// ppgen source bibledict-src.txt
// 20150421190304watson
// KD Weeks, Richard Hulse and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)
// first edit: 12/8/2016
.dt A Biblical and Theological Dictionary , by Richard Watson
.de a:link { text-decoration: none; }
.de div.tnotes { padding-left:1em;padding-right:1em;background-color:#E3E4FA;border:1px solid silver; margin:1em 5% 0 5%; text-align: justify; font-size: 80%;}
.de .blackletter { font-family: "Old English Text MT", Gothic, serif;}
.de .epubonly {visibility: hidden; display: none; }
.de @media handheld { .epubonly { visibility: visible; display: inline; } }
.de .htmlonly {visibility: visible; display: inline;}
.de @media handheld { .htmlonly { visibility: hidden; display: none; } }
.de .compact { border-spacing: 0; border-collapse: collapse; }
.de .tdcompact { padding: 0px; padding-left:5.0em; text-align:left; }
.de .column-container { margin: auto; clear: both; text-align:center; width:80%;}
.de .column { display: inline-block; text-align: left; vertical-align: top; width:48%; }
//.de .column90{ display: inline-block; text-align: left; vertical-align: top; width:90%; }
//.de .column10{ display: inline-block; text-align: left; vertical-align: middle; width:5%; }
.de .tdborder { border-top: 1px solid black; border-right: 1px solid black; }
.de .tdbordertlb { border-top: 1px solid black; border-right: 1px solid black; border-bottom: 3px solid black;}
.sr h |(\d)⁄(\d)|\1⁄\2|
.sr h |'>@([0-9\.,]+)| tdborder'>\1|
.sr t |@([0-9\.,]+)| \1|
.sr h |'>#([0-9\.,]+)| tdbordertlb'>\1|
.sr t |#([0-9\.,]+)| \1|
//| 125 |
.sr t |\[oe\]|œ|
.sr t |\[OE\]|Œ|
.sr h |text-align: left; text-indent: -1em;|text-align: justify; text-indent: -1em;|
.sr h |||
.sr h |||
.sr t ||=|
.sr t ||=|
// inline images // name height
.dm ii $1
.if h
.if-
.if t
ASTERISK
.if-
.dm-
// create errata table page references
.dm cref $1
.if t
$1
.if-
.if h
#$1:corr$1#
.if-
.dm-
// create markup
.dm corr_noid $1 $2
.if h
$2
.if-
.dm-
.dm corr $1 $2 $3
.if t
$3
.if-
.if h
$3$3
.if-
.dm-
.dm start_summary
.fs 90%
.in 4
.ti -4
.dm-
.dm end_summary
.fs 100%
.in
.dm-
//Begin quote
.dm start_quote
.dv class='quote'
.dm-
//End Quote
.dm end_quote
.dv-
.dm-
// Begin Poetry
.dm start_poem
.sp 1
.fs 95%
.nf b
.dm-
// End Poetry
.dm end_poem
.nf-
.fs 100%
.dm-
.pb
.dv class='tnotes'
.ce
Transcriber’s Note:
.if t
This version of the text cannot represent certain typographical
effects. Italics are delimited with the ‘_’ character as _italic_.
.if-
The original text was printed in two columns, which cannot be
replicated here.
As is common in dictionaries, each column is headed with a
three-letter indication of the first and last articles on that page.
This feature is not feasible here.
Minor errors, attributable to the printer, have been corrected. Please
see the transcriber’s #note:endnote# at the end of this text
for details regarding the handling of any textual issues encountered
during its preparation.
There are several unusual Greek characters employed in this text:
.ta l:4 l:50
ȣ | ligature of ‘[Greek: ou]’
ϛ | stigma, a ligature of ‘[Greek: st]’
ϖ | a cursive variant of ‘[Greek: p]’, almost always used as the first\
character of a word.
ϐ | a cursive variant of ‘[Greek: b]’, used in any position other\
than the first character, which appears as ‘[Greek: b]’.
.ta-
.if h
.dv class='htmlonly'
The map appearing as the #frontispiece:ifront#, as well as those facing pp. #76:i0076#, #524:i0524#, #724:i0724#, #728:i0728# serve
as links to larger versions of those maps.
.dv-
.dv class='epubonly'
There are maps appearing as the #frontispiece:ifront#, as well as facing pp. #76:i0076#, #524:i0524#, #724:i0724#, #728:i0728#
in the original.
.dv-
The cover image has been created, based on title page information, and
is added to the public domain.
.if-
.if h
.dv class='htmlonly'
.il fn=cover.jpg w=487px
.dv-
.ig
.ta l:5 l:5 l:5 l:5 l:5 l:5 l:5 l:5
A| #AAR:AAR# | #ADA:ADA# | #ALM:ALM# | #ANT:ANT# | #ARA:ARA# | #ART:ART# | #ATO:ATO#
B| #BAA:BAA# | #BAP:BAP# | #BAX:BAX# | #BET:BET# | #BIE:BIE# | #BOO:BOO# | #BRI:BRI#
C| #CAB:CAB# | #CAM:CAM# | #CAP:CAP# | #CHA:CHA# | #CIL:CIL# | #COP:COP# | #CRE:CRE#
D| #DAG:DAG# | | #DEB:DEB# | #DIA:DIA# | | |
E| #EAG:EAG# | | | | | |
F| #FAB:FAB# | | | | | |
G| #GAB:GAB# | | | | | |
H| #HAB:HAB# | | | | | |
I| #ICO:ICO# | | | | | |
J| #JAB:HAB# | | | | | |
K| #KAD:KAD# | | | | | |
L| #LAB:LAB# | | | | | |
M| #MAA:MAA# | | | | | |
N| #NAA:NAA# | | | | | |
O| #OAK:OAK# | | | | | |
P| #PAD:PAD# | | | | | |
Q| #QUA:QUA# | | | | | |
R| #RAB:RAB# | | | | | |
S| #SAB:SAB# | | | | | |
T| #TAB:TAB# | | | | | |
U| #UNB:UNB# | | | | | |
V| #VEI:VEI# | | | | | |
W| #WAL:WAL# | | | | | |
Y| #YEA:YEA# | | | | | |
Z| #ZAB|ZAB# | | | | | |
.ta-
.ig-
.if-
.dv-
.bn 0001.png
.gk
.sp 4
.h1
A BIBLICAL AND THEOLOGICAL | DICTIONARY:
.hr 20%
.nf c
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.
[REVISED BY THE AMERICAN EDITORS.]
.nf-
.in 6
.ti -3
[Greek: LIM’ÊN e)ϛin a)ky/mantos, kai\ teichos a)rrage\s, kai\ ϖy/rgos a)/seistos, kai\ do/xa a)naphai/retos, kai\ o(/ pla
a)/trôta, kai\ eu)thymi/a a)ma/rantos, kai\ ê(donê\ diênekê\s, kai\ ϖa/nta osa a)/n e)/ipoi ti\s kala\, tô~n thei~ôn
graphô~n ê( synȣsi/a.]--Chrysostom.
.ti -3
[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
perpetual delight, and whatever other excellence can be uttered.]
.in
.il fn=i_titlepage.jpg w=50px ew=30%
.nf c
NEW-YORK,
PUBLISHED BY B. WAUGH AND T. MASON,
FOR THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, AT THE CONFERENCE
OFFICE, 14 CROSBY-STREET.
.nf-
.hr 10%
.nf c
J. Collord, Printer.
1832.
.nf-
.bn 0002.png
.ni
.sp 8
“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-York.”
.sp 8
.bn 0003.png
.pi
.sp 4
.h2
PREFACE BY THE AUTHOR.
.hr 10%
.sp 2
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
instances 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 occurring
in the Bible, with their significations and right pronunciation, is appended.
London, August 20, 1831.
.bn 0004.png
.sp 4
.h2
ADVERTISEMENT TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.
.sp 2
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 of a similar character which have preceded
it, we think it will be conceded by all, that Mr. Watson, by furnishing this Dictionary,
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.
.ll 68
.rj
N. Bangs.
.ll
New-York, Sept. 25, 1832.
.bn 0005.png
.bn 0006.png
.il id=ifront fn=i_front_map.jpg w=100% ew=90% link=i_front_mapfp.jpg
.ca
The
WORLD,
as Peopled by
THE DESCENDANTS OF
NOAH
Shewing the Countries possessed by
SHEM, HAM & JAPHET
and their posterity
.ca-
.bn 0007.png
.sp 4
.nf c
A
BIBLICAL AND THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY.
.nf-
.sp 4
.bn 0008.png
.pn 1
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 committed
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 receive
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 overwhelmed
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 departed,
and Moses remained with God on the
very summit of the mount forty days.
During this period, the people, grown impatient
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, probably
in imitation of the Egyptian 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 unrepealed 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 pedestal,
.bn 0009.png
and danced around it, saying, “These be thy
gods, O Israel;” or, as it is expressed in Nehemiah,
“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 of the law
in their presence, that the covenant between
God and them was now rendered of none effect
through their offence. He also indignantly reproved
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 consecrated
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 immediately
from God, opened Aaron’s eyes; he acknowledged
his fault, and asked forgiveness of
Moses both for himself and his sister.
Aaron himself became also the object of jealousy;
but two miraculous interpositions confirmed
him in his office of high priest, as of
Divine appointment. The first was the destruction
of Korah, who sought that office for himself,
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 showing
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 Elisheba, the daughter of
Amminadab, of the tribe of Judah, by whom he
had four sons, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and
Ithamar, Exodus vi, 23. The two first were
.bn 0010.png
.pn +1
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 peculiarly
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 vestments,--“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 PRIESTHOOD 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 sacrifices.
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 priesthood
was confined to the first-born in succession;
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 inferior
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.
viii, 12; Psa. cxxxiii, 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 necessary
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 embroidered
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
.bn 0011.png
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, containing
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 broad, whereon was engraved,
“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, which was once a year. These
were: linen drawers--a linen coat--a linen
girdle--a linen mitre, all white, Exod. xxviii;
Lev. 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 restrictions;
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 consecration:
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 put into the priest’s hand, which
was called “filling his hand;” hence the Hebrew
phrase, “to fill the hand,” signifies consecration.
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 nearest
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, brother,
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 resembled
our bishop and his suffragan.
3. Aaron was a TYPE of Christ, not personally,
but as the high priest of the Jewish church.
All the priests, as offering gifts and sacrifices,
.bn 0012.png
.pn +1
were in their office types of Christ; but Aaron
especially, 1. As the high priest. 2. In entering
into the holy place on the great day of atonement,
and reconciling the people to God; in
making intercession for them, and pronouncing
upon them the blessing of Jehovah, at the termination
of solemn services. 3. In being anointed
with the holy oil by effusion, which was prefigurative
of the Holy Spirit with which our
Lord was endowed. 4. In bearing the names of
all the tribes of Israel upon his breast and upon
his shoulders, thus presenting them always before
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 ORDER than his, namely,
that of Melchizedeck. See #Calf:CALF#, #Priest:PRIEST#,
#Type:TYPE#, #Ephod:EPHOD#, #Breastplate:BREASTPLATE#, #Urim: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 of 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 destruction
of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar, in
the year before Christ 587. Josephus observes,
that the burning of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar
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 extinguished
on that night, in the reign of Ahaz.
On the twenty-first, or, according to Scaliger,
the twenty-second day, was a feast called Xylophoria,
from their laying up the necessary wood
in 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 enacted,
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 Romans;
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 acknowledged
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 monarchs of that part of Arabia from
.bn 0013.png
which Mohammed came; and considers the
passage as descriptive of the inundation of the
Saracens. Mr. Lowman adopts and confirms
this interpretation. He shows that the rise and
progress of the Mohammedan religion and empire
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
power. Mr. Bryant supposes Abaddon to have
been the name of the Ophite deity, the worship
of whom prevailed very anciently and very
generally.
ABANA. Naaman, the leper, on being directed
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 Damascus
to be the Abana, and the streams which
water the gardens without the city, to be Pharpar;
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, a Syriac 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, 15, 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 confidence
in prayer; and to regard themselves as
heirs of the heavenly inheritance. This adoption
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, a term 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
particularly used in the Syriac, Coptic, and
Ethiopic 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 is,
grandfather; a title which he bore before the
bishop of Rome.
ABEDNEGO, the Chaldee name given by
.bn 0014.png
.pn +1
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, which 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, appeared
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, living
among idolaters, to hold fast their religion. It
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 himself
without witness” among them. A great
temporary effect was produced by this and other
miracles related in the book of Daniel; but the
people relapsed again into idolatry, and justly
brought 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 impulse,
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 remained
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 offering
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 particular
.bn 0015.png
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 acceptance
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 excite
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 relationship
and the “righteous” character of the
sufferer, and having in it also the nature of religious
persecution,--he was pronounced by the
Lord “cursed from the earth.”
2. As the sacrifice of Abel is the first on record,
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 expressions intimate that it was EXPIATORY
and PREFIGURATIVE.
As to the matter of the sacrifice, it was an animal
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 supported
by the import of the phrase, [Greek: ϖlei/ona thysi/an],
used by the Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews,
when speaking of the sacrifice of Abel.
Our translators have rendered it, “a more excellent
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 satisfactorily
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 quantity
.bn 0016.png
.pn +1
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
FAITH Abel offered unto God a more excellent
sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained WITNESS
that he was RIGHTEOUS, 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 accounted
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 accounted
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 faith; and the transaction
is, in both cases also, publicly and sensibly
witnessed,--as to Abraham, by the sign of
circumcision; as to Abel, by a visible acceptance
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 of a 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 witnessed
to him “that he was righteous.” So
forcibly do the words of St. Paul, when commenting
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 previous
“habit of a religious life,” as some say,
but with reference to his faith; and to this faith
as expressing itself by his offering “a more excellent
sacrifice.”
4. If, then, the faith of Abel had an immediate
connection with his sacrifice, and both with
his being accepted as “righteous,”--that is, justified,
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 mentioned
.bn 0017.png
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
warrant to confide in him. This supposes revelation,
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 to
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 received
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 inheritance
of his decendants, he showed his faith
by taking possession of it for them in anticipation,
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 particular
act, that act had a correspondency to the
previous promise or revelation which was the
ground 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 collected
from the significant manner in which he declared
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
.bn 0018.png
.pn +1
as necessarily implies, that there was some antecedent
revelation to which his faith, as thus
expressed, had respect, and on which that peculiarity
of his offering, which distinguished it
from the offering of Cain, was founded; a revelation
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 revelation
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 conferred,
in which promise Abel might confide. But
if so, then this promise must have been connected,
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 antecedent
revelation was, therefore, a promise of a
benefit to be conferred, by means of animal sacrifice;
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 justification,
and acceptance as righteous, by the forgiveness
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 appointed
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
expressed his faith in it. Had Abel’s sacrifice
been eucharistic merely, it would have expressed
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 respected
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 sacrifice
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 sacrifices
of expiation appointed by Divine 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 exhibition
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,--animal
.bn 0019.png
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 appointed
method of expiation to obtain forgiveness,
and to admit the guilty into the Divine favour.
“Abel,” Dr. Magee justly says, “in firm reliance
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 gracious
assurances that had been vouchsafed, or
at least disdaining to adopt the prescribed mode
of manifesting his belief, possibly as not appearing
to his reason to possess any efficacy or
natural fitness, thought he had sufficiently acquitted
himself of his duty in acknowledging
the general superintendence of God, and expressing
his gratitude to the Supreme Benefactor,
by presenting some of those good things
which he thereby confessed to have been derived
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 apprehension
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 actuated
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. l, 11. On this occasion the funeral
procession was, at the command of Joseph, attended
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-SHITTIM, a city situate in the plains
of Moab, beyond Jordan, opposite to Jericho,
Num. xxv, 1, &c; xxiii, 49; Joshua xi, 1. Eusebius
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 punished
them by the destruction of twenty-four
thousand persons in one day.
ABIAH, the second son of the prophet Samuel,
and brother of Joel. Samuel having entrusted
to his sons the administration of public
justice, and admitted them to a share in the government,
they behaved so ill, that the people
demanded a king, 1 Sam. viii, 2. A. M. 2909.
ABIATHAR, the son of Ahimelech, and the
tenth high priest among the Jews, and fourth
.bn 0020.png
.pn +1
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, transferred
the dignity of the high priesthood from
Ithamar’s family into that of Eleazar, by conferring
this office upon Zadok. Thus there
were, at the same time, two high priests in Israel,
Abiathar with David, and Zadok with
Saul. In this state things continued, until the
reign of Solomon, when Abiathar, being attached
to the party of Adonijah, was, by Solomon,
divested of his priesthood, A. M. 2989;
and the race of Zadok alone performed the
functions of that office during the reign of Solomon,
to the exclusion of the family of Ithamar,
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 afterward
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 commenced
in September, and consequently their
jubilees and other civil matters were regulated
in this 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 deliverance
from Egypt was a figure of the redemption
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 unleavened bread, on the
last of which days they held a solemn convocation,
Exod. xii, xiii. On the fifteenth they
gathered the sheaf of the barley first fruits, and
on 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 Nadab,
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 calamity
happened A. M. 2514; within eight days
after the consecration of Aaron and his sons.
Some commentators believe that this fire proceeded
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 conjecture
.bn 0021.png
is founded on the command of God delivered
immediately afterward to the priests, forbidding
them the use of wine during the time
they should be employed in the service of the
temple. Another class allege, that there was
nothing so heinous in their transgression, but
it was awfully punished, to teach ministers
fidelity and exactness in discharging their office.
It had a vastly more important meaning,--this
instance of vengeance is a standing
example of that divine wrath which shall consume
all who pretend to serve God, except with
incense kindled from the one altar and offering
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 Rehoboam,
king of Judah, and of Maachah, the
daughter of Uriel, who succeeded his father,
A. M. 3046, 2 Chron. xi, 20; xiii, 2, &c. The
Rabbins reproach this monarch with neglecting
to destroy the profane altar which Jeroboam
had erected at Bethel; and with not suppressing
the worship of the golden calves there
after his victory over that prince.
ABILENE, a small province in C[oe]lo 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 been
the title of the kings of Philistia, as Cæsar
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 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 Bethelite.
Joshua having destroyed the city of Jericho,
pronounced this curse: “Cursed be the
man, before the Lord, that riseth up and buildeth
this city, Jericho: he shall lay the foundation
thereof in his first-born, and in his youngest
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, having
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
of Divine prophecy!
2. Abiram, the son of Eliab, of the tribe of
Reuben, was one of those who conspired with
Korah and Dathan against Moses in the wilderness,
and was swallowed up alive, with his
companions, by the earth, which opened to receive
them, Num. xvi.
ABISHAG, a young woman, a native of
.bn 0022.png
.pn +1
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
women in Israel, 1 Kings i, 3; and the
king made her his wife. After his death, Adonijah
requested 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 only upon the condition
of his peaceable conduct. By this request
he convinced Solomon, that he was still
actuated by political views, and this brought
upon him the punishment of treason.
ABISHAI, the son of Zeruiah, David’s sister,
who was one of the most valiant men
of his time, and one of the principal generals
in David’s armies.
ABLUTION, purification by washing the
body, either in whole or part. Ablutions appear
to be almost as ancient as external worship
itself. Moses enjoined them; the Heathens
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 religions.
The Egyptian priests had their diurnal
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 Friday;
the Turks their greater and less ablutions,
&c.
Lustration, among the Romans, was a solemn
ceremony by which they purified their cities,
fields, armies, or people, after any crime or
impurity. 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
excepted, might perform some kind of lustration.
When a person died the house was
to be swept in a particular manner; new married
persons were sprinkled by the priest with
water. People sometimes, by way of purification,
ran several times naked through the
streets. There was scarcely any action performed,
at the beginning 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 David’s
warriors to fight with an equal number
of his. Joab consented: the twenty-four engaged;
and fell together on the spot. A fierce
.bn 0023.png
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. ii.
Not long after, Abner, taking it highly amiss
for Ishbosheth to charge him with lewd behaviour
toward Rizpah, Saul’s concubine, vowed
that he would quickly transfer the whole
kingdom 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
entertained 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 Joab’s
presence, the latter, partly from jealousy lest
Abner might become his superior, and partly
to revenge his brother Asahel’s death, mortally
stabbed him in the act of salutation. David, to
show how heartily he detested the act, honoured
Abner with a splendid funeral, and composed
an elegy on his death, 2 Sam. iii.
ABOMINATION. This term was used with
regard to the Hebrews, who, being shepherds,
are said to have been an abomination to the
Egyptians; because they sacrificed the animals
held sacred by that people, as oxen, goats, sheep,
&c, which the Egyptians esteemed unlawful.
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, Chrysostom affirms,
that every idol, and every image of a man,
was called an abomination among the Jews.
The “abomination of desolation” foretold by
the Prophet Daniel, x, 27, xi, 31, is supposed by
some interpreters to denote the statue of Jupiter
Olympius, which Antiochus Epiphanes caused
to be erected in the temple of Jerusalem. 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 former
passage, considered in its whole connection,
bears more immediate reference to that which
the evangelists have denominated the “abomination
of desolation,” Matt. xxiv, 15, 16; Mark
xiii, 14. This, without doubt, signifies the ensigns
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 sacrificed
.bn 0024.png
.pn +1
to them there. The horror with which
the Jews regarded them, sufficiently appears
from the account which Josephus gives of Pilate’s
introducing them into the city, when he
sent his army from Cæsarea into winter quarters
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 remonstrated,
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 ix, xii, observes,
that in the sixteenth year of the emperor
Adrian, B. C. 132, the Romans accomplished
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 desolate
of its old inhabitants. Others again have
applied the prediction of Daniel to the invasion
and desolation of Christendom by the Mohammedans,
and to their conversion of the churches
into mosques. From this interpretation they
infer, that the religion of Mohammed will prevail
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 millennium.
In general, whatever is morally or ceremonially
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 represented,
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, אברם, a high father; and ABRAHAM,
אבררם, father of a great multitude, the
son of Terah, born at Ur, a city of Chaldea,
A. M. 2008. The account of this eminent patriarch
occupies so large a part of the book of
Genesis, and stands so intimately connected
with both the Jewish and Christian dispensations,--with
the one by a political and religious,
and with the other by a mystical, relation,--that
his history demands particular notice. Our account
may be divided into his personal history,
and his typical, and mystic character.
