessness, and Christian experi- ence which they exhibit :—‘I, Parricr, a sin- ner, the rudest, the least, and the most insig- nificant of the faithful, had Calphurnius, a dea- con, for my father, who was the son of Potitus, heretofore a priest, the son of Odissus, who lived in the village of Banavem Tabernie. For he had a little farm adjacent, where I was captured. I was then almost sixteen years of age; but I knew not God, and was led into captivity by the Irish, with many thousand men, as we deserved, because we estranged ourselves from God, and did not keep his laws, and were disobedient to our pastors, who ad- monished us with respect to our salvation: and the Lord brought down upon us the anger of his Spirit, and dispersed us among many na- tions, even to the extremity of the earth, where my meanness was conspicuous among CON eigners, and where the Lord discovered to me @ sense of my unbelief; that late I should re- member my transgressions, and that I should be converted with my whole heart to the Lord my God, who had respect to my humiliation, and one my youth and ignorance, even be- fore I knew him, and before I was wise, or could distinguish between right and wrong, and strengthened me, and cherished me, as a father would a son. From which time I could not remain silent; nor, indeed, did he cease to bless me with many acts of kindness; and so great was the favour of which he thought me worthy in the land of my captivity. Fr this is my retribution, that, after my rebuking, punishment, and acknowledgment of God, I should exalt him, and confess his wonderful acts before every nation which is under the whole heaven ; because there is no other God, nor ever was before, nor will be after him, except God, the unbegotten Father, without be- ginning, possessing all things, as we have said, and his Son Jesus Christ, who, we bear wit- ness, was always with the Father, before the formation of the world, in spirit (or spiritually) with the Father, inexpressibly begotten before all beginning, through whom visible things were made: he became man, having overcome death, and was received into heaven. And God has given to him all power ‘above every name, as well of the inhabitants of heaven as of the earth and of the powers below, that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord and God ;’ whom we believe, and whose coming we expect, as presently about to be Judge of the living and dead, who will render unto every man according to his actions, and has poured upon us abundantly the gift of his Holy Spirit, and the pledge of immortality; who makes us that believe and are obedient to be the sons of God and joint heirs of Christ; whom we believe and adore, one God in the Trinity of the sacred name. For he spoke by the Prophet, ‘Call upon me in the day of tribu- lation, and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me.’ And again he says,‘ Itis an ho- nourable thing to reveal and confess the works of God.’” 5. Macedonius having denied not only the divinity but the personality of the Holy Spirit, maintaining that he is only a divine energy diffused throughout the universe, a general council was called at Constantinople, A. D. 381, in order to crush this rising heresy. The con- fession promulgated on this occasion, and which “ gave the finishing touch to what the council of Nice had left imperfect, and fixed, in a full and determinate manner, the doctrine of the Trinity, as it is still received among the gene- rality of Christians,” exactly coincides with the Nicene confession, except in the article respecting the Spirit, which it thus extends: “ And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who, together with the Father and the Son, is worshipped and glo- rified.” 6. Subsequent to this, and probably toward the middle of the fifth century, the creed which 259 CON bears the name of Athanasius appears to have been composed. That it was not the work of this distinguished opposer of Arianism is esta- blished by the most satisfactory evidence. No traces of it are to be found in any of his writ- ings, though they relate chiefly to the very subject of which it isan exposition ; and so far from its being ascribed to him, not the least notice is taken of it by any of his contempo- raries. Its language, beside, concerning the Spirit is so similar to that of the council of onstantinople, but still more precise and ex- plicit, that there can be no doubt of its having been written posterior to the time of that as- sembly. Yet Athanasius died in the year 373. Accordingly, it has been, with great proba- bility of truth, attributed, particularly by Dr. Waterland, to Hilary, bishop of Arles, who is said by one of his biographers to have com- posed an Exposition of the Creed: a title which certainly is more appropriate and character- istic of it than that of Creed simply, by which it is now so universally known. ‘The damna- tory clauses in this creed have frequently been made subjects of reprehension; and some clergymen of the church of England have scrupled to read them as directed by the Ru- bric. The following is an apology for those clauses, by the late venerable Archdeacon Dodwell, who seems to have felt none of those misgivings which troubled his doubting bre- thren ;—‘ The form, as well as the substance, of this creed, and the very introduction to the main article, has been objected to: ‘Whoso- ever will be saved, before all things it is ne- cessary. that he hold the catholic faith ;’ to which is added, ‘ Which faith, except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.’ This, with a like condemnatory sentence in the con- clusion of the creed, wherein a possibility of salvation is denied to him who does not cor- dially embrace this doctrine, is pronounced unreasonable, wncharitable, unchristian, with every other aggravating appellation that can be used. But the ground of this charge, and the whole of the difficulty suggested in it, from the variety of the circumstances of different persons, depends upon the interpretation of the phrase of ‘being saved.’ The meaning of this term in its primary signification, and as it is applied to common subjects in common dis- course, means a preservation from threatening perils, or from threatened punishment. But, in an evangelical sense, and as it occurs in the New Testament, it includes much more: it means the whole Christian scheme of redemp- tion and justification by the Son of God, with all the glorious privileges and promises con- tained in that scheme. It means not merely a hope of deliverance from danger or from ven- geance, but a federal title to positive happi- ness, purchased by the merits, and declared to mankind by the Gospel of Christ Jesus our Lord. St. Paul calls it ‘the obtaining the sal- vation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory, 2 Tim. ii, 10. ‘ Whosoever,’ then, says the creed, ‘ will’ thus ‘ be saved,’ will be desir- ous to secure the glorious promises of the cOoN Gospel, must pursue it upon the terms which that Gospel proposes, and particularly must embrace the doctrines which it reveals. The creed speaks of those only to whom the evi- dence of the Gospel has been fully set forth, and the importance of it fully explained. We are to justify it only to professed believers, and of them only. The state and lot of the Hea- then world are quite out of the question. Nei- ther common sense nor Scripture will permit us to interpret it of those who still ‘ sit in dark- ness and the shadow of death, and never had the means of grace and the hope of glory pro- posed to them. Even with respect to those to whom the Gospel is preached, there is no ne- cessity of interpreting the words here used in the harshest and strictest sense. There are many distinctions and limitations, which are always understood and supposed in such cases, though they are not expressly mentioned. General rules are laid down as such, are true as such; while excepted cases are referred to the judgment of those who are qualified to judge of them, and are not particularly pointed out; as for other reasons, so lest they should be extended too far, and defeat the general rule. Sufficient capacity in the persons to whom it is applied, and sufficient means of in- formation and conviction, are always presup- osed, where faith is spoken of as necessary. here either of these 1s wanting, the case 1s (where it should be) inthe hands of God. The creed is laid down as a rule of judgment to men, not to their Maker. We may learn from thence on what terms alone we can claim a title to the promises of the Gospel; but we do not learn from thence how far uncovenanted favour may be extended to particular persons. It is not intended to exclude the mercy of God to Heathens or heretics; it being his preroga- tive, and his alone, to judge how far the error or ignorance of any one is his wilful fault, or his unavoidable infirmity. But it is intended to establish the terms on which we may now claim acceptance, and, in consequence of his racious promise, may say, that ‘ God is faith- ‘ul and just to forgive us owr sins.’ The creed relates only to the covenant of salvation; and any expression which, used separately without this view and connection, might be thought to bear a stronger and more absolute sense, yet is limited by this relative coherence, and is to be interpreted by it. ‘ Perishing everlastingly,’ in other discourses, may sometimes be under- stood of everlasting damnation; but here it means the being for ever excluded from the only stated claim of promised mercy. And ‘without doubt,’ he who does not embrace the truths proposed by revelation, has no title to those ee which that revelation, and that only, offers to mankind. And even when such expressions of terror are used in the strongest sense, and threatened to unbelief or disobedience, they universally imply such ex- ceptions as these,—' Unless personal disabili- ties lessen the guilt, or repentance intervene to prevent the punishment.’ In short, no objec- tion can be made against this assertion in the creed, but what would hold asstrongly against 260 CON that declaration of our blessed Lord, ‘ He thag believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; bug he that believeth not shall be damned,’ Mark xvi, 15. Indeed, this condemnatory sentence in this form by human authority is plainly founded on and borrowed from that divine au- thority in the Gospel ; and whatever distine- tions and limitations are allowed in that case are equally applicable to this, and will fully justify both. The necessity of a true belief in all whom Providence has blessed with the means and opportunities of learning it, in order to entitle them federally to eternal salvation, being thus established upon Scripture proof, the creed goes on very regularly to declare what is that true belief so indispensably neces- sary.” This is, perhaps, all that can he said in favour of these comminations; but few will think it quite satisfactory. The effect of them has doubtless been, to induce many to fly te the opposite extreme of laxity on the subject of fundamental doctrines. Before leaving the ancient formulas of Christian doctrine, it may be stated, that both in the council of Ephesus against the Nesto- rians, held A. D. 431; and in that of Chalce- don, against the Eutychians, in 45]; it was solemnly declared and decreed, that “ Christ was one divine person, in whom two natures, the human and the divine, were most closely united, but without being mixed or confounded together.” 