I. Abraham’s PERSONAL 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
.bn 0025.png
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 astronomy,
as a science, is traced to this region;
and here, too, one of the earliest forms of idolatry,
the worship of the host of heaven, usually
called Tsabaism, first began to prevail. During
the three hundred and fifty years which elapsed
between the deluge and the birth of Abraham,
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 “fathers
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 little 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 nature
of the country, or the character of its inhabitants,
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 indicates
that if the family had formerly been idolatrous
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, accompanied
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 Canaan.
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.
.bn 0026.png
.pn +1
2. Here it may be observed, that the migrations
of Abraham and his sons show the manner
in which the earth was gradually covered with
people. In those ages some cities had been
built, 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 hereditary
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 Abraham,
had he not received the call of God to depart
to a distant 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, continued
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 constant
increase of population, continued to impel
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 themselves with a
new species of food, and as a medium of communication
by vessels with other countries for
the interchange of such commodities as their
own lands afforded with those offered by maritime
states, more or less distant. Thus were laid
the foundations of commerce, and thus the maritime
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, Egyptians,
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 America.
3. Abraham, knowing the dissolute character
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 Abraham
has been blamed for want of faith in God;
but it was perhaps no more than an act of common
prudence, as the seraglio of the Egyptian
monarch was supplied by any means, however
violent and lawless. Sarah, upon the
.bn 0027.png
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 returning
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 possession.
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 Jericho,
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 Melchizedec,
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, in a
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 countless
as the stars of heaven. And it is emphatically
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, perhaps
despairing that it would be accomplished
in her person, and the revelation which had
been made merely stating that this son should
be the fruit of Abraham’s body, without any
reference to her, she gave to him, according to
the custom of those times, one of her handmaids,
an Egyptian, to be his secondary wife,
who brought forth Ishmael. Children born in
.bn 0028.png
.pn +1
this manner had 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
promises 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 hospitality,
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 Abraham
is seen expostulating on the apparent injustice
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 hospitality
and nature, which Lot in his horror
attempted to avert by the most revolting expedient,
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 Abimelech
reigned; and again fearing lest Sarah
should be forced from him, and himself be put
to death, her beauty having been, it would appear,
preternaturally continued, notwithstanding
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, according
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 having
informed him that this was according to
the appointments of his providence, with respect
to future ages. About the same time,
Abimelech came with Phicol, his general, to
conclude an alliance with Abraham, who made
that prince a present of seven ewe lambs out
.bn 0029.png
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 ratified
with oaths. Here Abraham planted a
grove, built an altar, and for some time resided,
Gen. xx, xxi.
8. More than twenty years after this, (A. M.
2133,) God, for the final trial and illustration
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 prepared
for the affecting sacrifice; but when he
was about to give the blow, an angel from heaven
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.” Abraham,
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
Rebecca, daughter of Bethuel, grand-daughter
of Nahor, and, consequently, Abraham’s niece,
whom Isaac married. Abraham afterward married
Keturah; by whom he had six sons, Zimran,
Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and
Shuah; who became heads of different people,
which dwelt in Arabia, and around it. He 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 TYPICAL circumstances which were connected
with it.
.bn 0030.png
.pn +1
1. Abraham himself with his family may be
regarded as a type of the church of God in
future ages. They indeed constituted God’s
ancient church. Not that many scattered patriarchal
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. Two 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 worship;
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 proclaim
his faith in the eternal inheritance of
which Canaan was a type; and in bearing this
testimony, his example was followed by Isaac
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 members
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 distinguishes
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 sacrificer,
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
offering;” all indicate a mystery which lay
deep beneath this transaction, and which Abraham,
as the reward of his obedience, was permitted
to behold. “The day” of Christ’s humiliation
.bn 0031.png
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 a type. 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 supernaturally begotten into the
family of God. The bondwoman and her son
being cast out, represented also the expulsion
of the unbelieving 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 MYSTIC character, which it is of great
importance rightly to understand.
1. 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 justified.
A covenant of gratuitous justification
through faith was made with him and his believing
descendants; and the rite of circumcision,
which was not confined to his posterity
by Sarah, but appointed in every branch of his
family, was the sign or sacrament of this covenant
of grace, and so remained till it was displaced
by the sacraments appointed by Christ.
Wherever that sign was it declared the doctrine,
and offered the grace, of this covenant--free
justification by faith, and its glorious results--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 characters:--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 habitual
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 covenant
by sacrifice is illustrated in the account
given in Gen. xv, 9, 10. The beasts were slain
.bn 0032.png
.pn +1
and divided in the midst, and the persons covenanting
passed between the parts. Hence,
after Abraham had performed this part of the
ceremony, the symbol of the Almighty’s presence,
“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 retained
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 appear
without veils, she exposed herself to observation.
But to this day the Arab women do
not wear veils at home in their tents; and Sarah’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 distinguishing
rite among the worshippers of Moloch;
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 Phenecian ancestors on the shores of Syria.
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 superstition,
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 subjugation
of the national mind to an inhuman and
domineering priesthood. But the Mosaic religion
held human sacrifices in abhorrence; and
the God of the Abrahamitic family, uniformly
beneficent, had imposed no duties which entailed
human suffering, had demanded no offerings
which were repugnant to the better feelings
of our nature. The command to offer
Isaac as “a burnt offering,” was for these reasons
a trial the more severe to Abraham’s faith.
He 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 reliance
on the certain accomplishment of the
divine promises. Isaac, so miraculously bestowed,
could be as 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
.bn 0033.png
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 mythology,
and their religious traditions. Jews,
Magians, 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 following,
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 within
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 beheld
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. ‘Wondrous
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 conduct
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-xviii, at
large.
ABSOLUTION, in the church of Rome, is
a sacrament, in which the priests assume the
power 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 ministers
to declare and pronounce to his people, being
penitent, the absolution and remission of
their sins: He pardoneth,” &c. In this view
it is innocent; and although any private Christian
has a right to declare and pronounce the
same doctrine to his neighbour, the official publication
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
.bn 0034.png
.pn +1
It is generally used with reference to forbearance
from food under a religious motive. The
Jewish law ordained that the priests should abstain
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: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: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 prohibited
by the law; others treated this abstinence
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 succeeding
age, it was prolonged to six weeks,
and began to be called quadragesima, or the
forty days’ fast.
ABYSS, or DEEP, [Greek: a)/byssos], without bottom.
The chaos; the deepest parts of the sea; and,
in the 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 place they evidently
dreaded, Luke viii, 31; where it seems to mean
that part of Hades in which wicked spirits are
in torment. See #Hell:HELL#.
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 foundations
were on the abyss beneath, Psalm xxiv,
2; cxxxvi, 6. Under these waters, and at
the bottom of this abyss, they represented the
wicked as groaning, and suffering the punishment
of their sin. The Rephaim were confined
there, those old giants, who, whilst living,
.bn 0035.png
caused surrounding nations to tremble, Prov.
ix, 18; xxi, 16, &c. Lastly, in these dark dungeons
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 to
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 from 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 into
the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a
seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations
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 Abyssinians,
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 Alexandria,
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 is 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 received
their abuna, or patriarch, from Alexandria,
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 considered
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 in
Europe till nearly the close of the fifteenth
century, when John II, of Portugal, accidentally
hearing of the existence of such a church,
sent to make inquiry. This led to a correspondence
.bn 0036.png
.pn +1
between the Abyssinians and the
church of Rome; and Bermudes, a Portuguese,
was consecrated by the pope patriarch of Ethiopia,
and the Abyssinians were required to receive
the Roman Catholic faith, in return for
some military assistance afforded to the emperor.
Instead of this, however, the emperor
sent for a new patriarch from Alexandria, imprisoned
Bermudes, and declared the pope a
heretic.
About the middle of the sixteenth century,
the Jesuits attempted a mission to Abyssinia,
in the hope of reducing it to the pope’s authority;
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, however,
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 Europeans
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 promotion;
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 in vain. 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 Europe. 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 philosophers
as adopted the doctrines of Plato.
They were so called from the Academia, a
grove near Athens, where they frequently indulged
their contemplations. Academia is said
to derive its name from one Academus, a god
or hero so called. Thus Horace,--
.pm start_poem
Atque inter sylvas Academi quærere verum.
[And in the groves of Academus to search for truth.]
.pm end_poem
.ni
The academics are divided into those of the
first academy, who taught the doctrines of
Plato in their original purity; those of the second
or middle academy, who differed materially
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 maintained
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
.bn 0037.png
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 difference
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 received
opinions, and the latter allowed men an
opinion of their own. In the first academy,
Speusippus filled the chair; in the second, Arcesilaus;
and in the new or third academy,
Carneades.
.pi
ACCAD, one of the four cities built by Nimrod,
the founder of the Assyrian empire. (See
#Nimrod:NIMROD#.) “And the beginning of his kingdom
was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and
Calneh, in the land of Shinar,” Gen. x, 10.
Thus it appears that Accad was contemporary
with Babylon, 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 discoveries
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 implying
the Hill of 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 bottom,
is three hundred feet. The mound which
constitutes its foundation is composed of a collection
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 together
by slime, and divided into courses varying
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 structures
at Babylon, cannot escape observation;
and we may reasonably conclude it to be the
workmanship of the same architects. The solidity
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.
.bn 0038.png
.pn +1
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
inference is at least warrantable; which is
farther strengthened by the name of the place,
Akarkouff; which bears a greater affinity to
that of Accad than many others which are
forced into the support of geographical speculations,
especially when it is recollected that
the Syrian name of the city was Achar.
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;
whereas, 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 himself,
Ptolemais.
This city, now called Acre, which, from the
convenience of its port, is one of the most considerable
on the Syrian coast, was, during
almost two centuries, the principal theatre of
the holy wars, and the frequent scene of the
perfidies and treacheries of the crusaders.
Among its antiquities, Dr. E. D. Clarke
describes the remains of a very considerable
edifice, 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,’ although, in the period to which the
tradition refers, the English were hardly capable
of erecting palaces, or any other buildings
of equal magnificence. Two 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
countenances, 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.”
Maundrell and Pococke consider this building
.bn 0039.png
to have 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 translation 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 visible
of the original work; and all the mosques,
fountains, bazaars, and other public buildings,
are in a style rather Turkish than Arabic, excepting
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 our
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 increased;
and although to the eye of an engineer
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 thousand
inhabitants in Acre, of whom three thousand
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 Romans,
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 superior
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 lay at
the head of the couch; the next man lay with
his head toward the feet of the other, from
.bn 0040.png
.pn +1
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 honourable
place was the middle couch--and the middle
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 bosom.
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 regard
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, after
the sentence of excommunication was pronounced,
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.
According to the idiom of the Hebrew language,
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 communicating
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 imitated;
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, after admonition, the right
.bn 0041.png
of partaking of the Lord’s Supper, which was
excision from the church of Christ.
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 province;
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 probable,
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 partakers
of his crime, and so the sentence was justified.
ACHMETHA. See #Ecbatana:ECBATANA#.
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 Mediterranean,
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 sea; having a few palm trees
rearing themselves above its dwellings.
ACRA, [Greek: A)/kra]. This Greek word signifies, in
general, a citadel. The Syrians and Chaldeans
use הקרא, 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 eminence
was semicircular, and that Simon Maccabæus,
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 command
the temple. On mount Acra were afterward
built, the palace of Helena; Agrippa’s palace,
the place where the public records were
.bn 0042.png
.pn +1
lodged; and that where the magistrates of Jerusalem
assembled.
ACRABATENE, a district of Judæa, extending
between Shechem (now Napolose) and Jericho,
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 person.
The external evidence is also very satisfactory;
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 Irenæus, 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 Alexandria,
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 is the 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 principal
facts recorded in it are, the choice of Matthias
to be an Apostle in the room of the traitor Judas;
the descent of the Holy Ghost on the day
of pentecost; the preaching, miracles, and sufferings
of the Apostles at Jerusalem; the death
of Stephen, the first martyr; the persecution
and dispersion of the Christians; the preaching
of the Gospel in different parts of Palestine, especially
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, declaring
that circumcision, and a conformity to
other Jewish rites and ceremonies, were not
necessary in Gentile converts; and the latter
part of the book is confined to the history of St.
Paul, of whom St. Luke was the constant companion
for several years.
3. As this account of St. Paul is not continued
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 doubtful.
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 manuscripts,
and of the copies of the Syriac version;
.bn 0043.png
but the best critics think, that these subscriptions,
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.
5. It must have been of the utmost importance
in the early times of the Gospel, and certainly
not of less importance to every subsequent
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 Gentiles.
These great events completed the evidence
of the divine mission of Christ, established
the truth of the religion which he taught, and
pointed out in the clearest manner the comprehensive
nature of the redemption which he purchased
by his death.
[OE]cumenius calls the Acts, the “Gospel of
the Holy Ghost;” and St. Chrysostom, the “Gospel
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 received
the most excellent pattern of the true
Christian life.
ADAM, the name given to man in general,
both male and female in the Hebrew Scriptures,
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; ii, 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. ii, 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 die.” 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;
.bn 0044.png
.pn +1
and she seduced her husband to eat of the forbidden
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 childbearing
and subjection; and the man by agricultural
labour and toil; of which punishments
every day witnesses the fulfilment. As their
natural passions now became irregular, 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 garden
cherubims and a flaming sword, which
turned every way, to keep the way of the tree
of life. It is not known how long Adam and
his wife continued in paradise: some say, many
years; others, not many days; others, not many
hours. Adam called his wife’s name Eve, which
signifies “the mother of all living.” Shortly
after, Eve brought forth Cain, Gen. iv, 1, 2. It
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 daughters;”
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 signifies,
the first. The Persians, however, denominate
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 himself.
There was, properly speaking, no intellectual
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 immediately
connected with this system, as to
lead us to suppose that it was made for them;
a rational inhabitant was obviously still wanting
to complete the work, and to constitute a
perfect whole. The formation of such a being
was marked, therefore, by a manner of proceeding
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 principally,
it is probable, because he was to be the
.bn 0045.png
lord of the whole and therefore himself accountable
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 contains
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 BODY formed out of preëxisting matter,
the earth; and a LIVING 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
face) the breath of life, (lives,) and man became
a living soul.” Whatever was thus imparted
to the body of man, already “formed,” and perfectly
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 “like” 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 “dominion”
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 imports;
and, therefore, his dominion was consequent
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 essential
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
.bn 0046.png
.pn +1
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 spirituality of their nature. This is also
implied in the striking argument of St. Paul
with the Athenians: “Forasmuch, then, as we
are the OFFSPRING 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 thinking power?” In spirituality, and,
consequently, immateriality, this image of God
in man, then, in the first instance, consists.
Nor is it any valid objection to say, that “immateriality
is not peculiar to the soul of man;
for we have reason to believe that the inferior
animals are actuated by an immaterial principle.”
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 ancient
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 escaped
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
in a 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 immortality,
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 reason,
that death introduces him into changeless
and eternal relations, which were not to be left
to the mercy of human passions.
.bn 0047.png
To these we are to add the intellectual powers,
and we have what divines, in perfect accordance
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 foundation
of that MORAL image by which also man
was distinguished. Unless he had been a spiritual,
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: “Lo
this only have I found, that God made man
UPRIGHT; but they have sought out many inventions.”
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 created
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 communion
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 endowments
of the progenitor of the human race,
erring 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,
.bn 0048.png
.pn +1
that would depend upon the time and opportunity
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 embellishment;
and Adam’s perfection has sometimes
been fixed at an elevation which renders it exceedingly
difficult to conceive how he could
fall into sin at all. On the other hand, those
who either deny or hold very slightly the doctrine
of our hereditary depravity, delight to
represent Adam as little superior in moral perfection
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 ascertain,
if not the exact degree of his moral
endowments, yet that there is a certain standard
below which they cannot be placed.--Generally,
he was made in the image of God,
which, we have already proved, is to be understood
morally as well as naturally. Now,
however the image of any thing may be limited
in extent, it must still be an accurate representation
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 assemblage
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 extent
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 unrighteousness
and unholiness. Man, therefore, in his
original state, was sinless, both in act and in
principle. Hence it is said that “God made
man UPRIGHT.” That this signifies moral rectitude
cannot be doubted; but the import of the
word is very extensive. It expresses, by an
easy figure, the exactness 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, rendering
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 retaining,
and hearty approval, of religious truth, in
.bn 0049.png
which knowledge, when spoken of morally, is
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 to a
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 peculiarities
as some expositors have stated. Sufficient
time appears not to have been afforded
him for the study of the properties of animals,
as this event took place previous to the formation
of Eve; and as for the notion of his acquiring
knowledge by intuition, this is contradicted
by the revealed fact, that angels themselves acquire
their knowledge by observation and study,
though no doubt, with great rapidity and certainty.
The whole of this transaction was supernatural;
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 suppose
the excellency of his knowledge to have
consisted. “His reason would be clear, his
judgment uncorrupted, and his conscience upright
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 knowledge,
“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 greatness
of a very exalted kind, is made sufficiently
apparent from the degree of guilt charged upon
Adam when he fell: for the aggravating circumstances
of his offence may well be deduced
from the tremendous consequences which followed.
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 speculations
upon a subject which called for no such
expression of opinion. As nothing to the contrary
appears, the charitable inference is, that
as he was the first to receive the promise of redemption,
so he was the first to prove its virtue.
It is another presumption, that as Adam and
Eve were clothed with skins of beasts, which
.bn 0050.png
.pn +1
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.
6. The Rabbinical and Mohammedan traditions
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 composed
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 him 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 public
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 sinners,”
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 posterity;
the other is a quickening Spirit, to restore
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 righteousness
of the Second Adam, and the communication
of a divine nature by the Holy Spirit,
favour and grace shall much more abound
in Christ’s true followers unto eternal life. See
#Redemption:REDEMPTION#.
ADAMA, one of the five cities which were
destroyed by fire from heaven, and buried under
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
is some probability that it was not entirely sunk
under the waters; or that the inhabitants of the
.bn 0051.png
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, שמיר, [Greek: A)da/mas], 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, probably
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 declared
to be as adamant; neither broken by the
threatenings and judgments of God, nor penetrated
by his promises, invitations, and mercies.
See #Diamond:DIAMOND#.
ADAMITES, sects reputed to have professed
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 ecclesiastical,
and the sixth of the civil, year among the
Hebrews. It contains but twenty-nine days,
and answers to our February, and sometimes
enters into March, according to the course of
the moon, by which they regulated their seasons.
ADARCONIM, אדרכונים, a sort of money,
mentioned 1 Chron. xxix, 7, and Ezra viii, 27.
The Vulgate translates it, golden pence, the LXX,
pieces 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.
שפיפון, in Gen. xlix, 17, is probably the cerastes;
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 of
horses and other beasts. By comparing the
Danites to this artful reptile, the patriarch intimated
that by stratagem, more than by open
bravery, they should avenge themselves of their
enemies and extend their conquests.--פתן, in
Psalm lviii, 4; xci, 13, signifies an asp. We
may perhaps trace to this the Python of the
Greeks, and its derivatives. (See #Asp:ASP#.)--עכשוב, עכשוב
found only in Psalm cxl, 3, is derived from a
verb which signifies to bend back on itself. The
Chaldee Paraphrasts render it עכביש, which we
translate elsewhere, spider: they may therefore
have understood it to have been the tarantula.
It is rendered asp by the Septuagint and Vulgate,
and is so taken, Rom. iii, 13. The name
is from the Arabic achasa. But there are several
serpents which coil themselves previously
.bn 0052.png
.pn +1
to darting on their enemy; if this be a character
of the asp, it is not peculiar to that reptile.--צפע,
or צפעני, Prov. xxiii, 32; Isaiah xi, 8; xiv,
29; lix, 5; and Jer. viii, 17, is that deadly serpent
called the basilisk, said to kill with its very
breath. See #Cockatrice:COCKATRICE#.
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, Æn. vii, v, 750.
.pm start_poem
Quin et Marrubia venit de gente sacerdos,
Fronde super galeam et felici comptus oliva,
Archippi regis missu fortissimus Umbro;
Vipereo generi, et graviter spirantibus hydris
Spargere qui somnos cantuque manuque solebat,
Mulcebatque iras, et morsus arte levabat.
“Umbro, the brave Marrubian priest, was there,
Sent by the Marsian monarch to the war.
The smiling olive with her verdant boughs
Shades his bright helmet and adorns his brows;
His charms in peace the furious serpent keep;
And lull the envenom’d viper’s race to sleep:
His healing hand allay’d the raging pain,
And at his touch the poisons fled again.”
Pitt.
.pm end_poem
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 testimony
of several respectable moderns. Adders
swell at the sound of a flute, raising themselves
up on the one half of their body, turning themselves
round, beating proper time, and following
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 opportunity
of seeing a number of serpents keep
exact time with the Dervishes in their circulatory
dances, running over their heads and
arms, turning when they turned, and stopping
when they stopped. The rattlesnake acknowledges
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 himself
into a spiral line, flattened his head, inflated
his cheeks, contracted his lips, displayed
.bn 0053.png
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 bellows
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 became
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 expanded,
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. The 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 beginning
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: “I will
send serpents” (cockatrices) “among you,
which will not be charmed, and they shall bite
you.” In all these quotations, the sacred writers,
while they take it for granted that many
serpents are disarmed by charming, plainly admit
that the powers of the charmer are in vain
exerted upon others.
It is the opinion of some interpreters, that
the word שחל, 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
.bn 0054.png
.pn +1
shalt trample under foot.” Indeed, all the ancient
expositors agree, that some species of serpent
is meant, although they cannot determine
what particular serpent the sacred writer had
in view. The learned Bochart thinks it extremely
probable that the holy Psalmist in this
verse treats of serpents only; and, by consequence,
that both the terms שחל and כפיר mean
some kind of snakes, as well as פתן and תנין;
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 treading
upon the lion, and trampling the young
lion under foot; for it is not possible in walking
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. To charge solemnly, as by the authority,
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 superstition,
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 sitting
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 Egyptians
Adonis was adored under the name of
Osiris, the husband of Isis. But he was sometimes
called by the name of Ammuz, or Tammuz,
the concealed, probably to denote his death
or burial. The Hebrews, in derision, sometimes
call him the dead, Psalm cvi, 28; Lev.
xix, 28; because they wept for him, and represented
him as dead in his coffin; and at other
times they denominate him the image of jealousy,
Ezek. viii, 3, 5, because he was the
object of the jealousy of Mars. The Syrians,
Ph[oe]nicians, 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, bemoaned themselves, and sought
for him with great eagerness and inquietude.
After this, they pretended that they had found
him again, and that he was still living. At
this good news 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
.bn 0055.png
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 eastern
people, in imitation of her mourning, generally
established some solemn days for the
bewailing of Adonis. After his death, Venus
went to the shades, and obtained from Proserpine,
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 Cyprus;
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 grandsons,
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 into
the family of God, and entitled to the inheritance
of heaven. This appears not so much a
distinct act of God, as involved in, and necessarily
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 formalities.
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 sons of God, and heirs of his
eternal glory. “If children, then heirs, heirs
of God and joint heirs with Christ;” where it
is to be remarked, that it is not in our own
.bn 0056.png
.pn +1
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 servile
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 adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
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 itself,” 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 witnessing,
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, crying, Abba, Father.”
Here also are to be noted, 1. The means of
our redemption from under (the curse of) 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 intercourse
with him in spirit.
This has been generally termed the doctrine
of assurance, and, perhaps, the expressions of
.bn 0057.png
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, implying
that the assurance of our present acceptance
and sonship implies an assurance of our
final perseverance, and of an indefeasible title
to heaven; the phrase, a comfortable persuasion,
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 sparing
and cautious use of the term assurance, which
is, that it seems to imply, though not necessarily,
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 statement
of it, to observe that this assurance, persuasion,
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 contradictory.
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 persuasion
of our acceptance from the faith which
justifies, we must not separate it, but only distinguish
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:WORSHIP#.)
The word is compounded of ad, “to,” and os,
“mouth;” and literally signifies to apply the
hand to the mouth; manum ad os admovere,
“to kiss the hand;” this being in eastern countries
one of the great marks of respect and submission.
To this mode of idolatrous worship
Job refers, xxxi, 26, 27. See also 1 Kings xix, 18.
The Jewish manner of adoration was by
prostration, bowing, and kneeling. The Christians
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.
Adoration is also used for certain extraordinary
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 kneeling,
falling prostrate, kissing the feet, hands,
garments, &c.
The Persian manner of adoration, introduced
by Cyrus, was by bending the knee, and falling
.bn 0058.png
.pn +1
on the face at the 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 statues
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 [Greek: ϖroskynei~n], Conon refused
to perform to Artaxerxes, and Callisthenes
to Alexander the Great, as reputing it
impious and unlawful.
The adoration performed to the Roman and
Grecian emperors consisted in bowing or kneeling
at the prince’s feet, laying hold of his purple
robe, and then bringing the hand to the
lips. Some attribute the origin of this practice
to Constantius. They were only persons of
rank or dignity that were entitled to the honour.
Bare kneeling 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 or 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 probably
borrowed from the Byzantine court, and accompanied
the temporal power. Dr. Maclaine,
in the chronological table which he has subjoined
to his translation of Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical
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, procured
crucifixes to be fastened on their slippers;
by which stratagem, the adoration intended for
the pope’s person is supposed to be transferred
to Christ. Divers acts of this adoration we find
offered even by princes to the pope; and Gregory
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 admitted
to do the like at St. Peter’s church; the
ceremony is described at large by Guicciardin.
Adoration is more particularly used for kissing
.bn 0059.png
one’s hand in presence of another as a
token of reverence. The Jews adored by kissing
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 Christians
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 Nineveh,
after his unhappy expedition made into
Judea against king Hezekiah, was killed by his
two sons, Adrammelech and Sharezer, whilst
at his devotions in the temple of his god Nisroch,
Isaiah xxxvii, 38; 2 Kings xix. It is
not known what prompted these two princes to
commit this parricide; but after they had committed
the murder, they fled for safety to the
mountains of Armenia, and their brother, Esarhaddon,
succeeded to the crown.
Adrammelech was also one of the gods
adored by the inhabitants of Sepharvaim, 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 eastern
nations adoring the moon as a god, not as
a goddess.
ADRAMYTTIUM, a city 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 proceed
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 portion
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 mentioned
in the history of Saul and David; and
is chiefly memorable from the cave in its neighbourhood,
where David retired from Achish,
king of Gath, when he was joined by the distressed
and discontented, to the number of four
hundred, over whom he became captain, 1 Sam.
xxii, 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.
.bn 0060.png
.pn +1
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 infamous
crime before the marriage was completed,
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 regardless 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 discover
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, endeavoured
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 husband,
these bitter waters, which I have cursed,
will 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 waters
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 offerings,
cast some dust of the pavement into it,
mingled something with it as bitter as wormwood,
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 breasts, and
then presented her with the tenth part of an
ephah, or about three pints, of barley meal.
The 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 injuring
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
.bn 0061.png
carried out, with these symptoms upon her, and
died instantly, with all the ignominious circumstances
related in the curses.
On this law of Moses, Michaëlis has the following
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 altogether.
Among ourselves, in barbarous times,
the ordeal, or trial by fire, was, notwithstanding
the parity of our married people, in common
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 drinking
a poisoned potion; which, according to an
ancient superstition, could never hurt 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 contrast
of wisdom and clemency which such a
contrivance manifests. In the one case, (and
herein consists their great distinction,) innocence
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 purgation,
(and had not the legislator been perfectly
assured of his divine mission, the insertion
of any such clause would have been a very bold
step indeed,) a visible and corporeal punishment
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 punishment
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.
“In 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 solemnity
of the place, unfamiliarized to her by daily
business or resort, would have a great effect
upon her mind. In the next place, there was
offered unto God what was termed an execration
offering, not in order to propitiate his
.bn 0062.png
.pn +1
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 uncover
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 extraordinary
an occasion, have had far less command
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 her hand,
while the priest held in his the imprecation
water. This is commonly termed the bitter
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
bitter water, but the water of bitternesses, 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 woman
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 historian,
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 declare
her acquiescence in them by a repeated
Amen. Nor was the solemn scene yet altogether
at an end; but rather, as it were commenced
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 imprecation
water, which the woman had now to
drink; and this water being now presented to
her, she was obliged to drink it, with this warning
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 conceived
that she already felt an alteration in the
state of her body, and the germ, as it were, of
.bn 0063.png
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 purgatorium, perjury must have been a
very rare occurrence indeed. If it happened
but once in an age, God had bound himself to
punish it; and if this took place but once, (if
but one woman who had taken the oath was
attacked with that rare disease which it threatened,)
it was quite enough to serve as a determent
to all others for at least one generation.”
This procedure had also the effect of keeping
in mind, among the Jews, God’s high displeasure
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 denunciations
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.”
Adultery, 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, [Greek: Para/klêtos], a patron, one who
pleads the cause of any one before another. In
this sense the term is applied to Christ our intercessor,
1 John ii, 1. It signifies also a comforter,
and an instructer; and is used of the
Holy Spirit, John xiv, 16, and xv, 26.
ADYTUM is a Greek word, signifying inaccessible,
by which is understood the most retired
and secret place of the Heathen temples, into
which none but the priests were allowed to
enter. The adytum of the Greeks and Romans
answered to the sanctum sanctorum of the Jews,
and was the place from whence oracles were
delivered.
ÆRA, a series of years, commencing from a
certain point of time called an epocha: thus we
say, the Christian æra; that is, the number of
years elapsed since the birth of Christ. The
generality of authors use the terms æra 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 æras
in their computation; sometimes they reckoned
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 restoration
after the Babylonish captivity: but their
vulgar æra 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 became
subject to the Syro-Macedonian kings,
they were obliged to make use of the æra of
the Seleucidæ in all their contracts, which from
.bn 0064.png
.pn +1
thence was called the æra of contracts. This
æra begins with the year of the world 3692, of
the Julian period 4402, and before Christ 312.
The æra in general 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 æra, which is fixed for the
year of the world 4004: but Archbishop Usher,
and after him the generality of modern chronologers,
place it in the year of the world 4000.
The ancient Heathens used several æras:
1. The æra of the first olympiad is placed in
the year of the world 3228, and before the vulgar
æra of Jesus Christ 776. 2. The taking of
Troy 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 æra of Nabonassar, in 3257. 6. The æra
of Alexander the Great, or his last victory over
Darius, in 3674, and before Jesus Christ 330.
AERIANS, a sect which arose about the middle
of the fourth century, being the followers of
Aërius, (who must be distinguished from Arius
and Aëtius,) a monk and a presbyter of Sebastia,
in Pontus. He is charged with being an
Arian, or Semi-Arian; but the heaviest accusation
against him is an attempt to reform the
church; and, by rejecting prayers for the dead,
with certain fasts and festivals then superstitiously
observed, to reduce Christianity as nearly
as possible “to its primitive simplicity; a
purpose, indeed, laudable and noble,” says Dr.
Mosheim, “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 Aërius originated in his being
disappointed of the bishopric of Sebastia, (conferred
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. Hence he is considered
by many, as the father of the modern Presbyterians.--“For
this opinion, chiefly,” says Dr.
Turner, “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 assemble
in the woods, caverns, and open defiles.”
AETIANS, another branch (as it is said) of
Arians, so called from Aëtius, bishop of Antioch,
who is also charged with maintaining
“faith without works,” as “sufficient to salvation,”
or rather justification; and with maintaining
“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 misrepresentation
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 son could not marry
.bn 0065.png
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 only
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, married
their sisters, as Abraham married Sarah,
who was his father’s daughter by another mother;
and two sisters together, as Jacob married
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 examples;
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 concubine;
and the action of Amnon with his sister
Tamar; and that of Herod Antipas, who married
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, A. D. 44, Acts xi, 28.
Ten years after this, as St. Paul was going
to Jerusalem, and had already landed at Cæsarea,
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 girdle,
and shall deliver him into the hands of the
Gentiles,” Acts xxi, 10. We know no other
particulars of the life 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 exercised
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 destroy
Amalek, verses 14–16; Deut. xxv, 17–19, A. M.
.bn 0066.png
.pn +1
2513. About four hundred years after this, the
Lord remembered the cruel treatment of his
people, and his own oath; and he commanded
Saul, 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 address,
and the vain hopes with which he flattered
himself that the bitterness of death was
past, he caused him to be hewed to pieces in
Gilgal before the Lord, saying, “As, כאשר, in
the same identical mode as, thy sword hath made
women childless, so shall thy mother be childless
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.
AGAPÆ. See #Love Feast:LOVEFEAST#.
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, שבו, Exod. xxviii, 19; xxxix, 12.
In the Septuagint [Greek: a)cha/tês], and Vulgate, achates.
A precious stone, semi-pellucid. Its variegations
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 is applied either to the whole
period of its existence, or to that portion of it
which precedes the time to which the description
of it refers. In this sense it is used to signify either
the whole natural duration of the LIFE of man,
or any interval of it that has elapsed before the
period of which we speak. When age is understood
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
last 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
.bn 0067.png
of the term we speak of the age of a house, of
a country, of a state or kingdom, &c.
Age, in chronology, is used for a century, or
a period of one hundred years: in which sense
it is the same with seculum, and differs 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. The 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 entering
the land of promise, A. M. 2082, comprehends
426 years. The third age from Abraham’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 before
the vulgar æra, includes 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 Exodus, 430 years,
making the whole 645 years. 5. From the Exodus
to Saul, 774 years. 6. From Saul to Cyrus,
583 years. 7. From Cyrus to the vulgar æra
of Christians, 538 years; the whole period from
the creation to this period containing 6000
years.
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 æra. After the death
of his father Aristobulus, Josephus informs us
that Herod, his grandfather, took care of his
education, and sent him to Rome to make his
.bn 0068.png
.pn +1
court to Tiberius. Agrippa, having a great inclination
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 departure
for the other world and leave Caius master
of this, without meeting with any obstacle from
the emperor’s grandson, Tiberius Nero. Eutychus,
some time after this, thinking he had
reason to be dissatisfied with Agrippa, communicated
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
gave him the tetrarchy which Philip, the son of
Herod the Great, had been possessed of, that
is, Batanæa and Trachonitis. To this he added
that of Lysanias; and Agrippa returned very
soon into Judea, to 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 resolution,
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 mankind
who refused to own him for a deity; and
that they had taken arms to oppose his resolution.
At these words Agrippa fainted away,
and, being carried home to his house, continued
in that state for a long time. As soon as he
was somewhat recovered, he wrote a long letter
to Caius, wherein he endeavoured to soften
him; and his arguments made such an impression
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 following
year, A. D. 41, Agrippa, who was then at
Rome, contributed much by his advice to maintain
Claudius in possession of the imperial dignity,
to which he had been advanced by the army.
The emperor, as an acknowledgment for his
kind offices, gave him all Judea, and the kingdom
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, his 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
.bn 0069.png
to put to death the Apostle James, and to cast
Peter into prison with the same design; and,
but for a miraculous interposition, which, however,
produced no effect upon the mind of the
tyrant, his hands would have been imbrued in
the blood of two Apostles, the memory whereof
is preserved in Scripture. At Cæsarea, 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 in 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 Tyrians and Sidonians, the parasites
around him began to say, it was “the
voice of a god and not of man.” Instead of
rejecting these impious flatteries, Agrippa received
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 Epiphanius,
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 dominions
that had been possessed by his father,
but was dissuaded from it, Agrippa being only
seventeen years of age; and he kept him therefore
at his court four years.
Three years after this, Herod, king of Chalcis,
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,
Batanæa, 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 Peræa, and that part
of Galilee to which Tarichæa and Tiberias belonged.
Festus governor of Judea, coming to
his government, A. D. 60, king Agrippa and
Bernice, his sister, went as far as Cæsarea to
salute him; and as they continued there for
some time, Festus talked with the king concerning
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 appealed
to the 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,
.bn 0070.png
.pn +1
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 productions of persons
whose real names are prefixed. Scripture history,
indeed, affords us no information respecting
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, favoured
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 considered
as mere conjectures; for, in the absence
of historic evidence, who can venture to pronounce
with certainty? The opinion, however,
that Agur and Lemuel are appellations of Solomon,
is sanctioned by so many and such
respectable writers, that it demands a more
particular examination.
The knowledge of names was anciently regarded
as a matter of the highest importance,
in order to understand the nature of the persons
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 characteristic.
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 denote
some quality or circumstance in the person
or thing to which they belong; and though
many, from transference, have ceased to be
personally characteristic, yet are they all significative.
As the custom of imposing descriptive
names prevailed in the primitive ages, it is not
impossible that Agur and Lemuel may be appropriated
to Solomon, and Jakeh to David as
mystic appellations significative of their respective
characters. It is even some confirmation
.bn 0071.png
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 is foreign to
the simplicity of the sacred penmen, and contrary
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 Eve, Cain, Seth, Noah, &c, before alluded
to; in the appellation Nabal; in the enigmatical
names in the first chapter of Hosea; in
the descriptive names given to places, as Beersheba,
Jehovah-jireh, Peniel, Bethel, Gilgal;
and in many other instances, the meaning of
the terms is either explained, or the circumstances
are mentioned which led to their selection.
When Solomon is called Jedidiah, it is
added that it was “because of the Lord;” and
when he styles himself Koheleth, an explanatory
clause is annexed, describing himself “the
son of David, the king of Jerusalem.” But if
Solomon be meant by the titles Agur and Lemuel,
he is so called without any statement of the
reasons for their application, and without any
explanation of their import; a circumstance unusual
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 anything characteristic
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, recovered
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 meaning,
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 hypothesis.
When all these circumstances are taken into
consideration, together with the extreme improbability
that Solomon should be denominated
three times by his proper name, and afterward,
in the same work, by two different enigmatical
.bn 0072.png
.pn +1
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 exceeded
all the kings of Israel. He married Jezebel,
the daughter of Ethbaal, king of Zidon, who
introduced the whole abominations and idols
of her country, Baal and Ashtaroth.
2. Ahab the son of Kolaiah, and Zedekiah the
son of Maaseiah, were two false prophets, who,
about 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 ignominious
death, before such as they had deceived;
and that their names should become a
curse; men wishing that their foes might be
made like Ahab and Zedekiah, whom Nebuchadnezzar
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 Hystaspes;
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 Darius,
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 Ahasuerus
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 maintains
that Xerxes was the Ahasuerus, and Hamestris
his queen, the Esther, of Scripture. The
opinion is founded on the similitude of names,
but contradicted by the dissimilitude of the characters
of Hamestris and Esther. Besides, Herodotus
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. Josephus
positively says that this was the person.
The Septuagint, through the whole book of
Esther, uses Artaxerxes for the Hebrew Ahasuerus
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 Longimanus.
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 Scripture, Ezra iv, 6, to Cambyses,
.bn 0073.png
the son of Cyrus; and to Astyages, king
of the Medes, Dan. ix, 1.
AHAVA. The name of a river of Babylonia,
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 Adabene,
where a river Diava, or Adiava, is mentioned,
and on which Ptolemy places the city
Abane or Aavane. This is probably the country
called Ava, whence the kings of Assyria
translated the people called Avites into Palestine,
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 Judea,
halted in the country of Ava, or Aahava,
whence he sent agents into the Caspian mountains,
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 tributary
to Tiglath-pileser, whose assistance he supplicated
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
partly 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
god of that place, whether he should recover,
2 Kings i, 1–17. Elijah met the messengers,
and informed them he should certainly die;
and he died accordingly.
2. Ahaziah, king of Judah, the son of Jehoram
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 his
.bn 0074.png
.pn +1
predecessors, was there dangerously wounded,
and carried by his own appointment to Jezreel,
for the purpose 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 Kings ix. 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 is thought to be the person
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 predicted
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 piece of service for David during the
war with Absalom. While his father Zadok
was in Jerusalem, 2 Sam. xv, 29, Ahimaaz and
Jonathan continued without the city, xvii, 17,
near En-Rogel, or the fountain of Rogel; thither
a maid servant came to tell them the resolution
which had been taken in Absalom’s
council: whereupon they immediately departed
to give the king intelligence. But being discovered
by a young lad who gave information
concerning them to Absalom, that prince sent
orders to pursue them: Ahimaaz and Jonathan,
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 overcome
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 applied
.bn 0075.png
again to Joab, praying to be permitted to
run after 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 priesthood. He is called Abiathar,
Mark ii, 26. During his priesthood the tabernacle
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 carrying
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 accuser,
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, sending
a party to Nob, he commanded them to
slay men, women, and children, and even cattle,
with the edge of the sword. Only one son
of Ahimelech, named Abiathar, escaped the
carnage and fled to David.
AHITHOPHEL, 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 calculated
to render David irreconcilable, and
was immediately adopted; and the other to
secure, or to slay him. Before the last counsel
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 defeat,
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 Samaria.
Aholah and Aholibah are represented
as two sisters of Egyptian extraction. Aholah
stands for Samaria, and Aholibah for Jerusalem.
The first signifies a tent, and the second,
.bn 0076.png
.pn +1
my tent is in her. They both prostituted themselves
to the Egyptians and Assyrians, in imitating
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.
AI, 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 to the army. Joshua, having
appointed an ambush of thirty thousand men,
marched against the city, and by a feigned retreat,
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 entered
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 ignominious 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 thousand
first sent, and ordered to lie as near to the
city as possible. Masius allows only five thousand
men for the ambuscade, and twenty-five
thousand for the attack.
AICHMALOTARCH, [Greek: A)ichmalota/rchês] signifies
the prince of the captivity, or chief 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 family
of David. But they give no satisfactory
proof of the real existence of these Aichmalotarchs.
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, Chaldæa, Assyria, and
Persia. Thus they affected to restore the splendour
of their ancient monarchy, and in this
view the following account may be amusing.
The ceremonial of the installation is thus described:
The spiritual heads of the people, the
masters of the learned schools, the elders, and
the people, assembled in great multitudes within
.bn 0077.png
a stately chamber, adorned with rich curtains,
in Babylon, where, during his days of splendour,
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 of
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 acclamations.
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, proceeded
to the synagogue. Benedictions and
hymns of thanksgiving announced his entrance.
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 palace,
where he gave a splendid banquet to the
chief persons of the community. After that
day he lived in a sort of stately oriental seclusion,
never quitting his palace, except to go to
the schools of the learned, where, as he entered,
the whole assembly rose and continued standing,
till he took his seat. He sometimes paid
a visit to the native sovereign in Babylon (Bagdad.)
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 invidious
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 received
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
affairs, of his people.
The court of the Resch-Glutha is described
as splendid. In imitation of his Persian master,
.bn 0078.png
.pn +1
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 pursue
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, [Greek: A)la/baϛron], 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 capable
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 ointments.
Pliny and others represent it as peculiarly
proper for this purpose; and the druggists in
Egypt 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 occasion
broken, that is, first opened.
ALBIGENSES. See #Waldenses:WALDENSES#.
ALEPH, א, 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 conquests,
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, overthrowing
him, and trampling him under foot, without
any being able to rescue him, Dan. viii, 4–7.
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
.bn 0079.png
the emblem of Alexander. He was appointed
by God to destroy the Persian empire, and to
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 Persians,
and entered Asia at the head of thirty-four
thousand men, A. M. 3670. In one campaign,
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 submission
which had hitherto been paid to the king
of Persia. Jaddus refusing to comply under the
plea of having sworn fidelity to Darius, Alexander
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. Jaddus
obeyed; and Alexander perceiving this company
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 forehead.
The kings of Syria who accompanied
him, and the great officers about Alexander,
could not comprehend the meaning of his conduct.
Parmenio alone ventured to ask him
why he adored the Jewish high priest; Alexander
replied, that he paid this respect to God,
and not to the high priest. “For,” added he,
“whilst I was yet in 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 understood
that my undertaking was favoured by God,
and that under his protection I might expect
prosperity.”
Having said this, Alexander accompanied
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 destruction
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
.bn 0080.png
.pn +1
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.