7. Amid the variance and opposition of coun- cil to council, and pope to pope, (A. D. 1553,) which prevailed for centuries in the Romish church, it would be no easy task to ascertain the real articles of its confession. The decrees of the council of Trent, however, together with the creed of Pope Pius IV, are now com- monly understood to be the authoritative stand- ards of its faith and worship. These, beside recognising the authority of the Apostles’ and the Nicene Creeds, embrace a multitude of dogmas which it is unnecessary particularly tq specify, relating to traditions, the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, eucharist, penance, extreme unction, order, and matrimony, tran- substantiation, the sacrifice of the mass, worshipping of images, purgatory, indul- gences, &c, &c. 8. The Greek church has no public or esta- blished confession; but its creed, so far as can be gathered from its authorized catechisms, admits the doctrines of the Nicene and Athan- asian Creeds, with the exception of the article in each concerning the, procession of the Holy Spirit, which it affirms to be “ from the Father only, and not from the Father and the Son.” It disowns the supremacy and infalli- bility of the pope, purgatory by fire, graven images, and the restriction of the sacrament to one kind; but acknowledges the seven sa craments of the catholics, the religious use of pictures, invocation of saints, transubstantia- tion, and masses and prayers for the dead. 9. Though the Romish church early “ee priated to itself the exclusive title of catholic, or universal ; and though, for many centuries, its unscriptural tenets pervaded the far greater CON part of Europe; not only were there always some individuals who adhered to the doctrines of genuine Christianity, but, long before the Protestant reformation, there appear to have been whole congregations who maintained, in considerable purity, the substance of the faith contained in Scripture. Such were the churches of the Waldenses in the valleys of Piedmont, whose confession, of so early a date as the beginning of the twelfth century, is still preserved. It consists of fourteen articles, of which the following is a copy, taken from the Cambridge MSS, and bearing date A. D. 1120:—(1.) We believe and firmly hold all that which is contained in the twelve articles of the symbol, which is called the Apostles’ Creed, accounting for heresy whatsoever is disagreeing, and not consonant to the said twelve articles. (2.) We do believe that there is one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. GC) We acknowledge for the holy canonical criptures the books of the Holy Bible. [Here follows a list of the books of the Old and New Testament, exactly the same as those we have in our English authorized version. Then fol- lows a list of ‘‘ the books apocryphal, which,” with admirable simplicity they say, “are not received of the Hebrews. But we read them, as saith St. Jerom in his Prologue to the Pro- verbs, ‘for the instruction of the people, not to confirm the authority of the doctrine of the church.’”] (4.) The books above-said teach this, that there is one God, almighty, all-wise, and all-good, who has made all things by his goodness; for he formed Adam in his own image and likeness, but that by the envy of the devil, and the disobedience of the said Adam, sin has entered into the world, and that we are sinners in Adam and by Adam. (5.) That Christ was promised to our fathers who received the law, that so knowing by the law their sin, unrighteousness, and insufficiency, they might desire the coming of Christ, to satisfy for their sins, and accomplish the law by himself. (6.) That Christ was born in the time appointed by God the Father; that is to say, in the time when all iniquity abounded, and not for the cause of good works, for all were sinners; but that he miglit show us grace and mercy, as being faithful. (7.) That Christ is our life, truth, peace, and righteousness; also our pastor, advocate, sacrifice, and priest ; who died for the salvation of all those that believe, and is risen for our justification. (8.) In like manner, we firmly hold that there is no other Mediator and Advocate with God the Father, save only Jesus Christ. And as for ‘the virgin Mary, that she was holy, humble, and full of grace. And in like manner do we believe concerning all the other saints; namely, that, being in heaven, they wait for the resur- rection of their bodies at the day of judgment. (9.) Item, We believe that, after this life, there are only two places, the one for the saved, and the other for the damned; the which two pleases we call paradise and hell, absolutely denying that purgatory invented by antichrist, and forged contrary to the truth. (10.) Item, We have always accounted as an unspeakable 261 CON abomination before God all those inventions of men; namely, the feasts and the vigils of saints, the water which they call holy: as like- wise to abstain from flesh upon certain days, and the like; but especially their masses. (11.) We esteem for an abomination, and as antichristian, all those human _ inventions which are a trouble or prejudice to the liberty of the spirit. (12.) We do believe that the sa- craments are signs of the holy thing, or visible forms of the invisible grace; accounting it good that the faithful sometimes use the said signs or visible forms, if it may be done. How- ever, we believe and hold, that the above-said faithful may be saved without receiving the signs aforesaid, in case they have no place nor any means to use them. (13.) We acknow- ledge no other sacrament than baptism and the Lord’s Supper. (14.) We ought to honour the secular powers by submission, ready obe- dience, and paying of tributes.” These churches had, in modern times, another con- fession imposed upon them, after they began to receive pastors from Geneva, which is strongly tinged with Calvinism. It bears date A. D. 1655. 