Having 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 prosperous
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 commended
their zeal; and the Sichemites entreated him
to visit their temple and city. Alexander promised
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 Ph[oe]nicians,
Sichemites. Alexander said that he had
granted this exemption only to the Jews, but
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
Palestine, he was informed that the Samaritans,
in a general insurrection, had killed Andromachus,
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
put to death, and the rest to be banished from
Samaria; 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 Alexander,
and had accompanied him since the
siege of Tyre, if permitted to return to their
own country, should renew the spirit of rebellion,
he sent them into Thebais, the most remote
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 intemperance.
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 sensible
that his end was near, he sent for the
grandees of his court, and declared that “he
gave the empire to the most deserving.” Some
.bn 0081.png
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 generals
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 Alexander’s
dominions among the four principal officers
of his army, and that the empire which he
founded in Asia subsisted for many ages. Alexander
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 Macedonians
granted to them; which liberal policy
contributed much to the rise and prosperity of
the new city; for this enterprising and commercial
people knew much better than either
the Greeks or the Egyptians how to turn the
happy situation of Alexandria to the best account.
The fall of Tyre happening about the
same time, the trade of that city was soon drawn
to Alexandria, which became the centre of commercial
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 academy,
called the Museum, in which a society
of learned men devoted themselves to philosophical
studies, and the improvement of all the
other sciences; and he also gave them a library,
which was prodigiously increased by his successors.
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
.bn 0082.png
.pn +1
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 laid on it; and
although the genius and the resources of such a
city could not be immediately destroyed, it continued
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 wretchedness,--of
fallen greatness and enslaved human
beings.
Some idea may be formed of the extent and
grandeur of Alexandria, by the boast made by
Amrou: “I 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 method
of teaching by allegory was peculiarly
favourable to such a union: and we may well
suppose that when Alexander, in order to preserve
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 confusion
of opinions which occurs in the history of
the Alexandrian and Christian schools. Alexander,
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 philosophy,
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 consequence
was, that Egypt was soon filled with
religious and philosophical sectaries of every
kind; and particularly, that almost every Grecian
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
policy encouraged this new establishment.
Ptolemy Lagus, who had obtained the crown
of Egypt by usurpation, was particularly careful
to secure the interest of the Greeks in his
.bn 0083.png
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, Alexandria
long continued to enjoy great celebrity
as the seat of learning, and to send forth eminent
philosophers of every sect to distant countries.
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, suffered
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 innumerable
corruptions of the Christian faith.
At Alexandria there was, in a very early
period of the Christian æra, a Christian school
of considerable eminence. St. Jerome says,
the school at Alexandria had been in being
from the time of St. Mark. Pantænus, placed
by Lardner at the year 192, presided in it. St.
Clement of Alexandria succeeded Pantænus in
this school about the year 190; and he was
succeeded by Origen. The extensive commerce
of Alexandria, and its proximity to Palestine,
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 system
of Plato was introduced into both the philosophical
and Christian schools of Alexandria;
and of course many of his sentiments and expressions
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 afterward
by a general council of three hundred
and eighty fathers, held at Nice, by order of
Constantine, in 325. These doctrines, however,
which suited the reigning taste for disputative
theology, and the pride and self-sufficiency
of nominal Christians, better than the
unsophisticated simplicity of the Gospel, spread
.bn 0084.png
.pn +1
widely and rapidly notwithstanding. Arius was
steadfastly opposed by the celebrated Athanasius,
bishop of Alexandria, the intrepid champion
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 foundation
of the city, incurred the hatred of this
ecclesiastic; who, in his zeal for the extermination
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 celebrated
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, added
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 museum,
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 Euergetes,
for instance, borrowed of the Athenians
the works of Sophocles, Euripides, and Æschylus,
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 upwards.
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 Cæsar
waged with the inhabitants of Alexandria, the
library of Bruchion was accidentally, but unfortunately,
burnt. But the library in Serapeum
still remained, and there Cleopatra deposited
the two hundred thousand volumes of
the Pergamean library with which she was
presented by Marc Antony. These, and
.bn 0085.png
others added to them from time to time, rendered
the new library more numerous and considerable
than the former; and though it was
plundered more than once during the revolutions
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. Abulpharagius,
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 presumed
to solicit a gift, inestimable in his
opinion, but contemptible in that of the barbarians;
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 accordingly
wrote to Omar, whose well known answer
was dictated by the ignorance of a fanatic:
“If 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 parchment
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, אלגם or אלגומים, 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 #Almug:ALMUG#.
ALLEGORY, a figure in rhetoric, whereby
we make use of terms which, in their proper
signification, mean something else than what
they are brought to denote; or it is a figure
whereby we say one thing, expecting it shall
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.
.pm start_poem
“O navis, referent in mare te novi
Fluctus,” &c.
.pm end_poem
.ni
[O 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:--
.pm start_poem
“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?”
.pm end_poem
Cicero, likewise, speaking of himself, in Pison.
c. 9, tom. vi, p. 187, uses this allegorical language:
.bn 0086.png
.pn +1
“Nor was I so timorous, that, after I
had 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 tempests;
but I exposed myself singly to them for
the common safety.” Here the state is compared
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 an allegory in Psalm lxxx; in
which the people of Israel are represented under
the image of a vine, and the figure is supported
throughout with great correctness and
beauty. 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 Sacrâ
Poesi Hebræorum, Præl. 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
[Greek: allêgoria], an allegory; although Aristotle, instead
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 termination
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 regulate
the imagery which they introduce by any
fixed principle or standard. Not satisfied with
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
is a lion’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.
.pm start_poem
“He stoopeth down, he coucheth as a lion;
And as a lioness; who shall rouse him?”
.pm end_poem
A similar instance occurs in the prophecy, recorded
.bn 0087.png
in Psalm cx, 3, which explicitly foretels
the abundant increase of the Gospel on its first
promulgation. This kind of allegory, however,
sometimes assumes a more regular and
perfect form, and then occupies the whole
subject and compass of the discourse. An example
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 xxviii, 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 narration
of some fictitious event, accommodated,
by way of similitude, to the illustration of some
important truth. The Greeks call these allegories
[Greek: ainoi] or apologues, and the Latins fabulæ,
or fables. (See #Parable:PARABLE#.) The third species
of allegory, which often occurs in the prophetic
poetry, is that in which a double meaning
is couched under the same words, or when
the same discourse, differently interpreted, designates
different events, dissimilar in their
nature, and remote as to time. These different
relations are denominated the literal and mystical
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 allegories
the writer may adopt any imagery that
is most suitable to his fancy or inclination;
but the only proper materials for this allegory
must be supplied from the sacred rites of the
Hebrews themselves; and it can only be introduced
in relation to such things as are immediately
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 adapted
solely to the poetry of the Hebrews. Besides,
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 sustains
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
.bn 0088.png
.pn +1
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 images,
equally conspicuous, run, as it were, parallel
throughout the whole poem, mutually illustrating
and correspondent to each other. The learned
author has illustrated these observations by
instances selected from Psalms ii, and lxxii.
He adds, that the mystical allegory is, on account
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 indeed
lawfully, assumes, as best adapted to the prediction
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 descending
to a minuteness of description and
exactness of detail.
ALLELUIA, or Hallelu-jah, הללו־יה, praise
the Lord; or, praise to the Lord: compounded
of הללו, praise ye, and יה, 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 Alleluia,”
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, Alleluia.”
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 Paulæ, “The monks of Palestine
were awaked at their midnight watchings, with
the singing of alleluias.” It is still occasionally
used in devotional psalmody.
ALMAH, עלמה, a Hebrew word signifying
properly a virgin, a young woman unacquainted
with man. In this sense it occurs in the famous
passage of Isaiah, vii, 14: “Behold a
virgin shall conceive and bear a son.” The
Hebrew has no term that more properly signifies
a virgin than almah. St. Jerom, in his
commentary on this passage, observes, that the
Prophet declined using the word bethaul 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 Septuagint
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 Saviour’s 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
.bn 0089.png
Christian religion, pretend that the Hebrew
word signifies a young woman, and not a virgin.
But this corrupt translation is easily confuted.
1. Because this 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 extraordinary
circumstance that a virgin should conceive
and bear a son.
ALMIGHTY, an attribute of the Deity,
Gen. xvii, 1. The Hebrew name, שדי, Shaddai,
signifies also all-sufficient, or all-bountiful. See
Gen. xxviii, 3; xxxv, 11; xliii, 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 annunciation
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 immediate
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 universe
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 knowledge
to assign any limits of space or duration.
2. That the sacred writers should so frequently
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. Idolatry
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 reminded
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
.bn 0090.png
.pn +1
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 vastness
and variety of his works enlarge the conception:
“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 chambers
of the south; he doeth great things, past
finding out, yea, and wonders without number.
He stretcheth out the north over the empty
place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
He 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 ineffable
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 descriptions
of the divine power are often terrible:
“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 commandeth
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 acknowledge
themselves his servants: “It is he that
sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants
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 governor
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 in it. Before
his face heaven and earth fly away; the
.bn 0091.png
stars fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven
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 omnipotence
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
revolutions 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 “bound
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 toucheth
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 “his frost,” as in our own day in
Russia, where one of the mightiest armaments
was 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 Scripture,
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, his 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 salvation;
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 observes,
.bn 0092.png
.pn +1
“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 “I am;” so we are taught not to measure
God’s omnipotence by the actual displays of it
which we see around us. These are the manifestations
of the fact, but not the measure of
the attribute; and should we resort to the discoveries
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 heavens
which are resolvable into myriads of
distinct celestial luminaries, whose immense
distances commingle their light before it reaches
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 reminded,
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 understand?”
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 perfection
of God, that his power can never be actually
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 perfection
to them; since “it belongs to self-existent
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 themselves
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 contradictions
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 audible;
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,
.bn 0093.png
or see 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 repugnant to his other perfections:
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 unrighteousness
is weakness, a defection from right
reason, a deviation from the perfect rule of action,
and arises from a want of goodness and
power. In a 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 current
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, לוז. Arabic, lauz. Translated
hazel, Gen. xxx, 37; שקד, rendered almond,
Gen. xliii, 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 blossoming
the earliest of any of the trees, beginning
as soon as the rigour of winter is past, and before
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;
.bn 0094.png
.pn +1
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 fulfil 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 testimony
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 earliest
days of spring with its snow white flowers,
before a single leaf has budded: “The almond
tree shall flourish, and the grasshopper 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 [Greek: xy/la ϖelekêta\], 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 instruments.
ALOE, עלר, a plant with broad leaves, nearly
two inches thick, prickly and serrated. It
grows about two feet high. A very bitter gum
is extracted from it, used for medicinal purposes,
and anciently for embalming dead bodies.
Nicodemus is said, John xix, 39, to have
brought one hundred pounds’ weight of myrrh
and aloes to embalm the body of Jesus. The
quantity has been exclaimed against by certain
Jews, as being enough for fifty bodies. But
instead of [Greek: e(kato\n] it might originally have been
written [Greek: de/katon], ten pounds’ weight. However,
at the funeral of Herod there were five hundred
[Greek: a)rômato/phorous], spice bearers; and at that of R. Gamaliel,
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
some relation to aloe; and some interpreters are
.bn 0095.png
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
Ibn el Walid sweeten those of Elvah, once bitter,
and give the place the name of this circumstance.”
It may be that God directed Moses to
the very wood proper for the purpose. M. Neibuhr,
when in these parts, inquired after wood
capable of this effect, but could gain no information
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 quality
which abounded in the water, and so rendered
it potable. This seems to have been the opinion
of the author of Ecclesiasticus, xxxviii, 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 Chinese
to the general use of tea, was to correct
the water of their ponds and rivers.
The Lign-Aloe, or agallochum, Num. xxiv,
6; Psalm xlv, 9; and Cantic. iv, 14. אהלת, masculine,
אהל, whose plural is אהלים, is a small
tree about eight or ten feet high. That the
flower of this plant yielded a fragrance, is assured
to us in the following extract from Swinburne’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 fragrant
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, mentioned
Cantic. iv, 14, in conjunction with several
other odoriferous plants there referred to, was
.bn 0096.png
.pn +1
in high esteem among the Hebrews for its exquisite
exhalations.
.pm start_poem
The scented aloe, and each shrub that showers
Gum from its veins, and odours from its flowers.
.pm end_poem
.ni
Thus the son of Sirach, Ecclesiasticus xxiv, 15:
“I 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 frankincense
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.
.pi
ALPHA, the first letter of the Greek alphabet;
Omega being the last letter. Hence
Alpha and Omega is a title which Christ appropriates
to himself, Rev. i, 8; xxi, 6; xxii, 13;
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 being
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. Alpheus, father of Levi, or Matthew,
whom Jesus took to be an Apostle and Evangelist,
Mark ii, 14.
ALTAR. Sacrifices are nearly as ancient
as worship, and altars are of almost equal antiquity.
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 constructing
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.
viii, 31; and it is very probable that such were
those built by Samuel, 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.
Among the Romans altars were of two kinds,
the higher and the lower; the higher were
intended for the celestial gods, and were called
.bn 0097.png
altaria, from altus; the lower were for the
terrestrial and infernal gods, and were called
aræ. 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 scrobiculi.
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 offerings
and sacred vestments or vessels to lie
upon. The ancients used to swear upon the
altars upon solemn occasions, such as confirming
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 enlarged
in the days of Solomon, being twenty
cubits square, and ten in height. It was covered
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 temple.
On this altar the holy fire was renewed
from time to time, and kept constantly burning.
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 sculpture.
It was two cubits long, one wide, and
one and a half in height. This table stood in
.bn 0098.png
.pn +1
the sanctum sanctorum, [holy of holies,] and
upon it were placed the loaves of shew bread.
After the return of the Jews from their captivity,
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 measures,
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 consented
to the worship of idols; and others, in
their separate situation, would not have been
in a condition to resist the wishes of the multitude,
had those wishes been wrong. The
necessity of sacrificing at one altar, (that of
the tabernacle or temple,) 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 characters
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
Petræa. 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
Amalek 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 people
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
people were more consonant with the dealings
of Providence toward the families of the former.
This more early origin of the Amalekites
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
Egypt, and kept it in subjection for two hundred
years. This will agree with the Arabian tradition
.bn 0099.png
as to their descent. It also agrees with
their pastoral and martial habits, as well as
with their geographical position; which was
perhaps made choice of on their retiring from
Egypt, 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 ground of this hostility
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 Canaanites
and the Philistines. These considerations
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 remembrance
with bitter feelings of revenge. But an
additional motive is not wanting for this hostility,
especially for its first act. The Amalekites
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 Amalekites
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 encounter.
They attacked them in the desert;
and sought every opportunity afterward of
molesting them. Under the judges, the Amalekites,
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 remembrance
of Amalek from under heaven;” a
denunciation which was not long after accomplished.
Saul destroyed their entire army,
.bn 0100.png
.pn +1
with the exception of Agag their king; for
sparing whom, and permitting the Israelites to
take the spoil of their foes, he incurred the
displeasure of the Lord, who took the sceptre
from him. Agag was immediately afterward
hewn in pieces by Samuel, 1 Sam. xv. It is
remarkable, 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:HAVILAH#.)
David a few years after, defeated another
of their armies; of whom only four hundred
men escaped 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, David’s
sister, whom Absalom, when he rebelled
against his father, appointed general of his
army, 2 Sam. xvii, 25. Amasa having thus received
the command of Absalom’s troops, engaged
his cousin Joab, general of David’s army,
and was worsted. But, after the defeat of Absalom’s
party, David, being angry at Joab for
killing Absalom, pardoned Amasa, and gave
him the command of his 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 was twenty-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.
In the muster which Amaziah made of his
people, he found three hundred thousand men
able to bear arms. He hired, besides, one hundred
thousand men of Israel; for which he paid
the king of Israel a hundred talents, about
thirty-four thousand pounds English. His design
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, “O 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,
.bn 0101.png
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 Edomites
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 probably
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 reasonings,
advanced to Bethshemesh, and was defeated
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 treasuries
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 propose
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 master’s
name they earnestly solicited a peace from
the Assyrian monarch, but were made “to weep
bitterly” with the disappointment and refusal,
Isaiah xxxiii, 7.
AMBER, השמל, Ezek. i, 4, 27; viii, 2. The
amber is a hard inflammable bitumen. When
rubbed it is highly endowed with that remarkable
property called electricity, a word which
the moderns have formed from its Greek name
[Greek: ê)le/ktron]. 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,
[Greek: Kai\ e)n tô~| me/sô a)utou ô(s o(/rasis ê)lektrȣ e)n me/sô|] [Greek: ϖyro\s], //ϖ ??
“And in the midst of it as the appearance of
electrum in the midst of the fire,” it appears that
those translators by [Greek: ê)le/ktron], 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,
grows more bright and shining. St. Jerom,
Theodoret, St. Gregory and Origen think, that,
in the above cited passages from Ezekiel, a
precious and highly polished metal is meant.
.bn 0102.png
.pn +1
AMEN. אמן, in Hebrew, signifies true, faithful,
certain. It is used likewise in affirmation;
and was often thus employed by our Saviour:
“Amen, amen,” that is, “Verily, verily.” It is
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 distribution
of them, with “Amen, amen;” which
the Septuagint translate, [Greek: Ge/noito, ge/noito], 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 conclusion
of the public prayers, the people anciently
answered with a loud voice, “Amen!” and
Jerom says, that, at Rome, when the people
answered, “Amen!” the sound was like a clap
of thunder, in similitudinem c[oe]lestis tonitrui
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 pronouncing
the word: 1. That it be not pronounced
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 expressed
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. אחלמה, Exod. xxviii, 19; and
xxix, 12; and once in the New Testament, Rev.
XXI, 20, [Greek: a)me/thyϛos].
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 violet,
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 valuable.
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 of the 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 mentioned,
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
.bn 0103.png
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 produced
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 formed
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 of time, 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 peculiar
and appropriate. From Egypt his name and
worship were brought into Greece; as indeed
were almost all the names of all the deities that
were there worshipped. Jupiter Ammon, or
the Egyptian Jupiter, was usually represented
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
Timæus 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. Eusebius
adds, that this symbol marked the conjunction
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 of the 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 character
was so equivocal, that it is disputed
whether he was a Heathen or a Christian. Mr.
Milner calls him “a Pagan Christian,” who
imagined “that all religions, vulgar and philosophical,
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 coalition
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 denominated
“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
.bn 0104.png
.pn +1
driven out the Zamzummims, who were its
ancient inhabitants. The precise period at
which this expulsion took place is not ascertained.
The Ammonites had kings, and were
uncircumcised, Jer. ix, 25, 26, and seem to
have been principally addicted 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 be 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 recover
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 afterward crossed Jordan
with a design of falling upon the tribes of
Judah, Benjamin, and Ephraim. The Israelites
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, xi. The king replied,
that those lands belonged to the Ammonites,
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 remonstrated
on the injustice of his claim; but
finding a war inevitable, he fell upon the Ammonites
near Aroer, and defeated them with
great slaughter. On this occasion the Ammonites
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 revived
by Nahash their king, and they laid siege
to the city of Jabesh. The inhabitants were
inclined to acknowledge Nahash as their sovereign;
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 ambassadors
to his son and successor Hanun, to congratulate
him on his accession; but these
ambassadors were treated as spies, and dismissed
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; and the inhabitants were
.bn 0105.png
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 purchasing
peace at a very dear rate. After the tribes
of Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh,
were carried into captivity by Tiglath
Pileser, B. C. 740, the Ammonites and Moabites
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 Prophet Ezekiel,
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 Ammonites
should no more be mentioned among
the nations: and this punishment they were to
suffer for insulting the Israelites on account 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 Nebuchadnezzar
made war against all the people
around Judea, A. M. 3420 or 3421, B. C. 583.
It is probable that Cyrus granted to the Ammonites
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 people
of Syria and Palestine, and were subject
sometimes to the kings of Egypt, and sometimes
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 persecutions
of Antiochus Epiphanes, the Ammonites
manifested their hatred to the Jews, and exercised
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 celebrated
Decapolis, were included within its
boundaries. Even when first invaded by the
Saracens, this country, including Moab, was
enriched by the various benefits of trade,
covered with a line of forts, and possessed some
strong and populous cities. Volney bears witness,
“that in the immense plains of the Hauran,
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 fertility
is corroborated by every traveller who has
visited it. And “it is evident,” says Burckhardt,
.bn 0106.png
.pn +1
“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
ruins. 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 evidence
and by existing proofs, the researches of
recent travellers (who were actuated by the
mere desire of exploring these regions and obtaining
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 Rabbah
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 a 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 perpetual
desolation. “All this country, formerly
so populous and flourishing, is now changed
into a vast desert.” (Seetzen’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
“a spoil to the Heathen.” “The far greater
part of the country is uninhabited, being abandoned
to the wandering Arabs, and the towns
and villages are in a state of total ruin.” (Ibid.)
“At every step are to be found the vestiges of
ancient cities, the remains of many temples,
public edifices, and Greek churches.” (Burckhardt’s
Travels.) The cities are left desolate.
“Many of the ruins present no objects of any
interest. They consist of a few walls of dwelling
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 greater
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
.bn 0107.png
building among the ruins of Ammon, “the masonry
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 bleating of
flocks.” So literally true is it, although Seetzen,
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
Ammonites 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 æra. (Justin Martyr.)
“Yet they are cut off from the people. Ammon
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 remembered
among the nations.”
“Rabbah” (Rabbah Ammon, the chief city
of Ammon) “shall be a desolate heap.” Situated,
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, whatever
disasters might possibly befal it in the fate
of war or change of masters, would ever undergo
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 permanent
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 foundations
and some of the door posts. The buildings,
.bn 0108.png
.pn +1
exposed to the atmosphere, are all in
decay,” (Burckhardt’s Travels in Syria,) so that
they may be said literally to form a desolate
heap. The public edifices, which once strengthened
or adorned the city, after a long resistance
to decay, are now also desolate; and the remains
of the most entire among them, subjected
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 edifices
on earth can be, when they are contemplated
as monuments on which the historic and
prophetic truth of Scripture is blended in one
bright inscription.