10. The first Protestant confession was that presented in 1530, to the diet of Augsburg, by the suggestion and under the direction of John, elector of Saxony. This wise and prudent prince, with the view of having the principal grounds on which the Protestants had separat- ed from the Romish communion, distinctly submitted to that assembly, entrusted the duty of preparing a summary of them to the divines of Wittemberg. Nor was that task a difficult one; for the reformed doctrines had already been digested into seventeen articles, which had been proposed at the conferences both at Sultzbach and Smalcald, as the confession of faith to be adopted by the Protestant confede- rates. These, accordingly, were delivered to the elector by Luther, and served as the basis of the celebrated Augsburg confession, writ- ten “by the elegant and accurate pen of Me- lancthon :” a work which has been admired by marty even of its enemies, for its perspicuity, piety, and erudition. It contains twenty-eight chapters, the leading topics of which are, the true and essential divinity of Christ; his sub- stitution and vicarious sacrifice; original sin; human inability; the necessity, freedom, and efficacy of divine grace; consubstantiation; and particularly justification by faith, to esta- blish the truth and importance of which was one of its chief objects. The last seven articles condemn and confute the Popish tenets of com- munion in one kind, clerical celibacy, private masses, auricular confession, legendary tradi- tions, monastic vows, and the exorbitant power of the church. This confession is silent on the doctrine of predestination. This is the univer- sal standard of orthodox doctrine among those who profess to be Lutherans, in which no au- thoritative alteration has ever been made. 11. The confession of Basle, originally pre- sented, like the preceding, to the diet of Augs- burg, but not published till 1534, consists of only twelve articles, which, in every essential CON pomt, agree with those of the Augsburg con- fession, except that it rejects the doctrine of consubstantiation ; affirming that Christ is only spiritually present in the Lord’s Supper, sacra- mentaliter nimirum, et per memorationem fidet ; [that is to say sacramentally, and by faith ;] and that it asserts the doctrine of predestina- tion and infant baptism. But the more detailed creed of the whole Swiss Protestant churches is contained in the former and latter Helvetic confessions. The first was drawn up in 1536, by Bullinger, Myconius, and Gryneus, in be- half of the churches of Helvetia, and presented to an assembly of divines at Wittemberg, by whom it was cordially approved. But being deemed too concise, a second was prepared in 1556, by the pastors of Zurich; which was sub- scribed not only by all the Swiss Protestants, but by the churches of Geneva and Savoy, and By many of those in Hungary and Poland. hey fully harmonize with each other, with only this difference, that the doctrines of pre- destination, and an approbation of the observ- ance of such religious festivals, as the nativity, &c, are to be found in the latter confession only. 12. The Bohemic confession was compiled from various ancient confessions of the Wal- denses who had settled in Bohemia, and ap- po of by Luther and Melancthon in 1530, ut it was not published till 1535; when it was pes by the barons and other nobles to ing Ferdinand. It extends to twenty articles, similar to those of the Waldensian confession, with the addition of others on the divinity of Christ, justification by faith in him, “ without any human help or merit,” predestination, and the absolute necessity of sanctification and good works. 13. The confession of the Saxon churches was composed in 1551 by Melancthon, at the desire of the pastors of Saxony and Misnia met in assembly at Wittemberg, in order to be pre- sented to the council of Trent. It is contain- ed in twenty-two articles; and while, like that of Augsburg, it is silent on the subject of pre- destination, it lays equal stress on the doctrine of justification by faith; and has a separate article entitled“ Rewards,” in which the doctrine of human merit, particularly as connected with future blessedness, is condemned and refuted. 14. Some account of the framing of the Eng- lish Confession of Faith has been already given sander the article Church of England and Ire- cand. The “ Articles of Religion” are there said to have been amended and completed in the year 1571; and the Rev. Henry J. Todd, in his very able work on this subject, has shown their Melancthonian origin and character by extracts from the “ Articles of Religion,” “ set out by the Convocation, and published by the king’s authority,” in 1536;—from those of 1540 ;—from Cranmer’s “ Necessary Erudition of any Christian Man,” published in 1543 — ‘om the Homilies on Salvation, Faith, and Good Works, in 1547, which three were, accord- ing to Bishop Woolton’s unimpeached testi- mony (in 1576) composed by Archbishop Cran- mer ;—from the “ Reformatio Legum Ecclesi- 262 CON asticarwm,” “composed under the superintend- ence of the same watchful primate, in 155] ;” —from the “ Articles of Religion,” “formed in 1552, almost wholly by Cranmer ;”—from “ Catechismus Brevis, Christiane Discipline Summam continens,” in 1553, which was pub- lished in English, as well as Latin, and com. monly called ‘‘ Edward the Sixth’s Catechism ;” and from Bishop Jewel’s celebrated “ Apologia Ecclesia Anglicane,” ‘ published in 1562 by the queen’s authority, thus recognised as a na- tional Confession of Faith, and as such has been printed in the Corpus Confessionwm Fidei.” “Such,” says Mr. Todd, “ are the several pub- lic documents or declarations, produced or made before the establishment of the Thirty- nine Articles of Religion, from which I have given extracts, (o which the framers of these Articles directed their attention, with the spirit of which they concur, and the words of which they almost literally adopt. There will also be found, as chronologically preceding these considerble extracts from the Confession 0 Augsburg, the whole article from the Saxon Confession, De Remissione Peccatorum, et Jus- tificatione, [respecting the forgiveness of sins, and justification,] and such passages in our Liturgy as concern the points which the Arti- cles and Homilies exhibit.” No one who has perused these documents will require any addi- tional argument to convince him, that, in its very foundations, the English Confession of Faith