AMORITES, the descendants of Amori, or
Hæmorri, or Amorrhæus, Gen. x, 16, the fourth
son of Canaan, whose first possessions were in
the mountains of Judea, among the other families
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 possession
of that extensive and almost insulated portion
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 Egypt, requested
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 possession
of by the Israelites. It was subsequently
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 Tekoa,
a small town about four leagues southward
of Jerusalem. He was sent to the people of
Samaria, to bring them back to God by repentance,
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 violence
offered him by those who endeavoured
to impose silence on him. He boldly inveighs
against the crying sins of the Israelites, such
as idolatry, oppression, wantonness, and obstinacy.
Nor does he spare the sins of Judah,
such as their carnal security, sensuality, and
injustice. He utters frequent threatenings
against them both, and predicts their ruin. It
is observable in this prophecy, that, as it begins
with denunciations of judgment and destruction
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
.bn 0109.png
the prophetic office in the time of Uzziah, king
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 rudeness
and vulgarity in his style; and even Jerom
is of opinion that he is deficient in magnificence
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 attention
to be convinced that he is not a whit behind
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 animals,
because he lived among, and was conversant
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 mischief.
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
suggested. 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 Pharisees
and others of the Jewish nation were a
sort of amulets.
Amulets among the Greeks were called,
[Greek: phylaktê/ria], [Greek: peria/pta], [Greek: a)pote/lesmata], [Greek: peria/mmata], [Greek: brê/bia],
and [Greek: exko/lpia]. The Latins called them amuleta,
appensa, pentacula, &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 by Amyraldus, or Moses
Amyraut, and his followers, among the
reformed in France, toward the middle of the
seventeenth century. This doctrine principally
consisted of the following particulars,
viz. that God desires the happiness of all men,
from which none are excluded by a divine decree;
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
.bn 0110.png
.pn +1
this power to saving purposes; and that many
perish through their own fault. Those who
embraced this doctrine were called Universalists,
although, it is evident that they rendered
grace universal in words, but partial in reality,
and are chargeable with greater inconsistencies
than the Supralapsarians. Amyraldus is
said to have formed his system with a view of
producing a reconciliation between the Lutherans
and Calvinists. This theory was supported
in England by Baxter. See #Baxterianism:BAXTERIANISM#.
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 their infancy. 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 England
they form a most respectable, though not
a very numerous body.
The word Anabaptist is compounded of [Greek: a)na\],
new, and [Greek: baptiϛê\s], a baptist; and has been indiscriminately
applied to people of very different
principles. Many of them object to the
name, because the baptism of infants by sprinkling
is, in their opinion, no baptism; and others
hold nothing in common excepting some one
or other of the above mentioned opinions concerning
baptism. See #Baptism: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 Palestine.
Anak, father of the Anakim, was son of
Arba, who gave his name to Kirjath-Arba, or
Hebron. Anak had three sons, Sheshai, Ahiman,
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 Ph[oe]nician, given to the Canaanites,
and particularly to the Sidonians, was originally
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 important
rule for interpreting Scripture, founded, as it
is said, upon Rom. xii, 6, “Let us prophesy according
to the proportion” (analogy) “of faith.”
The principle of this rule has been thus
stated: It is evident the Almighty doth not
.bn 0111.png
act without a design in the system of Christianity,
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 proportioned
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, whatever
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 often delusive. If nothing more
be meant than that, what is obscure in a revelation
should be interpreted by that which is
plain, the same rule applies to all sober interpretations
of any book whatever; but if we call
our opinions, perhaps hastily taken up, or admitted
on some authority without examination
by the light of Scripture, “the analogy of faith,”
we shall greatly err. On this subject Dr. Campbell
remarks:--
“In vain do we search the Scriptures for
their testimony concerning Christ, if, independently
of these Scriptures, we have received a
testimony from another quarter, and are determined
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 Saviour’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 interpretation
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 particular
system or digest of tenets for which
they themselves have the greatest reverence?
The Latin church, and even the Greek, are explicit
in their declarations on this article.
With 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 relatively
to the speakers; for, absolutely considered,
every party means a different thing.
‘But,’ say some, ‘is not this mode of interpretation
warranted by Apostolical authority?
Does not Paul, Rom. xii, 6, in speaking of the
exercise of the spiritual gifts, enjoin the prophets
to prophesy [Greek: kata\ tê\n a)nalogi/an tê~s ϖi/ϛeôs],
according to the proportion of faith, as our
translators render it, but as some critics explain
it, according to the analogy of the faith?’
Though this exposition has been admitted into
.bn 0112.png
.pn +1
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 [Greek: a)nalogi/a] 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
[Greek: a)nalogi/a ϖi/ϛeôs], verse 6, as equivalent to [Greek: me/tron
ϖi/steôs], verse 3. And for the better understanding
of this phrase, the measure of faith, it may
be proper to observe, 1. That a strong conviction
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 before
God.’ The scope of his reasoning shows
that nothing is there meant by faith, but a conviction
of the truth in regard to the article of
which he had been treating, namely, the equality
of days and meats, in point of sanctity, under
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 delivering
their predictions, as the diviners were supposed
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 induce 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 according
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 observed
above, has been given by some moderns.
This has, nevertheless, a sound and sober principle
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 interpretation
in doubtful passages, and these are so
obvious that persons of sound minds and hearts
will not need those formal rules for the application
.bn 0113.png
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 Nebedæus, high
priest of the Jews. According to Josephus, he
succeeded Joseph, the son of Camith, in the
forty-seventh year of the Christian æra; and
was himself succeeded by Ishmael, the son of
Tabæus, in the year 63. Quadratus, governor
of Syria, coming into Judæa, 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 Jerusalem
by the tribune of the Roman troops that
guarded the temple, declared to him that he
was a citizen of Rome. This obliged the officer
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
to smite him on the face. The Apostle immediately
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 people,”
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
Cæsarea, that Felix, governor of the province,
might take cognizance of the affair. When it
was known that the Apostle had arrived at
Cæsarea, Ananias the high priest, and other
Jews, went thither to accuse him; but the affair
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: Albinus,
governor of Judæa, being come into that
country, Ananias found means to gain him by
presents; and Ananias, by reason of this patronage,
was considered as the first man of his
nation. However, there were in his party
some violent persons, who plundered the country,
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 Judæa,
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 domestic
or relation of the high priest Ananias,
that he might procure the liberty of their associates,
in exchange for those whom they detained.
.bn 0114.png
.pn +1
Having taken Eleazer, one of Ananias’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 forbade
any sacrifices for the emperor. Being
joined by the assassins, he pulled down the
house of his father Ananias, with his brother,
hid himself in the aqueducts belonging to the royal
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 immediately
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. Ananias, a disciple of Christ, at Damascus,
whom the Lord directed to visit Paul, then
lately converted. Ananias answered, “Lord,
I have 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
priests to bind all that call upon thy name.”
But 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, &c. We are not informed of any
other circumstance of the life of Ananias.
ANATHEMA, from [Greek: a)nati/thêmi], signifies something
set apart, separated, or devoted, Mic. iv,
13, or the formula by 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 number
of the living, or the privileges of society; or
the devoting of an animal, city, or other thing,
to destruction. See #Accursed:ACCURSED#.
.bn 0115.png
ANATHEMA MARANATHA. “If any
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 Syriac,
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.” Maranatha
signifies, “The Lord cometh,” or, “will
come;” that is, to take vengeance. See See #Accursed:ACCURSED#.
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 ordinary
occupation, not expecting, perhaps, to be
farther employed in his service. However,
some months after, Jesus meeting them, while
fishing together, called them to a regular attendance
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 Scythia
and the neighbouring countries. According
to Eusebius, after this Apostle had planted
the Gospel in several places, he came to Patræ,
in Achaia, where, endeavouring to convert the
pro-consul Ægeas, he was, by that governor’s
orders, first scourged, and then crucified. 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
Patræ, by Maximilla, a lady of great quality
and estate. It was afterward removed to Constantinople,
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, [Greek: a)nge/los], is not properly
a denomination of nature but of office;
denoting as much as nuncius, messenger, a
person employed to carry one’s orders, or declare
his will. Thus it is St. Paul represents
angels, Heb. i, 14, where he calls them “ministering
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
power, superior to the souls or spirits of men.
Some of these are spoken of in Scripture in
.bn 0116.png
.pn +1
such a manner as plainly to signify that they
are real beings, of a spiritual nature, of high
power, perfection, dignity, and happiness.
Others of them are distinguished as not having
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, [Greek: ta\
ϖneumatika\ tê~s ϖonêri/as e)n toi~s e)pȣrani/ois], Eph. vi, 12;
which may not be unfitly rendered, “the spiritual
managers of opposition to the kingdom
of God.”
The existence of angels is supposed in all
religions, though it is incapable of being proved
a 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 different
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 descend
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 Esraphil,
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, Trismegistus,
&c. They were acknowledged under
different appellations; the Greeks calling them
dæmons, and the Romans genii, or lares. Epicurus
seems to have been the only one among the
old philosophers who absolutely rejected them.
Authors are not so unanimous about the nature
as about the existence of angels. Clemens
Alexandrinus believed they had bodies; which
was also the opinion of Origen, Cæsarius, Tertullian,
and several others. Athanasius, St.
Basil, St. Gregory Nicene, St. Cyril, St. Chrysostom,
&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. Ecclesiastical
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 companies
of angels, each headed by an archangel;
the first order being that of Michael; the second,
.bn 0117.png
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 seraphim.
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 purposes
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 patriarchs,
by the mediation of angels, who represented
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 excepted,
Acts xxiii, 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 Babylon.
Tobit, who is thought to have resided in
Nineveh some time before the captivity, mentions
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 Scripture
seems to favour this opinion, Job xxxviii,
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 spiritual
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 evidently
to understand the descendants of Seth,
who, for the great piety wherein they continued
for some time, were so called; and that “the
daughters of men” were the progeny of wicked
Cain.
.bn 0118.png
.pn +1
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 passages
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
angels, appears from Acts xii, 15.
On this question of guardian angels, Bishop
Horsley observes: “That the holy angels are
often employed by God in his government 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 occasionally
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 exercise,
and by means of which they may inflict
diseases, suggest evil thoughts, and be the instruments
of temptation, must also be admitted.
But all this amounts not to any thing of a discretional
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 question
is answered by St. Paul in his Epistle to
the Hebrews, in the last verse of the first chapter;
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 ‘ministering
spirits,’ or, literally, ‘serving spirits;’ not
invested with authority of their own, but ‘sent
forth,’ occasionally sent forth, to do such service
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 represented
as very great. Daniel, vii, 10, says of
the Ancient of Days, “A fiery stream came from
.bn 0119.png
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, lxviii, 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 subject, as on others, not as a
divine, 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.
Dr. Prideaux observes, that the minister of
the synagogue, who officiated in offering the
public prayers, being the mouth of the congregation,
delegated by them, as their representative,
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.
THE 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
Jehovah 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 Jehovah said, “Shall I hide from
Abraham the thing that I do?” Appearances
of the same personage occur to Isaac and to
Jacob under the name of “the God of Abraham,
and of Isaac.” After one of these manifestations,
Jacob says, “I have seen God face
to face;” and at another, “Surely the Lord
(Jehovah) is in this place.” The same Jehovah
was made visible to Moses, and gave him his
commission; and God said, “I am that I am;
thou shalt say to the children of Israel, I am
hath sent me unto you.” The same Jehovah
went before the Israelites by day in a pillar of
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 (Jehovah) thy God, which 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 the
.bn 0120.png
.pn +1
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 redeemed
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, (Jehovah,) that,
since thou hast done this thing, in blessing will
I bless 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,
I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham,
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 passages,
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 regarded
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 attention.
In Exodus xxiii, 20, God makes this
promise to Moses and the Israelites: “Behold,
I 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
pardon your transgressions, for my name is in
him.” Of this Angel let it be observed, that
he is here represented as the guide and protector
of the Israelites; 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, Jehovah, I am, which he assumed
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
.bn 0121.png
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 Canaanite,”
&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 renewed
promise, “My presence shall go with
thee, and I will give thee rest.” Nothing,
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
promise that God himself would go with them.
With 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
a created being; for at the news of God’s determination
not to go up with them, Moses
hastens to the tabernacle to make his intercessions,
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 dispensations,
and yet is invariably described as a
separate person from the unseen 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 idolatrous
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 be too justly
charged upon the Romish and some other corrupt
churches.
ANGER, a resentful emotion of the mind,
arising upon the receipt, or supposed receipt,
of an affront or injury; and also simple feeling
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 commendable.
Strong displeasure against evil
doers, provided it be free from hatred and
malice, and interferes not with a just placableness,
is also blameless, Eph. iv, 26. When it
is vindictive against the person of our neighbour,
or against the innocent creatures of God,
it is wicked, Matt. v, 22. When anger, hatred,
wrath, and fury, are ascribed to God, they denote
no tumultuous passion, but merely his
holy and just displeasure with sin and sinners;
.bn 0122.png
.pn +1
and the evidence of it in his terrible threatenings,
or righteous judgments, Psalm vi, 1, and
vii, 11. We 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 nature;
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 judgments
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 mutilation
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 general
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 a dog, a wolf, a boar, &c, Exodus xxii, 3;
nor of any animal that died of itself. Whoever
touched its carcass was impure until the evening;
and till that time, and before he had
washed his clothes, he did not return to the company
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 feet, 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. These 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
.bn 0123.png
accounted for. Some have thought it symbolical,
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 Egyptians,
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 sanative regulation. But it is
not to be forgotten that this division of animals
into clean and unclean existed both before
the law of Moses, and even prior to the flood.
The foundation of it was therefore clearly sacrificial;
for before the deluge it could not have
reference to health, since animal food was not
allowed to man prior to the deluge; and as no
other ground for the distinction appears, except
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 context,
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 command to take them
into the ark, a difference is made in the number
to be preserved--the clean being to be
received by sevens, and the unclean by two of a
kind. This shows that this distinction among
beasts had been established in the time of Noah;
and thus the assumption of a prolepsis is refuted.
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 prohibition
of blood for food, after animals had
been granted to man for his sustenance along
with the “herb of the field.” This prohibition
is repeated by Moses to the Israelites, 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, announced
by Moses, or the same reason for the prohibition
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 passage
in Lev. xvii, is, “And thou shalt say to
them, Whatsoever man there be of the house
.bn 0124.png
.pn +1
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
blood, and I will cut him off from among his
people: FOR THE LIFE 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
soul.” The great reason, then, 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 understood in the general reason
given for the restraint to Noah. Blood is
prohibited for this cause, that it is the life; and
Moses adds, that it is “the blood,” or life,
“which makes atonement.” Let any one
attempt to discover any cause 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 substituted for
life, the life of the animal in sacrifice for the
life of man, and that it had a sacred appropriation.
The manner, too, in which Moses introduces
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 paschal
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.
Nor 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,
probably, from the Egyptians, as they derived
it, not from Moses, but from the sons of Noah.
The notion, indeed, that the blood of the victims
was peculiarly sacred to the gods, is impressed
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 sacrifice,
we have not only a proof of the antiquity
of that practice, but that it was of divine institution
and appointment, since almighty God
gave laws for its right and acceptable performance.
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
.bn 0125.png
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 #Sacrifices:SACRIFICE#.
ANISE, an annual umbeliferous plant, the
seeds of which have an aromatic smell, a pleasant
warm taste, and a carminative quality.
But by [Greek: a)/nêthon], Matt. xxiii, 23, the dill is meant.
Our translators seem to have been first misled
by a resemblance of the sound. No other versions
have fallen into the mistake. The Greek
of anise is [Greek: a)/nison]; but of dill, [Greek: a)/nêthon].
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 continued
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 sacrifice
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 entering
accidentally, while Simeon was pronouncing
his thanksgiving, she likewise began
to praise God, and to speak of the Messiah to
all those who waited for redemption in Jerusalem.
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 preserved
the title of high priest, and had a great
share in the management of public affairs. He
is called high priest in conjunction with Caiaphas,
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 possessed
that great dignity many years. This
was an instance of good fortune which, till
that time, had happened to no person.
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, probably
became the occasion of idolatry in succeeding
ages, and gave rise to the erection of temples
.bn 0126.png
.pn +1
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
representation of the communication of the
Holy Ghost to Christ and to his church. See
Exod. xxviii, xxix. Hence the Holy Spirit is
called an unction 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 Jewish
kings, we are to understand by it the same
as their inauguration; inasmuch as anointing
was the principal ceremony on such an occasion,
2 Sam. ii, 4; v, 3. As far as we are
informed, however, unction, as a sign of investiture
with the royal authority, was bestowed
only upon 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 being
forcibly disputed, 1 Sam. x, 24; 2 Sam. ii,
4; v, 1–3; 1 Chron. xi, 1, 2; 2 Kings xi, 12–20;
2 Chron. xxiii, 1–21. The ceremony of
regal anointing needed not to be repeated in
every instance of succession to the throne, because
the unction which the first one who held
the sceptre in any particular line of princes had
received was supposed to suffice for the succeeding
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 ceremonies,
2 Kings ix, 13. The private anointings
which we learn to have been performed
by the prophets, 2 Kings ix, 3, comp. 1 Sam.
x, 1; xvi, 1–13, 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, 22–33, 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.
ANOM[OE]ANS, 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 [Greek: a)no/moios], 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
pure Arians, the consubstantiality of the Word.
The Semi-Arians condemned the Anom[oe]ans
in the council of Seleucia; and the Anom[oe]ans,
in their turn, condemned the Semi-Arians in
.bn 0127.png
the councils of Constantinople and Antioch,
erasing the word like out of the formula of
Rimini and Constantinople.
ANSWER. Beside 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 condemnation,
he had a certain assurance of dying.
To answer is also used in Scripture for the
commencement of a discourse, when no reply
to any question or objection is intended. This
mode of speaking is often used by the evangelists,
“And Jesus answered and said.” It is a
Hebrew idiom.
ANT, נמלה, in the Turkish and Arabic, neml,
Prov. vi, 6; xxx, 25. It is a little insect, famous
from all antiquity for its social habits, its
economy, unwearied industry, and prudent foresight.
It has afforded a pattern of commendable
frugality to the profuse, and of unceasing
diligence to the slothful. Solomon calls the
ants “exceeding wise; for though a race not
strong, yet they prepare their meat in the summer.”
He therefore sends the sluggard to
these little creatures, to learn wisdom, foresight,
care, and diligence.
.pm start_poem
“Go to the ant; learn of its ways, be wise;
It early heaps its stores, lest want surprise.
Skill’d in the various year, the prescient sage
Beholds the summer chill’d in winter’s rage.
Survey its arts; in each partition’d cell
Economy and plenty deign to dwell.”
.pm end_poem
That the ant hoarded up grains of corn
against winter for its sustenance, was very
generally believed by the ancients, though
.bn 0128.png
.pn +1
modern naturalists seem to question the fact.
Thus Horace says,
.pm start_poem
“------Sicut
Parvula (nam exemplo est) magni formica laboris
Ore trahit quodcunque potest, atque addit acervo
Quem struit, haud ignara ac non incauta futuri;
Quæ, simul inversum contristat aquarius annum,
Non usquam prorepit, et illis utitur ante
Quæsitis sapiens.”
.pm end_poem
.rj
Sat. i, l. i, v. 33.
.pm start_poem
“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.”
.pm end_poem
The learned Bochart, in his Hierozoicon, has
displayed his vast reading on this subject, and
has cited passages from Pliny, Lucian, Ælian,
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 נמל, which
signifies to cut off, and is used for cutting off
ears of corn, Job xxiv, 24.
The following remarks are from “the Introduction
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 probably
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 observes,
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 adduced
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 wisdom
of the ant has been recognised by many
writers. Horace in the passage from which
the preceding quotation is taken, praises its
sagacity; Virgil celebrates its foresight, in providing
for the wants and infirmities of old age,
while it is young and vigorous:--
.pm start_poem
----atque inopi metuens formica senectæ.
[And the ant dreading a destitute old age.]
.pm end_poem
.ni
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
.bn 0129.png
inauspicious day, and collected her store.
Cicero believed that the ant is not only furnished
with senses, but also with mind, reason
and memory:--In 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 small a corpuscle, is indeed one of the most
remarkable phenomena in the works of nature.
.pi
ANTHROPOMORPHITES, a sect of ancient
heretics, who were so denominated from
two Greek words [Greek: a)/nthrôpos], man, and [Greek: mo/rphê], shape.
They understood every thing spoken in Scripture
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 especially 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 members
in us are the instruments. The eye, for
instance, represents God’s knowledge and
watchful care; the arm, his power and strength;
the ears, 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 imperfection,
such as perturbed feeling in him.
When God is said to repent, the antecedent,
by a frequent figure of speech, is put for the
consequent; 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 [Greek: a)nti\], contra,
against, and [Greek: Chriϛo\s], 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 general sense
of it, is also applicable to any power or person
acting in direct opposition to Christ or his doctrine.
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 opposition
to him. The Fathers all speak of antichrist
as a single man; though they also assure
us, that he is to have divers precursors, or forerunners.
Yet many Protestant writers apply
to the Romish church, and the pope who is at
the head of it, the several marks and signatures
of antichrist enumerated in the Apocalypse,
which would imply antichrist to be, not
a single person, but a corrupt society, or a long
series of persecuting pontiffs, or rather, a certain
power and government, that may be held
for many generations, by a number of individuals
succeeding one another. The antichrist
mentioned by the Apostle John, first Epistle ii,
18, and more particularly described in the book
.bn 0130.png
.pn +1
of Revelation, seems evidently to be the same
with the man of sin, &c, characterized by St. Paul
in his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians,
chap. ii; and the whole description literally
applies to the Papal power. A late writer, after
collecting the principal prophecies relating to
antichrist, infers from them that a power, sometimes
represented as the little horn, the man of
sin, the antichrist, the beast, the harlot, the star
falling from heaven, the false prophet, the dragon,
or as the operation of false teachers, was
to be expected to arise in the Christian world
to persecute and oppress, and delude the disciples
of Christ, corrupt the doctrine of the primitive
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 different
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 is antichrist, Mede and Newton,
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 likewise
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
prophecies concerning the beast in the Revelation,
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, Boniface
III, received from the tyrant Phocas the
precise title which Gregory had thus censured.
At the synod of Rheims, held in the tenth century,
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 corresponding
with the description of him given by St.
Paul. In the eleventh century, all the characters
of antichrist seemed to be so united in the
person of Pope Hildebrand, who took the
name of Gregory VII, that Johannes Aventinus,
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 Protestants of the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries, expressly asserted in their declarations
of faith, that the church of Rome was
the whore of Babylon. The Papists imagine
.bn 0131.png
they view in the prophetical picture of antichrist,
imperial Rome, elated by her victories,
exulting in her sensuality and her spoils, polluted
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, Grotius,
and Hammond. Some writers have maintained,
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 appropriate
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 confession
of faith, whereby the Pope is formally
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.
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 completely
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 hundred
and sixty days, and date the rise of antichrist
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 powers,
both of which have indeed been already
greatly weakened.
ANTI-LIBANUS. The Greeks give this
name to that chain of mountains east of Libanus,
which, properly speaking, forms, together
with Libanus, but one ridge of mountains, extending
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 Antilibanus;
the former reached along the Mediterranean,
from Sidon, almost to Arada, or
Symira. The Hebrew text never mentions Antilibanus;
but uses the general name Libanus:
and the coins struck at Laodicea and Hierapolis,
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 which
.bn 0132.png
.pn +1
separates Libanus from Antilibanus is very fruitful:
it was formerly, on the side of Syria, inclosed
with a wall, whereof there are now no
traces. Strabo says, that the name of C[oe]lo-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 necessity 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 preached
from the decalogue, but only from the Gospel.
This sect sprung up in England during
the protectorate of Oliver Cromwell; and extended
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, Schlusselburgh,
Sedgwick, Gataker, Witsius, Bull,
Williams, &c, have written refutations; Crisp,
Richardson, Saltmarsh, &c, defences, of the
Antinomians; Wigandus, a comparison between
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 imputed
to him which he did not hold. The writings
of Dr. Crisp in the seventeenth century are considered
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.” “It 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 too heavy 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 person
is not in a condemned state while an unbeliever;
.bn 0133.png
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 certainly
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 to
Antinomianism.”
ANTIOCH, a city of Upper Syria, on the
river Orontes, about twenty miles from the
place where it discharges itself into the Mediterranean.
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 situated
midway between Constantinople and Alexandria,
about seven hundred miles from each,
in 37° 17´ north latitude, and 36° 45´ east longitude.
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 overthrown
by earthquakes.
In 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 fashionable
place of resort for Pagan worship in the
east, had sunk into neglect since the establishment
of Christianity. The altar of the god was
deserted, the oracle was silenced, and the sacred
grove itself defiled by the interment of Christians.
Julian undertook to restore the ancient
honours and usages of the place; but it was
first necessary to take away the pollution occasioned
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 grove
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 neglected,
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 repository
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
.bn 0134.png
.pn +1
clemency of Julian contented itself with shutting
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 by Bibars, or
Bondocdar, sultan of Egypt. The slaughter
of seventeen thousand, and the captivity of one
hundred 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 deserted
condition, till, with the rest of Syria, it
passed into the hands of the Ottoman Turks,
with whose empire it has ever since been incorporated.
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 amorous
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 abandon
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 expected
to be more pure; in fact, the citizens of
Antioch were distinguished only for their luxury
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 vigorously.
It should be observed, that the inhabitants
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 Cyrenian
converts, who had fled from the persecution
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 informed
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 observance
of the law, Gal. ii, 11–14.
Antioch was the birthplace of St. Luke and
Theophilus, and the see of the martyr Ignatius.
.bn 0135.png
In this city the followers of Christ had first the
name of Christians given them. We have the
testimony of Chrysostom, both of the vast increase
of this illustrious church in the fourth
century, and of the spirit of charity which continued
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 declension 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 brightest
of its history subsequent to the Apostolic
age, and that from which the church at Antioch
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. But its ancient
subterranean enemy, which, since its destruction
in 587, never long together withheld its
assaults, has again triumphed over it: the earthquake
of the 13th of August, 1822, laid it once
more in ruins; and every thing relating to Antioch
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 belonging
to that province, of which it was the capital.
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 Seleucidæ, the successors of Alexander in
these countries; but the above two are the only
ones which it is necessary to describe as occurring
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 Antiochus
Soter, and reckoned the first king of Syria,
after Alexander the Great.
1. Antiochus Soter was the son of Seleucus
Nicanor, and obtained the surname of Soter,
or Saviour, from having hindered the invasion
.bn 0136.png
.pn +1
of Asia by the Gauls. Some think that it was
on the following occasion: The Galatians having
marched to attack the Jews in Babylon,
whose army consisted only of eight thousand
men, reinforced with four thousand Macedonians,
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 Antiochus
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 Philadelphus,
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 Antiochus,
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. i.
Thirteen years after, Ptolemy Philopator being
dead, Antiochus resolved to become master
of Egypt. He immediately seized C[oe]lo-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. After a
victory which he had obtained over Scopas,
near the springs of Jordan, he became master
of the strong places in C[oe]lo-Syria and Samaria;
and the Jews submitted freely to him, received
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 purchase beasts for sacrifice, one
thousand four hundred and sixty measures of
meal, and three hundred and seventy-five measures
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 according
to their own laws in every part of his dominions.
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
.bn 0137.png
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 Epiphanes,
and to pay a tribute of twelve thousand
Euboic talents, each fourteen Roman pounds
in weight. To defray these charges, he resolved
to seize the treasures of the temple of
Belus, at Elymais; but the people of that country,
informed of his design, surprised and destroyed
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. Antiochus Epiphanes, the son of Antiochus
the Great, having continued a hostage at
Rome fourteen years, his brother Seleucus resolved
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 propitious
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 enjoyed
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 Ptolemy’s
coronation, but in reality to obtain
intelligence whether the great men of the kingdom
were inclined to place the government of
Egypt in his hands during the minority of the
king his nephew, 2 Mac. iv, 21, &c. Apollonius,
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 priesthood.
He designed to attack Egypt, but returned
without effecting any thing. The ambition
of those Jews who sought the high
priesthood, and bought it of Antiochus, was
the beginning of those calamities which overwhelmed
their nation under this prince. Jason
procured himself to be constituted in this dignity
in the stead of Onias III; but Menelaus
offering a greater price, Jason was deprived,
and Menelaus 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 reduced
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
.bn 0138.png
.pn +1
Alexandria, a false report was spread of his
death. The inhabitants of Jerusalem testifying
their joy at this news, Antiochus, when returning
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
occasion. Antiochus, conducted by the corrupt
high priest Menelaus, entered into the
holy 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 entirely
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 Mac. v, 24, 25.
These orders were too punctually executed. It
was on this occasion that Judas Maccabæus
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 temple,
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 Maccabæus headed those Jews who continued
faithful, and opposed with success the
generals whom king Antiochus sent into Judea.
The king, informed of the valour and resistance
of Judas, 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 Romans,
1 Mac. iii, 5–31; 2 Mac. ix, 1, &c;
1 Mac. vi, 1, &c. Knowing that very great
riches were lodged in the temple of Elymaïs,
he determined to carry it off; but the inhabitants
of the country made so vigorous a resistance,
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 Maccabæus had
retaken the temple of Jerusalem, and restored
the worship of the Lord, and the usual sacrifices.
On receiving this intelligence, the king
was transported with indignation; and, threatening
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
.bn 0139.png
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 recommended
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 Eupator, 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 Jerusalem.
The city was ready to fall into 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. Antiochus Theos, 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 Nicanor.
After some hesitation, Zabdiel complied
with the request; and Tryphon carried Antiochus
into Syria, and put the crown on his
head. The troops 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 acquisition,
sent letters to Jonathan Maccabæus,
.bn 0140.png
.pn +1
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 Maccabæus, the command of all his
troops on the coast of the Mediterranean, from
Tyre to Egypt. Jonathan, engaged by so many
favours, declared resolutely for Antiochus, or
rather for Tryphon, who reigned under the
name of this young prince; and on several
occasions, he attacked the generals of Demetrius,
who still possessed many places beyond
Jordan and in Galilee, 1 Macc. xi, 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
Maccabæus who was one of the most powerful
supporters of Antiochus’s throne. He came,
therefore, with troops into Judea, invited Jonathan
to Ptolemais, and there, on frivolous pretences,
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, having
published that Antiochus was tormented with
the stone, murdered him, by cutting him without
any necessity. Thus Tryphon was left
master of Syria, in the year of the world 3861,
and before Jesus Christ 143.
7. Antiochus Sidetes, or Soter the Saviour,
or Eusebes the pious, was the son of Demetrius
Soter, and brother to Demetrius Nicanor. Tryphon,
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 Maccabæus,
to engage him against Tryphon, 1 Macc.
xv, 1, 2, 3, &c. He confirmed the privileges
which the kings 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
peaceable possession of the kingdom which had
belonged to his ancestors. Antiochus Sidetes
having married his sister-in-law, Cleopatra, in
the year of the world 3865, the troops of Tryphon
resorted to him in crowds. Tryphon,
thus abandoned, retired to Dora, in Ph[oe]nicia,
whither Antiochus pursued him with an army
.bn 0141.png
of 120,000 foot, 800 horse, and a powerful
fleet. Simon Maccabæus 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 possession
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 extremely
offended at Simon’s answer. In the
meantime, Tryphon having escaped privately
from Dora, embarked in a vessel and fled. Antiochus
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 Maccabæus,
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 Maccabæus, 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 demand
troops, that he might recover for him the
country and cities of the Jews. Antiochus came
in person with an army, and besieged Jerusalem,
which was bravely defended by John Hircanus.
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 tabernacles,
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 Joppa 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
.bn 0142.png
.pn +1
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 demanded
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 Antiochus.
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 quarters.
These troops behaved with so much insolence,
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 Phraates,
king of Persia, whom he fought with great
bravery; but being at length deserted by his
own forces, according to the generality of historians,
he was overpowered and killed by the
Persians or Parthians. Appian, however, says
that he killed himself, and Ælian, 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, reascended
the throne of Syria.
ANTIPÆDOBAPTISTS, a denomination
given to those who object to the baptism of infants.
The word is derived from [Greek: a)nti\], against,
[Greek: ϖa~is, ϖaido\s], a child, [Greek: bapti/zô], I baptize. See
#Baptism:BAPTISM#.
ANTIPAS, Antipas-Herod, or Herod-Antipas,
was the son of Herod the Great, and Cleopatra
of Jerusalem. Herod the Great, in his
first will, declared him his successor in the kingdom;
but he afterward named his son Archelaus
king of Judea, and gave to Antipas only
the title of tetrarch of Galilee and Peræa. Archelaus
going to Rome, to persuade the emperor
to confirm his father’s will, Antipas also
went thither. The emperor bestowed on Archelaus
one moity of what had been assigned
him by Herod, with the quality of ethnarch, and
promised to grant him the title of king when
he had shown himself deserving of it by his
virtues. To Antipas, Augustus gave Galilee and
Peræa; and to Philip, Herod’s other son, the
Batanæa, Trachonitis, and Auranitis, with some
other places.
.bn 0143.png
Antipas, returning to Judea, took great pains
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 Antipas,
and imprisoned in the castle of Machærus.
Josephus says, that Antipas caused John to be
taken, because he drew too great a concourse
after him; and Antipas 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 acquainted
with John and his disciples, assure
us, that the true reason of 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 iii, 19, 20. When the king
was celebrating his birth day, with the principal
persons of his court, the daughter of Herodias
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 Baptist.
Returning, therefore, to the hall, she addressed
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 consideration
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 daughter,
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 æra 39, Herodias being jealous
of the prosperity of her brother Agrippa, who
from a private person had become king of Judea,
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 appearance
would contribute to procure the emperor’s
favour. However, Agrippa obtaining intelligence
of this design, wrote to the emperor and
accused Antipas. The messenger of Agrippa
arrived at Baiæ, 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 party
in Sejanus’s conspiracy against Tiberius, and
said that he still carried on a correspondence
with Artabanus, king of Partha, against the
Romans. As a 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
.bn 0144.png
.pn +1
Gaul. The emperor offered to forgive Herodias,
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. Josephus
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, a town in Palestine,
anciently called Caphar-Saba, according
to Josephus; but named Antipatris by Herod
the Great, in honour of his father Antipater.
It was situated in a pleasant valley, near the
mountains, in the way from Jerusalem to Cæsarea.
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 Cæsarea, Acts xxiii, 31.
ANTITYPE, that which answers to a type
or figure. A type is a model, mould, or pattern;
that which is formed according to it is
an antitype. See #Type: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, קוֹף, [Greek: kê~phos] and [Greek: kê~pos], cephus, 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, l. 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
of a man.” The Scripture says that the fleet of
Solomon brought apes, or rather monkeys, &c,
from Ophir. The learned are not agreed respecting
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 קפים
inhabiting its banks?
We now distinguish this tribe of creatures
into 1. Monkeys, those with long tails; 2. Apes,
those with short tails; 3. Baboons, those without
tails. The ancient Egyptians are said to
have worshipped apes; it is certain that they
.bn 0145.png
are still adored in many places in India. Maffeus
describes a magnificent temple dedicated to
the ape, with a portico for receiving the victims
sacrificed, supported by seven hundred columns.
.pm start_poem
“With glittering gold and sparkling gems they shine,
But apes and monkeys are the gods within.”
.pm end_poem
.ni
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 villages,
&c, adjacent, but have even been in
danger of their lives.
.pi
APHARSACHITES, a people sent by the
kings of Assyria to inhabit the country of Samaria,
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 exterior
marks, in which animal the soul of the
great Osiris was supposed to subsist. The ox
was probably made the symbol of Osiris because
he presided over agriculture.
APOCALYPSE, [Greek: A)poka/lypsis], signifies revelation.
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 Revelation
being a genuine work of St. John the
Evangelist are very full and satisfactory. Andrew,
bishop of Cæsarea in Capadocia, in the
fifth century, assures us that Papias acknowledged
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 Iræneus, 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, Theophilus
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, however,
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 satisfactory
attestations.” The omission of this book
in some of the early catalogues of the Scriptures,
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
.bn 0146.png
.pn +1
John the Divine; and this appellation was
first given to St. John by Eusebius, not to distinguish
him from any other person of the
same name, but as an honourable title, intimating
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 epistles
to the seven churches in Asia; namely, of
Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamus, Thyatira, Sardis,
Philadelphia, 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 remarkable
revolutions and events in the Christian
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 therefore
those who are disposed to study this sublime
and mysterious book are referred to Mede,
Daubuz, Sir Isaac Newton, Lowman, Bishop
Newton, Bishop Hurd, and many other excellent
commentators. These learned men agree
in their general principles concerning the interpretation
of this book, although they differ
in some particular points; and it is not to be
expected that there should be a perfect coincidence
of opinion in the explanation of those
predictions which relate to still future times;
for, as the incomparable Sir Isaac Newton observes,
“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 prescience,
not that of the interpreters, be then
manifested thereby to the 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 predictions
should afford, in every succeeding
period of time, additional testimony to the
divine origin 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 [Greek: a)po\ tê~s kry/ptê~s], because
the books in question were removed from the
crypt, chest, ark, or other receptacle in which
the sacred books were deposited whose authority
.bn 0147.png
was never doubted, or more probably from the
verb [Greek: a)pokry/ptô], 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
of the corrupt practices of that church. The Protestant
churches not only account those books
to be apocryphal and merely human compositions
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, Ecclesiasticus,
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 enumerated
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 prophetic
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 æra, 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, Gregory
Nazianzen, Amphilochius, Jerom, Rufinus,
and others of the fourth century; nor in
the catalogue of canonical books recognised by
the council of Laodicea, held in the same century,
whose canons were received by the catholic
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 authority
of the apocryphal books, we may add that
they were never read in the Christian church
until the fourth century; when, as Jerom informs
us, they were read “for example of life,
and instruction of planners; but were not
.bn 0148.png
.pn +1
applied to establish any doctrine.” And contemporary
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 ecclesiastical
officers, who read them in a lower
place than those which were universally acknowledged
to be canonical, which were read
by the bishops and presbyters in a more eminent
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 Testament
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, Dimaritæ, a sect
who derive their principal name from Apollinaris,
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 humanity.
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 crucifixion
and death. Apollinaris and his followers
have been charged with other errors by
certain ancient waiters; 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 378, which deposed Apollinaris from his bishopric.
In short, it was attacked at the same
time by the laws of the emperors, the decrees
of councils, and the writings of the learned;
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 eloquent
man, and mighty in the Scriptures; but
he knew only the baptism of John, and was
not fully informed of the higher branches of
Gospel doctrine. However, he acknowledged
that Jesus 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 Priscilla,
having heard him there, took him with
.bn 0149.png
them, and instructed him more fully in the
ways of God. Some time 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.
iii, 6. It has been supposed, that the great
admiration of his disciples for him tended to
produce a schism. Some 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 Ephesus,
went to meet him, and was there when
St. Paul wrote the First Epistle to the Corinthians;
in which he observes, that he had earnestly
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 Corinth,
but that, in order to avoid provoking a
temper which he wished to subside, he transfers
“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 afterward
became bishop. The Greeks say that he
was bishop of Duras; some, that he was bishop
of Iconium, in Phrygia; and others of Cæsarea.
APOLLYON. See #Abaddon:ABADDON#.
APOLOGIES, in ecclesiastical history,
were defences (so the Greek word means) of
Christianity, 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 apologies;
the latter (to the Roman senate) is imperfect
at the beginning; but the former, addressed
to Antoninus Pius, is 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 curious and valuable remains of antiquity,
as showing what were the objections of the
Heathens, and the manner in which they were
rebutted by the early Christians.
APOSTASY, a deserting or abandoning of
the true religion. The word is borrowed from
.bn 0150.png
.pn +1
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 [Greek: a)po\], from,
and [Greek: i(\ϛêmi], I stand. Among the Romanists,
apostasy also signifies the forsaking of a religious
order, whereof a man had made profession,
without a lawful dispensation. The
ancients distinguished three kinds of apostasy:
the first, a supererogatione, is committed by a
priest, or religious, who abandons his profession,
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, a 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
Christianity together; and the third was that
of those who, after having been Christians,
voluntarily relapsed into Paganism.
APOSTLE, [Greek: a)po/ϛolos], one of the twelve disciples
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 [Greek: a)poϛe/llô], 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. Accordingly
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 commission
of the twelve Apostles, we have an
account, Luke vi, 13, &c; Matt. x, 1, &c.
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 effectually
to do this, he endowed them with the
power of working miracles, of curing diseases,
and casting out demons. About the commencement
of the third year of his ministry,
according to the common account of its duration,
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 Samaritans;
.bn 0151.png
to declare the approach of the kingdom
of heaven, and the establishment of the Gospel
dispensation; to exercise the miraculous
powers with which they had been endowed
gratuitously; and to depend for their subsistence
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 קנא, signifying the same with
Zelotes, or the Zelot, a name given to him on
account of his having before professed a distinguishing
zeal for the law; and Judas Iscariot,
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 distinctly
specified.
After the resurrection of our Saviour, and
not long before his ascension, the place of Judas
the traitor was supplied by Matthias, supposed
by some to have been Nathanael of
Galilee, to whom our Lord had given the distinguishing
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
Samaria, but unto the uttermost parts of the
earth; and they were qualified for the execution
of their office by a plenteous effusion of
miraculous powers and spiritual gifts, and particularly
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 success
at Jerusalem, where they opened their
commission, 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 Apostles, as the only effectual measure
for preventing the farther spread of Christianity.
Gamaliel interposed, by his prudent
and moderate counsel; and his speech had so
good an effect upon the sanhedrim, that, instead
of putting Peter and John to death, they
scourged them, renewed their charge and
threats, and then dismissed them. The Apostles,
however, were not discouraged nor restrained;
.bn 0152.png
.pn +1
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 number
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, Ph[oe]nicia,
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
preached the Gospel in many Samaritan villages.
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 Christian
religion had been planted in Jerusalem,
Judea, 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. Cæsarea
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 imitated
his example, and a great number of persons
of this description embraced the Christian
faith, more especially at Antioch, 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 extraordinary
manner Apostles of the Gentiles, or
uncircumcision. Barnabas was probably an
elder of the first rank; he had seen Christ in
.bn 0153.png
the flesh, had been an eye witness of his being
alive again after his crucifixion, and had received
the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost,
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 affection
for the Gentiles than most of the Jews,
who were natives of Judea. Saul had been
converted, and had hitherto preached chiefly
on Gentile ground; and he had joined with
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 supposed
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 quickly
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 commission.
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 eminence;
and the Apostle of the Gentiles, because
his ministry was chiefly employed for the conversion
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 particular
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 Ephesus.
Peter, as it seems, preached to the dispersed
Jews in Pontus and Galatia, Bithynia,
Cappadocia, and Asia; at length, coming to
Rome, he was crucified with his head downward,
as he had desired. What need I to speak
of St. Paul, who fully preached the Gospel of
Christ, from Jerusalem to Illyricum, and at last
.bn 0154.png
.pn +1
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 English,
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 contended
about the antiquity of their origin, with as
much vehemence as the Arcadians, Egyptians,
and Greeks disputed formerly about their seniority
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, Matthew,
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 person
who was of a rank below that of an Apostle,
were received by Christians as a part of
their rule of faith. With respect to the writings
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
calls 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 Apostle;
therefore he need not be supposed to
ascribe to Barnabas that large measure of inspiration
and high authority, which was peculiar
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 disciple
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
.bn 0155.png
borrowed from the synagogues, who called
those whom they sent on this message, by the
same name; and the function or office itself
[Greek: a)poϛolê\], that is, mission. Thus St. Paul, writing
to the Philippians, tells them, that Epaphroditus,
their Apostle, had ministered to his
wants, chap. ii, 25. It is applied in like manner
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 temple,
and the tribute payable to the Romans.
These apostles were a degree below the officers
of the synagogues, called patriarchs, and received
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 envoy
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 alludes
to it in the passage just cited.
APOSTLES’ CREED. See #Creed:CONFESSIONS#.