was most explicitly in favour of general redemption. We cannot therefore be surprised at all the old orthodox divines of the church of England, from 1610 to 1660, refusing to be called ARminians; for they repeatedly declared that their own church openly professed similar doctrines to those promulgated by the Dutch professor, long before his name was known in the world. In this assertion they were perfectly correct; and by every important fact in our ecclesiastical history, as connected with doc- trinal matters, their views are confirmed. If the Articles were actually of a Calvinistic com- lexion, as they are now often represented to fe what could have induced Whitaker and other learned Calvinists to waste so much valu- able time and labour in fabricating the Lambeth Articles in 15952 Those worthies avowed, that the original Thirty-nine Articles were not doc- trinal enough for their purpose—When four choice divines, two of them professors of di- vinity at Cambridge, were sent to the synod of Dort as deputies from the English church, and one from the church of Scotland, though their political instructions went the full length of assisting in the condemnation and oppression: of the Arminians, personally considered as a troublesome party in the republic, yet they had different instructions respecting their doctrines. On the second article, discussed in that synod, ‘the extent of Christ’s redemption,” Balcan- qual, the deputy from the church of Scotland, informs the English ambassador at the Hague, that a difference had arisen among the British deputies : “‘ The question among us is, whether the words of Scripture, which are likewise the words of our confession, be to be understood CON vt all particular men, or only of the elect who consist of all sorts of men? Dr. Davenant and Dr. Ward are of Martinius of Breme his mind, that itis to be understeod of all particular men: the other three [Bishop Carleton, Dr. Goad, and Dr. Balcanqual] take the other exposition, which is that of the writers of the reformed churches.” The ambassador wrote home for instructions, and received orders for the British deputies “to have those conclusions concern- ing Christ’s death, and the application of it to us, couched in manner and terms as near as possibly may be to those which were used in the primitive church, by the fathers of that time, against the Pelagians and Semi-Pela- gians, and not in any new phrase of the mo- dern age; and that the same may be as agreea- ble to the confessions of the church of England and other reformed churches, and with as little distaste and umbrage to the Lutheran churches, as may be.” Archbishop Abbott expressed his approbation of their ‘“ cautelous moderation” in withholding their “hand from pressing in public any rigorous exclusive propositions in the doctrine of the extent of our Saviour Christ’s oblation.” The history of this affair, which cannot be here detailed, shows, that, however willing the three cleputies were to condemn the remonstrants, the resistance of the two more moderate divines was approved by the authori- ties at home, and their opinions on this subject were recorded in such theses as no true Cal- vinist could consistently subscribe. During our civil troubles in 1643, the Assembly of Divines at Westminster revised the first fifteen of the Thirty-nine Articles, “ witha design,” as Neal in his “ History of the Puritans” candidly de- clares, ‘to render their sense more express and determinate in favour of Calvinism.” This they found to be a hopeless task, as the ancient creed was too incorrigible to be bent to their views; and they found it much easier to frame one after their own hearts, some account of which the reader will find in a subsequent paragraph.—All these facts go to prove, that the best informed Calvinists have always view- ed the English articles as not sufficiently high in doctrine, unless, as in the case of the seven- teenth, they be allowed to interpret them by interpolations or qualifying epithets. 15. The confession of the reformed Gallican churches was prepared by order of a synod at Paris in 1559; and presented to Charles IX. in 1561, by the celebrated Beza, in a conference with that monarch at Poissy. It was published for the first time in 1566, with a preface by the French clergy to the pastors of all Protestant churches; and afterward, in 1571, it was so- lemnly ratified and subscribed in the national synod of Rochelle. It is extended to forty ar- ticles; but they are in general concise, and embrace the usual topics of the other Protestant confessions, including the doctrines of election, and justification by faith only. 16. The Protestants in Scotland having pre- sented a petition to parliament in 1560, request- ing the public condemnation of Popery, and the legal acknowledgment of the reformed doctrine and worship, they were required to draw up a 263 ; CON summary of the doctrines which they could prove to be consonant with Scripture, and which they were anxious to have established. The ministers on whom this duty was devolved, being well acquainted with the subject, pre- pared the required summary in the course of four days, and laid it before parliament, when, after having been read first before the Lords of the Articles, and afterward twice (the second time article by article) before the whole parlia- ment, it received their sanction as the establish- ed system of belief and worship. It consists of twenty-five articles, and coincides with all the other Protestant confessions which affirm the doctrine of election, and reject that of consub- stantiation ; for although it is not so explicit as some of them respecting the unconditional na- ture of election, yet a distinct recognition of this doctrine pervades the whole of it; and though it has no separate article on justifica- tion, it no less plainly recognises this funda- mental principle of the Protestant faith. 17. The tenets of Arminius having obtained considerable prevalence in Holland toward the beginning of the seventeenth century, the Cal- vinists, or Gomarists, as they were then called, appealed to a national synod, which was con- vened at Dort in 1618, by order of the states- ange and attended by ecclesiastical deputies rom England, Switzerland, Bremen, Hesse, and the Palatinate, beside the clerical and lay representatives of the reformed churches in the United Provinces. The canons of this synod, contained in five chapters, relate to what are commonly called the five points ; namely, par- ticular and unconditional election; particular redemption, or the limitation of the saving effects of Christ’s death to the elect only; the total corruption of human nature, and the total moral inability of man in his fallen state; the irresistibility of divine grace; and the final perseverance of the saints; all of which are declared to be the true and the only doctrines of Scripture. 18. The Remonstrants, as the Dutch Armi- nians are generally called, did not present a confession of faith to the synod of Dort, but only their sentiments on the five points enume- rated in the preceding paragraph, with corres- ponding rejections of errors under each of thoss points. However, in the first year of their exiie, they applied themselves diligent:y to this task, and soon produced an ample confession, prin- cipally composed by the celebrated Episcopius. In the preface they give copious reasons for such a record of their opinions; which Cour- celles has thus expressed in a more summary: manner :—“ They did not publish it for the- purpose of making it a standard of schism, by~ which they might separate themselves from: men who held other opinions ; nor for the pur-- pose of having it esteemed by those under their: pastoral care as a secondary rule of faith ,—- which is in these days with many persons a most pernicious abuse of this kind of confes- sions. But it was published solely with the intention to stop the mouths of those who calumniously assert, that the Remonstrants cherish within their bosoms portentous dogmas CON , which they dare not divulge. For there is no cause for doubting, whether under such circum- stances and for this purpose, it is not lawful for men to publish a confession of their faith, especially as St. Peter admonishes us ‘ always to be ready to give an answer to every man that asketh us a reason of the hope that is in us with meekness and fear.’” This confession is of a more practical character than any of the preceding: it inculcates, at great length, all the most important duties of Christianity, and, in the words of the preface, ‘directs all things to the practice of Christian piety. For we believe that true divinity is merely practical, and not either simply or for its greatest or chief part speculative ; and therefore whatever things are delivered therein ought to be referred thither only,—that a man may be the more strongly and fitly inflamed and encouraged to a diligent performance of his duty, and keeping of the commandments of Jesus Christ.” In the Eng- lish translator’s address to the reader in 1676, it is said, ‘“‘ Touching the worth of this book, as a summary of Christian religion, if Doctor Jeremy Taylor’s judgment be of credit with thee, 1 am credibly informed he should prefer it to be one of those two or three which, next the Holy Bible, he would have preserved from the supposed total destruction of books. A high encomium from the mouth of so learned and pious a divine!” But though its contents were chiefly practical, one expression in it, re- specting the propriety of tolerating in a Chris- tian community a man who denied the eternal generation of Teas Christ, produced a contro- versy in Holland, as well as in this country, in which the famous Bishop Bull eminently distinguished himself. See Dorr and Re- MONSTRANTS. 19. The only other confession of which we shall take notice is that of the Westminster assembly, which met in 1643, and at which five ministers and three elders as commissioners from the general assembly of the church of Scotland attended, agreeably to engagements between the convention of estates there, and both houses of parliament in England. This confession is contained in thirty-three chapters, and in every point of doctrine, fully accords with the sentiments of the synod of Dort; and on some points going rather beyond it, as with respect to a supposed election of angels. It was approved and adopted by the general assembly in 1647; and two years after, ratified by act of parliament, as “the public and avowed confes- sion of the church of Scotland.” By act of parliament in 1690, it was again declared to be the national standard of faith in Scotland; and subscription to it as “the confession of his faith,” specially required of every person who shall be admitted “a minister or preacher with- in this church.” Subscription to it was also enjoined by the act of union in 1707, on all “professors, principals, regents, masters, and others bearing office,” in any of the Scottish ‘universities. CONFLAGRATION, a general burning of a city,or other considerable place. But the word is more ordinarily restrained to that grand 264 CON period, or catastrophe of our world, wherem the face of nature is expected to be changed by a deluge of fire, as it was anciently by that of water. The ancient Chaldeans, Pythagoreans, Platonists, Epicureans, Stoics, Celts, and Et ru- rians, appear to have had a notion of the con- flagration ; though whence they should derive it, unless from the sacred books, it is difficult to conceive; except, perhaps, from the Pheni- cians, who themselves had it from the Jews, The Celts, whose opinions resembled those of the eastern nations, held, that after the burning of the world, a new period of existence would commence. The ancient Etrurians, or Tus- cans, also concurred with other western and northern nations of Celtic origin, as well as with the Stoics, in asserting the entire renova- tion of nature after a long period, or great year, when a similar succession of events would again take place. The cosmogony of an an- cient Etrurian, preserved by Suidas, limits the duration of the universe to a period of twelve thousand years ; six thousand of which passed in the production of the visible world, before the formation of man. The Stoics also main- tained that the world is liable to destruction from the prevalence of moisture or of drought; the former producing a universal inundation, and the latter, a universal conflagration. “These,” they say, ‘‘ succeed each other ir nature, as regularly as winter and summer.’ The doctrine of conflagration is a natural con- sequence of the general system of Stoicism; for, since, according to this system, the whole process of nature is carried on in a necessary series of causes and effects, when that, opera- tive fire, which at first, bursting from chaos, gave form to all things, and which has since pervaded and animated all nature, shall have consumed its nutriment; that is, when the va- pours, which are the food of the celestial fires, shall be exhausted, a deficiency of moisture must produce a universal conflagration. This grand revolution in nature is, after the doc trine of the Stoics, thus elegantly described by Ovid :— “ Esse quoque in fatis reminiscitur, affore tempus Quo mare, quo tellus, correptaque regia celi Ardeat ; et mundi moles operosa laboret.” Metawmonr. lib. i, 256. or, as Dryden has translated the passage— “Rememb’ring in the fates a time when fire Should to the battlements of heaven aspire: When all his blazing worlds above should burn, And all the inferior globe to cinders turn.” Seneca, speaking of the same event, says expressly, “‘ Tempus advenerit quo sidera side- ribus incurrent, et omni flagrante materia wno igne, quicquid nunc ex deposito lucet, ardebit ;” that is, “the time will come when the world will be consumed, that it may be again renew- ed; when the powers of nature will be turned against herself, when stars will rush upon stars, and the whole material world, which now ap- pears resplendent with beauty and harmony, will be destroyed in one general conflagration.” In this grand catastrophe of nature, all ani+ mated beings (excepting the Universal Intel- cON igence,) men, heroes, demons, and gods, shall perish together. Seneca, the tragedian, who was of the same school with the philosopher, writes to the same purpose :— “ Celi regia concidens Certos atque obitus trahet : Atque omnes pariter deos Perdet mors aliqua, et chaos”? “The mighty palace of the sky In ruin fall’n is doomed to lie; And all the gods, its wreck beneath, Shall sink ‘n chaos and in death.” The Pythagoreans also maintained the dogma of conflagration. To this purpose Hippasus, of Metapontum, taught that the universe is finite. is always changing, and undergoes a periodical conflagration. Philolaus, who flou- rished in the time of Plato, maintained that the world is liable to destruction both by fire and water. Mention of the conflagration is also several times made in the books of the Siby's, Sophocles, Lucan, &c. Dr. Burnet, after I*. Tachard and others, relates that the Siamese believe that the earth will at last be parched up with heat, the mountains meltcd down, and the earth’s whole surface reduced to a level, and then consumed with fire. And the Bramins of Siam do not only hold that the world shall be destroyed by fire, but also that a new earth shall be made out of the cinders of the old. The sacred Scriptures announce this general destruction of the world by fire in a variety of passages. 2. Various are the sentiments of authors on the subject of the conflagration; the cause whence it is to arise, and the effects it is to pro- duce. Divines ordinarily account for it meta- physically; and will have it take its rise from a miracle, as a fire from heaven. Philosophers contend for its being produced from natural causes; and will have it effected according to the laws of mechanics: some think an erup- tion of a central fire sufficient for the purpose ; and add, that this may be occasioned several ways; namely, either by having its intensity increased, (which, again, may be effected either by being driven into less space by the encroach- ments of the superficial cold, or by an incréase of the inflammability of the fuel whereon it is fed,) or by having the resistance of imprison- _ ing earth weakened ; which may happen either from the diminution of its matter, by the con- sumption of its central parts, or by weakening the cohesion of the constituent parts of the mass, by the excess or the defect of moisture. Others look for the cause of the conflagration in the atmosphere; and suppose that some of the meteors there engendered in unusual quanti- ties, and exploded with unusual vehemence, from the concurrency of various circumstances, may be made to effect it, without seeking any farther. The astrologers account for it from a conjunction of all the planets in the sign Can- cer; “as the deluge,” say they, ‘‘ was occa- sioned by their conjunction in Capricorn.” This was an opinion adopted by the ancient Chaldeans. Lastly: others have recourse to a still more effectual and flaming machine; and eonclude the world is to undergo its conflagra- 265 CON tion from the near approach of a comet, in its return from the sun. Tt is most natural to con- clude, that, as the Scriptures represent the catas- trophe as the work of a moment, no gradually operating natural cause will be employed to effect it, but that He who spake and the world was created, will again destroy it by the same word of his power ; Pee loose at once the all-devouring element of fire to absorb all others. Beyond this, all is conjecture. CONFUSION OF TONGUES is a memo- rable event, which happened in the one hun- dred and first year, according to the Hebrew chronology, after the flood, B. C. 2247, at the overthrow of Babel; and which was providen- tially brought about, in order to facilitate the dispersion of mankind, and the population of the earth. Until this period, there had been one common language, which formed a bond of union, that prevented the separation of man- kind into distinct nations. 