APPELLATIO, an appeal. The Sempronian
law secured this privilege to the Roman
citizens, that they could not be capitally convicted,
but by the suffrage of the people; and
in whatever provinces they happened to reside,
if the governor showed a disposition to condemn
them to death, to scourge, or deprive
them of their property, they had liberty to appeal
from his jurisdiction to the judgment of
the people. This law, which was enacted under
the republican form of government, continued
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
set up here. To this place some Christians from
Rome came to meet St. Paul, Acts xxviii, 15.
APPLE TREE, תפוח, Prov. xxv, 11; Cant.
ii, 3, 5; vii, 8; viii, 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 intermediate
country between Egypt and Damascus,
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
.bn 0156.png
.pn +1
which he mentions among the things that
gave joy to the inhabitants of Judea, were
those that we call by that name? Our translators
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. We may be sure 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 פר עץ הדר, 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 delightful
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 exhilarating
fruit.
The exhilarating effects of the fruit are mentioned
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 supposes,
in baskets wrought with open work, or
in salvers curiously chased, it nothing concerns
us to determine; the meaning is, that an excellent
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 Cyrenians,
he lost in this expedition almost the
whole of his army. The Egyptians resolved to
make him responsible for this ill success, rebelled,
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
.bn 0157.png
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 proclaimed
him king. The rest applauded him; and
Amasis having accepted their offer, continued
with them, and confirmed them in their rebellion.
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 Nebuchadnezzar,
king of Babylon.
Apries had made a league with Zedekiah, and
promised him assistance, Ezek. xvii, 15. Zedekiah,
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 Syria
had shaken off their obedience, he first reduced
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. Zedekiah
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
to meet him. But Apries not daring to hazard
a battle against the Chaldeans, retreated into
Egypt, and abandoned Zedekiah. Ezekiel reproaches
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 prophesies
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 Egypt by the Persians.
AQUILA. This person was a native of Pontus
in Asia Minor, and was converted by St.
Paul, together with his wife Priscilla, to the
Christian religion. As Aquila was by trade a
tentmaker, Acts xviii, 2, 3, as St. Paul was, the
Apostle lodged and wrought with him at Corinth.
Aquila came thither, not long before,
from Italy, being obliged to leave Rome upon
the edict which the emperor Claudius had published,
banishing the Jews from that city. St.
Paul afterward quitted Aquila’s house, and abode
with Justus, near the Jewish synagogue at Corinth;
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 Ephesus,
where he left them with that church while
he pursued his journey to Jerusalem. They
rendered him great service in that city, so far
.bn 0158.png
.pn +1
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, wherein
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 his name. What became of them after this
time is not known.
AR, the capital city of the Moabites, situated
in the hills on the south of the river Arnon.
This city was likewise called Rabbah or Rabbath
Moab, to distinguish it from the Ammonite
Rabbah. It was afterward called by the
Greeks Areopolis; and is at present termed El-Rabba.
See #Moab:MOAB#.
ARABIA. A vast country of Asia, extending
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 plantations
were on both sides of the Euphrates
and Gulf of Persia, and who were the first that
traversed the desert of Arabia, the earliest commercial
communications were established between
the east and the west. But of their
Arabian territory, and of the occupation dependent
on it, they were deprived by the sons
of Abraham, Ishmael, and Midian; by whom
they were obliterated in this country as a distinct
race, either by superiority of numbers after
mingling with them, or by obliging them to recede
altogether to their more eastern possessions,
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 Ishmaelites
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 superiority,
and succeeded in giving his name to the
whole people.
Arabia, it is well known, is divided by geographers
into three separate regions, called Arabia
Petræa, Arabia Deserta, and Arabia Felix.
.bn 0159.png
The first, or Arabia Petræa, 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 exclusively
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 father-in-law:
no humiliating occupation in those
days, and particularly in Midian, which was a
land of shepherds; the whole people having no
other way of life than that of rearing and tending
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 Midianite.
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 well as the scanty
supply of water in their country, and the strifes
frequently occasioned in obtaining a share of it.
Through a considerable part of this region, the
Israelites wandered after they had escaped from
Egypt; and in it were situated the mountains
Horeb 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 Nabathæi, the only
tribe of pure Ishmaelites within its precincts.
But all those families have long since been confounded
under the general name of Arabs. The
greater part of this district consists of naked
rocks and sandy and flinty plains; but it contained
also some fertile spots, particularly in
the peninsula of Mount Sinai, and through the
long range of Mount Seir.
.il id=i0076 fn=i_0076thumb.jpg w=100% ew=100% link=i_0076fp.jpg
.ca
Map of the
JOURNEYINGS & ENCAMPMENTS
of the ISRAELITES from
EGYPT to CANAAN
Through the Desert of
Arabia Petræa
.ca-
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, Judea,
and Arabia Petræa. This was more particularly
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
.bn 0160.png
.bn 0161.png
.bn 0162.png
.pn +1
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 journeys
from distant regions, or plundered from a
passing caravan, the Arab supports a hard existence,
until the failure of his resources impels
him to seek another oasis, or the scanty herbage
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 precarious
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 denominated
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; on the 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 southern
extremity of the peninsula; Hejaz, on the
north of the former, and toward the Red Sea;
Nejed, in the central region; and Hadramant
and Oman, 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 country
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 quantities
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 Jotkan 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 shepherds
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 Sabæa, that the spices, muslins, and
precious stones of India, were for many ages
obtained by the Greek traders of Egypt, before
they had acquired skill or courage sufficient to
.bn 0163.png
pass the straits of the Red Sea; which were
long considered by the nations of Europe to be
the produce of Arabia itself. These articles,
before the invention of shipping, or the establishment
of a maritime intercourse, were conveyed
across the deserts by the Cushite, Ishmaelite,
and Midianite carriers. It was the
produce partly of India, and partly of Arabia,
which the travelling merchants, to whom Joseph
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 adverted
to, to show how extensive was the communication,
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 Midianites,
were the chief agents in that commercial
intercourse which has, from the most remote
period of antiquity, subsisted between the extreme
east and west. And although the current
of trade is now turned, caravans of
merchants, the descendants of these people,
may still be found traversing the same deserts,
conveying the same articles, and in the same
manner as described by Moses!
The singular and important fact that Arabia
has never been conquered, has already been
cursorily adverted to. But Mr. Gibbon, unwilling
to pass by an opportunity of cavilling
at revelation, says, “The perpetual independence
of the Arabs has been the theme of praise
among strangers and natives; and the arts of
controversy transform this singular event into
a prophecy and a miracle in favour of the posterity
of Ishmael. Some exceptions, that can
neither be dissembled nor eluded, render this
mode of reasoning as indiscreet as it is superfluous.
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 repeatedly
bowed under a Scythian tyrant; and
the Roman province of Arabia embraced the
peculiar wilderness in which Ishmael and his
sons must have pitched their tents in the face
of their brethren.” But this learned writer has,
with a peculiar infelicity, annulled his own argument;
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 monarchies:
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 jurisdiction,
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 of the Arabs. Many ages
before Mohammed, their intrepid valour had
been severely felt by their neighbours, in offensive
.bn 0164.png
.pn +1
and defensive war. The patient and active
virtues of a soldier are insensibly 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 horseback
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 succeeding
generations are animated to prove their
descent, and to maintain their inheritance.
Their domestic feuds are suspended on the approach
of a common enemy; and in their last
hostilities against the Turks, the caravan of
Mecca was attacked and pillaged by four score
thousand of the confederates. When they advance
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 hundred
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 solitude.
The arms and deserts of the Bedouins
are not only the safeguards of their own freedom,
but the barriers also of the happy Arabia,
whose inhabitants, remote from war, are enervated
by the luxury of the soil and climate.
The legions of Augustus melted away in disease
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 remained
unsubdued: and even admitting its
subjugation to have been complete, the perpetual
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 Nabathæi, it is true,
was long in the hands of the Persians and Romans;
but this never made them masters of
the country. Hovering troops of Arabs confined
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 Petræa, as
that of Gibraltar does to us to boast of the conquest
of Spain.
The Arabian tribes were confounded by the
Greeks and Romans under the indiscriminate
appellation of Saracens; a name whose etymology
has been variously, but never satisfactorily,
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,
.bn 0165.png
moon, &c; variously transformed by the different
tribes, and intermingled with some Jewish
and Christian maxims and traditions. The
tribes themselves were generally at variance,
from some hereditary and implacable animosities;
and their only warfare consisted in desultory
skirmishes arising out of these feuds,
and in their predatory excursions, where superiority
of numbers rendered courage of less
value than activity and vigilance. Yet of such
materials Mohammed constructed a mighty empire;
converted the relapsed Ishmaelites into
good Musselmen; united the jarring tribes under
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, according
to eastern historians, in a direct line
from Ishmael. His person is represented as
beautiful, his manners engaging, and his eloquence
powerful; but he was illiterate, like the
rest of his countrymen, and indebted to a Jewish
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 Mecca.
This flight, or Hegira, was made the Mohammedan
æra, from which time is computed,
and corresponds with the 16th of July, 622, of
the Christian æra. 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 year 632, gained over the whole of Arabia
to his imposture. His death threw a temporary
gloom over his cause, and the disunion
of his followers threatened its extinction. Any
other empire placed in the same circumstances
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 religious
enthusiasm, gave an earnest of future
success, and encouraged the zeal or the ambition
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 prophet;
and, with “the Koran, tribute, or death,”
as their motto, to invade the countries of the
.bn 0166.png
.pn +1
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 Christian
churches of Asia and Africa were annihilated;
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 revelation
had been most abused. The eastern church
was sunk in gross idolatry; vice and wickedness
prevailed in their worst forms; and those
who still called themselves Christians trusted
more to images, relics, altars, austerities, and
pilgrimages, than to a crucified Saviour.
About 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 Tartary,
now for the first time made their appearance
in the east, extinguished the power of the
caliphate, and virtually put an end to the Arabian
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 Arabians,
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 Mohammed
found them three centuries before, with
the exception of the change in their religion,
they remained, and still remain, the unconquered
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 successes,
were the sworn foes of literature, should
become for several ages its exclusive patrons.
Almansor, the founder of Bagdad, has the merit
of first exciting this spirit, which was encouraged
in a still greater degree by his grandson
Almamon. This caliph employed his agents
in Armenia, Syria, Egypt, and at Constantinople,
in collecting the most celebrated works
on Grecian science, and had them translated
.bn 0167.png
into the Arabic language. Philosophy, astronomy,
geometry, and medicine, were thus introduced
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 confined
to the capital: native works began to
appear; and by the hands of copyists were multiplied
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 manuscripts,
beautifully transcribed, and very elegantly
bound; and in the latter, the Ommiades
formed another of six hundred thousand volumes;
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 Ptolemies
was wantonly destroyed by the same people!
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 geometry
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 descent,
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 patriarchal
life and manners. A very lively sketch
of this mode of life is given by Sir R. K. Porter,
in the person and tribe of an Arab sheik,
whom he encountered in the neighbourhood of
the Euphrates. “I had met this warrior,” says
Sir R. K. P., “at the house of the British resident
at Bagdad; and came, according to his
repeated wish, to see him in a place more consonant
with his habits, the tented field; and,
as he expressed it, ‘at the head of his children.’
.bn 0168.png
.pn +1
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 greeted
us with a countenance beaming kindness;
while his words, which our interpreter explained,
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,
I sat 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 attention
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 ancestor,
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, verifying
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 people,
surrounded for ages by polished and luxurious
nations, should from their earliest to their
latest times, be still found a wild people, dwelling
in the presence of all their brethren, (as we
may call these nations,) unsubdued and unchangeable,
is, indeed, a standing miracle:
one of those mysterious facts which establish
the truth of prophecy.” But although the
.bn 0169.png
manners of the Arabians have remained unaltered
through so many ages, and will probably
so continue, their religion, as we have seen,
has sustained an important change; and must
again, in the fulness of time, give place to a
faith more worthy of the people.
St. Paul first preached the Gospel in Arabia,
Gal. i, 17. Christian churches were subsequently
founded, and many of their tribes embraced
Christianity prior to the fifth century;
most of which appear to have been tinctured
with the Nestorian heresy. At this time, however,
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 Mohammedan
delusion; while the “Greeks, Syrians,
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 Aramæans, or Aramites.
ARARAT, a mountain of Asia, in Armenia,
on which the ark of Noah rested after the cessation
of the deluge. Concerning the etymology
of the name, Dr. Bryant observes, that it
is a compound of Ar-Arat, and signifies “the
mountain of descent,” being equivalent to
הר־ירר, of the Hebrews. Of the precise situation // הר־ירט ??
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 Assyria
inhabited by the Curds, from whom those
mountains took the name of Curdue, or Cardu;
by the Greeks denominated Gordyæi. It is
called by the Arabs Al-Judi, and also Thamanin.
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 farther 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 called
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 esteemed
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 especially
of that part where the patriarch made
his first descent. The country also was very
high, though it had fine plains and valleys
.bn 0170.png
.pn +1
between the mountains. Such a country, therefore,
must, after the flood, have been the soonest
exsiccated, and, consequently, the soonest
habitable.
The mountain which has still the name of
Ararat, has retained it through all ages. Tournefort
has particularly described it, and from
his account it seems to consist chiefly of freestone,
or calcareous sandstone. It is a detached
mountain in form of a sugar loaf, in the
midst of a very extensive plain, consisting of
two summits; the lesser, more sharp and pointed;
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. The 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 accomplishing
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 reached,
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 necessary
to suppose that the ark rested upon either of
its tops; and that spot would certainly be chosen
which would afford the greatest facility of descent.
Sir Robert Ker Porter is among the
modern travellers who have given us an account
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 countless
villages; the towers and spires of the
churches of Eitch-mai-adzen, arising from
amidst them; the glittering waters of the Araxes,
flowing through the fresh green of the vale;
and the subordinate range of mountains, skirting
the base of the awful monument of the
antediluvian world. It seemed to stand a stupendous
link in the history of man, uniting the
two 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 amplitude
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. But the feelings I experienced
.bn 0171.png
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 apparently
interminable sides, till I could no longer
trace their vast lines in the mists of the horizon;
when an inexpressible impulse, immediately
carrying my eye upward again, refixed
my gaze upon the awful glare of Ararat; and
this bewildered sensibility of sight being answered
by a similar feeling in the mind, for
some moments I was lost in a strange suspension
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 summits,”
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 insurmountable
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 Ararat
like branches from the root of a tree, and
run along, in undulating progression, till lost in
the distant vapours of the plain.” Dr. Shuckford
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 Ararat
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 observations:--“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 Testament:
in the New Testament it occurs twice,
.bn 0172.png
.pn +1
and only twice. One of the two passages is in
the First Epistle to the Thessalonians; where
the Apostle, among the circumstances of the
pomp of our Lord’s descent from heaven to the
final judgment, mentions ‘the voice of the archangel;’
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 particular
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 archangel
is coupled with any name; and since the
name with which it is here coupled is Michael;
it follows undeniably that the archangel Michael
is the only archangel of whom we know
any thing from holy writ. It cannot be proved
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.
“I must observe by the way, with respect to
the import of the title of archangel, that the
word, by etymology, clearly implies a superiority
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 angelic
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 Daniel 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 description
which applies particularly to the Son
of God, and to no one else; and in perfect
consistence with this description of Michael
in the book of Daniel, is the action assigned
to him in the Apocalypse, in which we find
.bn 0173.png
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.”
To 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 for 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 distinguished.
It was not till of late that archbishops
became metropolitans, and had suffragans under
them. Athanasius appears to have been
the first who used the title archbishop, which
he gave occasionally to his predecessor. Gregory
Nazianzen, in like manner, gave it to
Athanasius; not that either of them was entitled
to any jurisdiction, or even any precedency,
in virtue of this title. Among the
Latins, 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 substituted
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 Archelaus!”
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 demanded
the execution of those who advised Herod
to slay certain zealots, who had pulled down a
golden eagle from one of the temple gates.
They also required Archelaus to divest Joazar
of the high priesthood; and they vehemently
reproached the memory of the late king. Archelaus
sent troops to suppress the mutineers,
and killed near three thousand of them about
the temple. After this he embarked at Cæsarea
for Rome, to procure from Augustus the
confirmation of Herod’s will. Antipas, his
.bn 0174.png
.pn +1
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 understanding
was not sound.
The two brothers, Archelaus and Antipas,
procured able orators to display their pretensions
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 according
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 governors
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. Archelaus
returned to Judea, and, under pretence
that he had countenanced the seditious 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 Samaritans
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:ANTIPAS#.
ARCHI-SYNAGOGUS, the ruler of a synagogue.
See #Synagogue:SYNAGOGUE#.
ARCHITRICLINUS, [Greek: a)rchitri/klinos], generally
translated steward, signifies rather the master
or superintendent of the feast; “one,” says
Gaudentius, “who is the husband’s friend, and
commissioned to conduct the order and economy
of the feast.” He gave directions to the
servants, superintended every thing, commanded
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 distributed
it to the guests. The author of Ecclesiasticus
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 ordering
of the feast.” This office is mentioned,
John ii, 8, 9, upon which Theophylact remarks:
“That no one might suspect that their
taste was vitiated by having drunk to excess,
.bn 0175.png
so as not to know water from wine, our Saviour
orders it to be first carried to the governor
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 fine sermon which is in substance recorded
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,
4–14; 1 Kings iv, 13. But Argob was more
peculiarly the name of the capital city of the
region of Argob, which Eusebius says was fifteen
miles west of Gerara.
ARIANS, this ancient sect, was unquestionably
so called from Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria,
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-essential,
and co-equal with the Father,” Arius considered
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 latter,
therefore, could not be absolutely eternal.
Alexander at first admonished Arius, and endeavoured
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 is
possible he felt his inferiority of talent; for
Arius was a man of accomplished learning,
and commanding eloquence; venerable in person,
and fascinating in address. At length
Alexander was roused, and attempted to silence
Arius by his authority; but this not succeeding,
as the latter was bold and pertinacious,
Alexander, about the year 320, called a council
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
.bn 0176.png
.pn +1
of Nicomedia, and other bishops and clergy of
those parts, who assembled in council, and received
the excommunicated presbyter into
their communion. Eusebius also, having great
interest with Constantia, the sister of Constantine,
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 emperor
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 animosity
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 opponent
of the Arians. Both parties were willing
to subscribe to the language of the Scriptures,
but each insisted on interpreting for themselves.
“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 Scripture.
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 naturally
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 admitted
he was of like substance, the difference in
the Greek phrases being only in a single letter,--[Greek: homoou/sios],
homoousios and [Greek: homoiou/sios], homoiousios.
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 substance
with the Father, by whom all things
were made,” &c.
Arius was now excommunicated. The sentence
of the council pronounced against him
and his associates was followed by another of
the emperor, whereby the excommunicated persons
were condemned to banishment, that they
might be debarred the society of their countrymen
whom the church had judged unworthy to
remain in her communion. Soon after which,
Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Theognis of Nice,
being found to continue their countenance and
protection to the 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 ordained
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 Constantine,
that these men, by their usual artifices,
.bn 0177.png
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 decisions
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 Constantine,
by complaining that Arius had been
misrepresented, and differed nothing in his sentiments
from the Nicene fathers, that the indulgent
emperor recalled him from his banishment,
and required him to exhibit in writing, a confession
of his faith. He did this in such terms
as, though they admitted of a latent reservation,
yet bore the appearance of being entirely catholic;
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 communion,
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 before
this was to have taken place, Arius died suddenly
from a complaint in his bowels. Some
attributed this to poison; others to the judgment
of God. The emperor did not long survive;
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 Arianism
triumphantly, Julian laughed at both parties,
but persecuted neither, Jovian supported the
Nicene doctrine. Valentinian, and his brother
Valens, took contrary sides; the former supporting
Athanasianism in the west, and the
latter Arianism in the east; so that what was
orthodoxy at Rome was heresy at Constantinople,
and vice versa. The Arians themselves were
not unanimous, but divided into various shades
of sentiment, under their respective leaders; as
Eusebians, Eudoxians, Acasians, Aëtians, &c;
but the more general distinction was into Arians
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 homoousian 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
.bn 0178.png
.pn +1
Dr. Samuel Clarke. The latter was what may
be called a high or Semi-Arian, who came within
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 common
appellation of Unitarians, or rather Humanitarians,
who believe our Saviour (as Dr.
Priestley expresses it) to be “a man like themselves.”
The last advocates of the pure Arian
doctrine, of any celebrity, were Mr. Henry Taylor,
(under the signature of Ben Mordecai,) and
Dr. Richard Price, in his “Sermons on the
Christian Doctrine.” It may be proper to observe,
that the Arians, though they denied the
absolute eternity of the Son, strongly contended
for his preëxistence, 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 viii, 16. See #Moab:MOAB#.
ARIMATHEA, or RAMAH, now called
Ramlè, or Ramla, a pleasant town, beautifully
situated on the borders of a fertile and extensive
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 district
of Zuph, or Zoph, Samuel was born,
1 Sam. 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 relinquish
it, in consequence of the alliance formed
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 Thessalonica.
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 ministry,
Acts xix, 29; xx, 4; xxvii, 2. He was near
losing his life in a tumult raised by the Ephesian
silversmiths. He left Ephesus with the
Apostle, and went with him into Greece. From
thence he attended him into Asia; from Asia
into Judea, and from Judea to Rome.
ARK, arca, denotes a kind of floating vessel
built 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 תבה or תיבה, the constructive // תיבה
form of תבה, which is evidently the
Greek [Greek: thi/bê]; and so the LXX render the word in
Exod. ii, 3, where only it again occurs. They
also render it [Greek: kibôto\n]; Josephus, [Greek: larna/ka]; and
the Vulgate, arcam; signifying an ark, coffer,
.bn 0179.png
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 transaction,
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 contrivance.
The ark in which Moses was exposed
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 תאה, “he
collected,” from which is formed תבה, or תיבה,
denoting a place in which things are collected.