2. There has been a considerable difference of opinion as to the nature of this confusion, and the manner in which it was effected. Some learned men, prepossessed with the no- tion that all the different idioms now in the world did at first arise from one original lan- guage, to which aed may be reduced, and that the variety among them is no more than must naturally have happened in a long course of time by the mere separation of the builders of Babel, have maintained, that there were no new languages formed at the confusion; but that this event was accomplished by creating a misunderstanding and variance among the builders, without any immediate influence on their language. But this opinion, advanced by Le Clerc, &c, seems to be directly contrary to the obvious meaning of the word nav, lip, used by the sacred historian; which, in other parts of Scripture, signifieth speech, Psalm ]xxxi, 5; Isaiah xxviii, 11; xxxili, 19; Ezekiel iii, 5. It has been justly remarked, that unanimity of sentiment, and identity of language, are par- ticularly distinguished from each other, in the history: ‘‘' The people is one, and they have all one language,” Gen. xi, 6. It has been also suggested, that if disagreement in opinion and counsel were the whole that was intended, it would have had a contrary effect; they would not have desisted from their project, but strenuously have maintained their respective opinions, till the greater number of them had compelled the minority either to fly or to submit. Others have imagined, that this was brought about by a temporary confusion of their speech, or rather of their apprehen- sions, causing them, while they continued to- gether and spoke the same language, to under- stand the words differently: Scaliger is of this opinion. Others again account for this event, by the privation of all language, and by sup- posing that mankind were under a necessity of associating together, and of imposing new names on things by common consent. An- other opinion ascribes the confusion to such an indistinct remembrance of the original lan- guage which they spoke before, as made them speak it very differently; so that by the varie CON ous inflections, terminations, and pronuncia- tions of divers dialects, they could no more understand one another, than they who under- stand Latin can understand those who speak French, Italian, or Spanish, though all these languages arise out of it. This opinion is adopted by Casaubon, and by Bishop Patrick in his Commentary, and is certainly much more robable than either of the former; and Mr. huckford maintains, that the confusion arose from small beginnings, by the invention of new words in either of the three families of Shem, Ham, and Japhet, which might contribute to separate them from one another; and that in each family new differences of speech might gradually arise, so that each of these families went on to divide and subdivide among them- selves. Others, again, as Mr. Joseph Mede and Dr. Wotton, &c, not satisfied with either of the foregoing methods of accounting for the diversity of languages among mankind, have recourse to an extraordinary interposition of divine power, by which new languages were framed and communicated to different families by a supernatural infusion or inspiration; which languages have been the roots and originals from which the several dialects that are, or have been, or will be, spoken, as long as this earth shall last, have arisen, and to which they may with ease be reduced. 3. It is, however, unnecessary to suppose, that the primitive language was completely obliterated, and entire new modes of speech at once introduced. It was quite sufficient, if such changes only were effected, as to render the speech of different companies or different tribes unintelligible to one another, that their mutual codperation in the mad attempt in which they had all engaged might be no longer practicable. The radical stem of the first lan- guage might therefore remain in all, though new dialects were formed, bearing amon, themselves a similar relation with what we find in the languages of modern Europe, derived from the same parent stem, whether Gothic, Latin, or Sclavonian. In the midst of these changes, it is reasonable to suppose that the pe language itself, unaltered, would still e preserved in some one at least of the tribes or families of the human race. Now in none of these was the transmission so likely to have taken place, as among that branch of the descendants of Shem, from which the patriarch Abraham proceeded. Upon these grounds, therefore, we may probably conclude, that the language spoken by Abraham, and by him transmitted to his posterity, was in fact the primitive language, modified indeed and ex- tended in the course of time, but still retaining its essential parts far more completely than any other of the languages of men. If these conclusions are well founded, they warrant the inference, that, in the ancient Hebrew, there are still to be found the traces of the original speech. Whether this ancient Hebrew more nearly resembled the Chaldean, the Syrian, or what is now termed the Hebrew, it is unne- cessary here to inquire; these languages, it has never been denied, were originally and 260 CON radically the same, though, from subsequent modifications, they appear to have assumed somewhat different aspects. CONGREGATIONALISTS, a denomina. tion of Protestants who reject all church go- vernment, except that of a single congrega- tion under the direction of one pastor, with their elders, assistants, or managers. In one particular, the Congregationalists differ from the Independents: the former invite councils, which, however, only tender their advice; but the latter are accustomed to decide all difficulties within themselves. See INDEPENDENTS. CONSCIENCE is that principle, power,