Foster deduces it from two Egyptian words,
thoi, “a ship,” and bai, “a palm tree branch”;
and such ships are still to be seen not only in
Egypt, but in India and other countries; particularly
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 discussed
this subject, and afforded the most satisfactory
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 controlled
by the power of God, whose special agency
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 all 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 antediluvian
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
.bn 0180.png
.pn +1
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. Nevertheless,
universal terms in Scripture are not always
to be taken mathematically, and in the vision
of Peter, the phrase [Greek: ϖa/nta ta\ tetra/poda tê~s gê~s],--all
the four-footed beasts of the earth, must be
understood of varii generis quadrupedes, as
Schleusner paraphrases it. Thus we may easily
account for the exuviæ of animals, whose species
no longer exist, which have been discovered
in various places. The number of such
extinct species probably has been greatly over-rated
by Cuvier; but of the fact, to a considerable
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 circumstances
which attended it, is exceedingly strong.
It is, in truth, the only solution of a difficulty
which has no other explanation; for as a universal
deluge is confirmed by the general history
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 imperfect
rudiments of the art of ship building
among the Greeks, there could be no ships before
the flood; and, consequently, no animals
could have been saved. Nay, it is highly improbable
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 records
concerning the ark had been preserved
among most nations of the world, and in the
general system of Gentile mythology. Abydenus,
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 long time. Plutarch mentions
the Noachic dove, and its being sent out
of the 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 particular
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 mountain
corresponding to Ararat in Armenia. Bryant
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
.bn 0181.png
he conjectures that the city, said to be one of
the most ancient in Egypt, as well as the province,
was denominated from it, Theba being
the appellation of the ark. In other countries,
as well as in Egypt, an ark, or ship, was introduced
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 B[oe]otia,
but in Cilicia, Ionia, Attica, Phthiotis, Cataonia,
Syria, and Italy, were called Theba; so
likewise the city Apamea was denominated
Cibotus, from [Greek: kiϐôtos], in memory of the ark, and
of the history connected with it. The ark, according
to the traditions of the Gentile world,
was prophetic; and was regarded as a kind of
temple or residence of the deity. It comprehended
all mankind, within the circle of eight
persons, who were thought to be so highly
favoured of Heaven that they at last were reputed
to be deities. Hence in the ancient mythology
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, B[oe]otus, and Cibotus; and out of these
they formed different personages. See #Deluge:DELUGE#.
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 rabbins,
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 display
of the divine presence in a luminous cloud
rested, both in the tabernacle and in the temple,
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 Scripture
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; 2 Chron, xiii, 6;
Psalm lxxx, 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 approach
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, 13, 14; xxvii, 5. After the
passage of the Jordan, the ark continued for
.bn 0182.png
.pn +1
some time at Gilgal, from whence it was removed
to Shiloh. From this place the Israelites
carried it to their camp, where, in an
engagement with the Philistines, it fell into
their hands. The Philistines, having gotten possession
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 Philistines
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
it into the temple which he had built at Jerusalem.
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 preserve
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 Nebuchadnezzar,
is a dispute among the rabbins. Had
it been carried to Babylon with the other vessels
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 probable
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 Levitical
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 remembered
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 outward
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 delivered
from it. The only use that was made
of it was to be a representation of the former
on the great day of expiation, and to be a repository
of the Holy Scriptures, that is, of the
original copy of that collection of them made
.bn 0183.png
by Ezra after the captivity; in imitation of
which the Jews, in all 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 distance
from the centre of the ark and from each
side of the wall, so that their wings being expanded,
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 between
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 therefore
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,” Deut. 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,” a city situated in
the great plain at the foot of Mount Carmel,
where the good prince Josiah received his mortal
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, according
to Mr. Pool, does not signify any particular
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. If so, 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 Aramæa, the land of Aram
or Syria; but they are totally different. Armenia,
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. They
have, in fact, in the northern parts of the Asiatic
.bn 0184.png
.pn +1
continent, been what the Cushites and
Ishmaelites were in the south, tenders of cattle,
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 merchants
and dealers into distant countries. In
the flourishing times of Tyre, the Armenians,
according to Ezekiel, xxvii, 14, brought horses
and mules to the markets of that city; and, according
to Herodotus, they had a considerable
trade in wine, which they sent down the Euphrates
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 people,
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 surrounding
nations submitted to the religion as
well as the arms of the Turks, they have preserved
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
patiently endured, and exhibit to the world an
honourable and solitary instance of a successful
national opposition of Christianity to Mohammedanism.
ARMENIAN CHURCH, a branch, originally,
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
first has his residence in Echmiadzin, or Egmiathin,
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, under him
eighteen 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 confession
is similar to that of the Jacobite Christians,
both being Monophysites, acknowledging
but one nature in the person of Christ;
but this, according to Mr. Simon, is little more
.bn 0185.png
than a dispute about terms; few of them being
able to enter into the subtilties of polemics.
“In the year 1664, an Armenian 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 profession
of faith which was considered orthodox,
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 prevaricated,
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 received a
favourable answer; but the Armenian church
could never be persuaded to acknowledge the
authority of Rome.
“They have among them a number of monasteries
and convents, in which is maintained
a severe discipline; marriage is discountenanced,
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 generally
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 Hebrews
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 standing
army, which Saul had introduced. Solomon
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 fortification
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 improvement
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 descendants
were under the necessity of submitting
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 השוטר, who kept an account
of the number of the soldiers, but who
is, nevertheless, to be distinguished from the
generalissimo, הסופר, 2 Chron. xxvi, 11. Compare
2 Sam. viii, 17; xx, 25; 1 Chron. xviii, 16.
After the levy was fully made out, the genealogists
gave public notice, that the following
.bn 0186.png
.pn +1
persons might be excused, from military service,
Deut. xx, 5–8: 1. Those who had built a house,
and had not yet inhabited it. 2. Those who
had planted a כרס, that is, an olive or vine garden, //??
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
had 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.
At the head of each rank or file of fifty, was
the captain of fifty. The other divisions consisted
of a hundred, a thousand, and ten thousand
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 אל־שרהצכא, the captain of the host.
The genealogists, (in the English version, officers,)
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, undoubtedly,
made it a point, in their selections,
to choose those who are called heads of families.
The practice of thus selecting military
officers ceased under the kings. Some of them
were then chosen by the king, and in other instances
the office became permanent and hereditary
in the heads of families. Both kings
and generals had armour bearers, נשא כלים.
They were chosen from the bravest of the
soldiery, and not only bore the arms of their
masters, but were employed to give his commands
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, גדודים, 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 javelin,
with a bow, arrows, and quiver, and also,
at least in latter times, with a buckler. They
fought the enemy at a distance. The spearmen,
on the contrary, who were armed with
spears, swords, and shields, fought hand to
hand, 1 Chron. xii, 24, 34; 2 Chron. xiv, 8;
xvii, 17. The light-armed troops were commonly
taken from the tribes of Ephraim and
Benjamin, 2 Chron. xiv, 8; xvii, 17. Compare
Gen. xlix, 27; Psalm lxxviii, 9.
The art of laying out an encampment appears
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,
.bn 0187.png
which, in the second chapter of Numbers, is
prescribed to the Hebrews. In the encampment
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 to the north.
The priests occupied a position to the east, opposite
to the entrance of the tabernacle, Num.
i, 53; iii, 21–38. At some distance to the east,
were the tribes of Judah, Issachar, and Zebulon;
on the south were those of Reuben, Simeon,
and Gad; to the west were Ephraim,
Manasseh, and Benjamin; to the north, Dan,
Asher, and Napthali. The people were thus
divided into four bodies, three tribes to a division;
each of which divisions had its separate
standard, דגל. Each of the large family associations
likewise, of which the different tribes
were composed, had a separate standard, termed,
in contradistinction from the other, אות; and
every Hebrew was obliged to number himself
with his particular division, and follow his appropriate
standard. Of military standards,
there were,--1. The standard, denominated
דגל; 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, exhibited
the representation of cherubim. They
were wrought into the standards with embroidered
work. 2. The standard, called אות. The
ensign of this name belonged to the separate
classes of families. 3. The standard, called נס.
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; lxii, 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
.bn 0188.png
.pn +1
and faint under the pressure of their labours,
Jer. xlvi, 3, 4; Isaiah xxi, 5. The soldiers,
more especially the generals and kings, except
when they wished to remain unknown, 1 Kings
xxii, 30–34, were clothed in splendid habiliments,
which are denominated, בהדרי-קדש, the
sacred dress, Psalm cx, 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 approach
this day unto battle against your enemies;
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 Macc. iii, 54.
ARMINIANISM, strictly speaking, is that
system of religious doctrine which was taught
by Arminius, professor of divinity in the university
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 Arminianism.
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 species
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 Arminianism
.bn 0189.png
is not that great and dangerous heresy
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 election,
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 destruction;
that God’s election proceeded upon no prescience
of the moral principles and character
of those whom he had thus predestinated, but
originated solely in the motions of his free and
sovereign 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 irresistible
power of divine grace to accept of him as
their Saviour. To this doctrine, that of Arminius
and his legitimate followers stands opposed.
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 foreknowledge,
and in the exercise 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 consequence
of their infidelity and disobedience;
on account, indeed, of which infidelity and
disobedience being foreseen by God, their election
did not take place. They hold, that Christ
died for all 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 individual
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 perversity.
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 measure
unresolved, but which was soon determined
by his followers in this additional proposition,
that saints may fall from the state of
grace, in which they are placed by the operation
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 tenets
with regard to which Arminianism has been
much If a man hold that
.bn 0190.png
.pn +1
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 diametrically
opposite as Calvinism itself. The genuine
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 meritorious
cause of our justification is the righteousness
of Christ. Propter quam, says Arminius,
Deus credentibus peccatum condonat, eosque
pro justis reputat non aliter atque si legem perfectè
implevissent. [For the sake of which God
pardons believers, and accounts them as righteous
precisely as if they had perfectly obeyed
the law.] They admit in this way, that justification
implies not merely forgiveness of sin, but
acceptance to everlasting happiness. Junctam
habet adoptionem in filios, et collationem juris
in hereditatem vitæ eternæ. [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 ecclesiæ stantis vel cadentis; [the
article with which the church stands or falls;]
that those who look into the writings of Arminius
may be disposed to suspect him of having
even exceeded Calvin in orthodoxy. It is
certain, at least, that he declares his willingness
to subscribe to every thing that Calvin
has written on that leading subject of Christianity,
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 generally
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 entertained
and published. Many of them, in process
of time, differed more or less from one
another, on some or all of these points. And
.bn 0191.png
so diversified are the forms which Arminianism,
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 confession
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 language
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 expositions
and illustrations of Arminian doctrine,
he would be at a loss to discover his own simple
system, amidst that heterogeneous mass of
error with which it has been rudely mixed;
and would be astonished to find, that the controversy
which he had conscientiously introduced,
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, induced
him also to adopt more enlarged and
liberal views of church communion than those
which had hitherto prevailed. While he maintained
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 distance
from each other, and constitute separate
churches, merely because they differed in their
opinions as to some of its doctrinal articles.
He thought that Christians of all denominations
should form one great community, united
and upheld by the bonds of charity and brotherly
love; with the exception, however, of Roman
Catholics, who, on account of their idolatrous
worship and persecuting spirit, must be
unfit members of such a society. That this
was not only agreeable to the wishes of Arminius,
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 proposui
et docui quæ ad propagationem amplificationemque
veritatis religionis Christianæ, veri Dei cultus,
communis pietatis, et sanctæ inter homines
convers[at]ionis, denique ad convenientem Christiano
nomini tranquillitatem et pacem juxta
verbum Dei possent conferre, excludens ex iis
papatum, cum quo nulla unitas fidei, nullum
pietatis aut Christianæ pacis vinculum servari
potest. [I have advanced and taught those
things which might contribute to the propagation
and spread of the truth of Christianity,
the worship of the true God, general piety, and
.bn 0192.png
.pn +1
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
maintained.]
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 system
which was afterward embraced by his followers;
that he had inculcated the main and
leading principles of it on the minds of his disciples;
and that Episcopius and others, who
rejected Calvinism in more points than in that
which related to the divine decrees, only propagated,
with greater courage and perspicuity,
the doctrines which Arminianism, as taught
by its founder, already contained. These allegations,
it is clear, have no sort of connection
with the passage from which they are drawn
as inferences; and they are wholly inconsistent
with the assertions, and reasonings, and
declarations of Arminius, when he is discussing
the merits of the question that was agitated
between him and the Geneva school. Arminius,
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 exception
above mentioned, no difference of
opinions should prevent Christians from remaining
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 direct
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 fundamental
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 Arminius;
an object so indicative of an enlightened
mind, so congenial to that charity which
hopeth all things, and thinketh no evil, and so
conducive to the interests of religion and the
peace of the world, as to reflect the highest
honour 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 dissensions.
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
.bn 0193.png
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 respectability
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 persuaded
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 conference,
as authenticated by each of them,
contain no proviso of that description. Another
conference was held at Delft, in 1613.
And in 1614, the States of Holland promulgated
an edict, exhorting the disputants to the
exercise of mutual charity. But these and
other expedients employed for the same purpose,
had not the desired effect. The Calvinists
expressed great indignation at the magistrates,
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 Hollandiæ, ac West-Frisiæ
Pietas a multorum calumniis vindicata.”
The hopes of success which the Arminians
entertained from the indulgent manner in
which they were treated by the civil authorities,
were soon blasted by a misunderstanding
which had secretly subsisted for some time between
the stadtholder and the principal magistrates,
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 Gomarists,
or Calvinists, attached themselves to
Maurice, and inflamed the resentment which
he had already, for various reasons, conceived
against the Arminians. The prince was resolved,
at once to ruin the ministers who had
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 unjustly
condemned to perpetual imprisonment,
from which, however, the former afterward
escaped, and fled into France. The alleged
crime of the Arminians being of an ecclesiastical
nature, it was thought proper to bring
their cause before a national assembly of divines
by which their religious opinions might
be regularly and finally condemned.
Under the auspices of Maurice, therefore,
.bn 0194.png
.pn +1
and by the authority of the states general, a
synod was convoked at Dort, in the year 1618.
Before this meeting, which consisted of deputies
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 established
religion. For a full account of the proceedings
of this synod, the reader may consult
the second and third volumes of Brandt’s History
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 condemned
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, æger;
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:--
.pm start_poem
The synod of Dort, a knot; the whole assembly, sick;
The convention, wind; the session, straw, Amen.]
.pm end_poem
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, perhaps,
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 Nazianzen
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 expect;
however it is certain that the treatment
which they received from the synod, was arbitrary,
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 prohibited
from preaching; and their congregations
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 handsome
town, naming it Frederickstadt, in compliment
to their friend and protector. The
.bn 0195.png
history of this colony may be found in a work
entitled Epistolæ Præstantium et Eruditorum
Virorum Ecclesiasticæ et Theologicæ, and published
by Limborch and Hartsoeker.
The tenets of the Arminians may be comprised
in the following five articles relating to
predestination, universal redemption, the corruption
of men, conversion, and perseverance,
viz. 1. That God, from all eternity, determined
to bestow salvation on those whom he foresaw
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 divine
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 thinking
or doing any good thing; and that, therefore,
it is necessary, in order 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 inclinations,
but may be resisted and rendered ineffectual
by the perverse wills of impenitent sinners.
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 Remonstrance,
which, in the year 1610, they addressed to the
States of Holland. Their principal writers
are, Arminius, Episcopius, Uitenbogart, Grotius,
Curcellæus, Limborch, Le Clerc, Wetstein,
Goodwin, Whitby, Wesley, Fletcher, Tomline,
&c. The works of Arminius, with a copious
account of his life and times, have been recently
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 flowing
dress which they ordinarily wore would
.bn 0196.png
.pn +1
have impeded their movements, they girt 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 following
were the most remarkable; namely,
1. The helmet, כובע, for covering and defending
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 Antiochus
sent against Judas Maccabeus, 1 Mac.
vi, 35.
2. The breastplate or corslet, שדיון, was another
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 rendered
habergeon, coat of mail, and brigandine,
1 Sam. xvii, 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: sometimes
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
laminæ, 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
pieces of iron or brass, which protected the
back 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
laminæ of brass, crossing each other. It was
called by Virgil, and other Latin writers, squama
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 during
the battle. It was of various forms, and
made of wood covered with tough hides, or of
brass, and sometimes was overlaid with gold,
1 Kings x, 16, 17; xiv, 26, 27. Two sorts are
mentioned in the Scriptures; namely, the צנה,
great shield or buckler, and the מלן, or smaller
shield. It was much used by the Jews, Babylonians,
Chaldeans, Assyrians, and Egyptians.
David, who was a great warrior, often mentions
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 compass
.bn 0197.png
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 maginnim,
or scuta, which were used by the horsemen,
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 lamented
by them; for it was a signal aggravation
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 confined
to the Jews. We find them prevailing
among most other ancient nations, who considered
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 perhaps
to these sentiments, St. Paul, when exhorting
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 purpose:
first, in order to hold the sword, which
hung, as it day, at the soldier’s girdle
or belt, 1 Sam. xvii, 39: secondly, it was necessary
to gird the clothes and the armour together.
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 the expression of “girding
to the battle,” 1 Kings xx, 11; Isa. viii, 9;
2 Sam. xxii, 40; 1 Sam. xviii, 4. There is express
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 [Greek: empodia], 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
.bn 0198.png
.pn +1
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 the 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 Jacob’s
sons treacherously assassinated the Shechemites,
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 particularly
mentioned that Ehud put a dagger or
short sword under his garments on his right
thigh, Judges iii, 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 רמח
and חנית are variously rendered in Num. xxv, 7;
1 Sam. xiii, 19, and Jer. xlvi, 4) were of different
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 collected by Uzziah, 2 Chron. xxvi, 14.
In the use of the sling David eminently excelled,
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 rendered
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
.bn 0199.png
Ishmael, that he became an archer, he used
bows and arrows in shooting of wild beasts,
Gen. xxi, 20. This afterward became so useful
a weapon, that care was taken to train up
the Hebrew youth to it betimes. When David
had, in a solemn manner, lamented the death
of King Saul, he gave orders for teaching the
young men the use of the bow, 1 Sam. i, 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 translators
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 in
the mountains of Gilead, or of the Moabites,
and it discharges itself into the Dead Sea.
ARROW. See #Arms:ARMS#. Divination with arrows
was a method of presaging future events,
practised by the ancients. Ezekiel, xxi, 21, informs
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 example,
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 Ahasuerus, a king of
Persia, the husband of Esther, who, in the
opinion of the learned Usher and Calmet, was
the Darius of profane authors. See #Ahasuerus:AHASUERUS#.
2. Artaxerxes Longimanus 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 permitted
Ezra, with all those inclined to follow
him, to return into Judea, in the year of the
world 3537, Ezra vii, viii. Afterward, Nehemiah
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
.bn 0200.png
.pn +1
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 mentioned
in it for the restoring and rebuilding of
Jerusalem, cannot be understood of that granted
to Nehemiah, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes;
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 reason
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 handsomest
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. After
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, Mesopotamia
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 performed,
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. iii, 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
.bn 0201.png
erected an idol to Astarte, which he burnt in
the valley of Hinnom, 1 Kings xv, 8, &c.
The Scripture reproaches Asa with not destroying
the high places, which, perhaps, he
thought it politic to tolerate, to avoid the greater
evil of idolatry. He carried into the house
of the Lord the gold and silver vessels which
his father Abijam had vowed to consecrate.
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 valour.
About this time, Zerah, king of Ethiopia,
or rather of Cush, which is part of Arabia,
marched against Asa with a million of foot,
and three hundred chariots of war, and advanced
as far as Mareshah. This probably
happened in the fifteenth year of Asa’s reign,
and in the year of the world 3064, 2 Chron.
xv, 10. Asa advanced to meet Zerah, and encamped
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 Benjamin,
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
you.--Be ye strong, therefore, and let not your
hands be weak: for your work shall be rewarded,”
2 Chron. xv, 2, 7. After this exhortation,
Asa, being animated with new courage, destroyed
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 thousand
sheep; they renewed the covenant with
the Lord; and, with cymbals and trumpets
sounding, they swore to the covenant, and declared
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 till
the thirty-fifth year of Asa. Concerning this
year, however, there are difficulties; and some
think that we should read the twenty-fifth, instead
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
.bn 0202.png
.pn +1
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 Naphtali.
This obliged Baasha to retire from Ramah,
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 Benhadad
for assistance was inexcusable. It implied,
that Asa distrusted God’s power and
goodness, which he had so lately experienced.
Therefore the Prophet Hanani was sent to reprove
him for his conduct. Asa, however, was
so exasperated at his rebukes that he put the
Prophet in chains, and at the same time ordered
the execution of several persons in Judah.
Toward the latter part of his life, he was incommoded
with swellings in his feet, which,
gradually rising upwards, killed him. The
Scripture reproaches him with having had recourse
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 battle
of Gibeon, 2 Sam. ii, 18, 19, while he obstinately
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 #Abner:ABNER#.
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 Babylonish
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 the 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 descend
at the last day to judge the quick and
the dead. The evidences of this fact were
.bn 0203.png
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 demonstrated
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 ascension
was forty days after his resurrection. He
continued so many days upon earth that he
might give repeated proofs of his resurrection,
Acts i, 3; instruct his Apostles in every thing
of importance respecting their office and ministry,
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 ascension,
it was from mount Olivet to heaven, not
in appearance only, but in reality, and that
visibly and locally. It was a real 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 lxviii, 17; xlvii,
5, 6.
The effects or ends of his ascension were,
1. To fulfil the types and prophecies concerning
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, Azoth, according to the Vulgate,
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 lies
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 Abdon,
Achshaph, Accho, Achzib, Sarepta, Sidon,
and Tyre. But of the northern half of this territory,
that is, from Tyre northward, this tribe
never became possessed, not having expelled
the Ph[oe]nician inhabitants, who are supposed
not to have been pure Canaanites, but a mixture
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
.bn 0204.png
.pn +1
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,” exclaims
Abraham before the Lord, Gen. xviii,
27; indicating a deep sense of his own meanness
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 watering them. 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 Jerusalem
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, Esther
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, “Daughter
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 distributed
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, answering
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 the siege 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 capture
of Babylon, and calling by name the
countries which were to rise against it, exclaims,
“Call together against her the kingdoms
of Ararat, (or Armenia,) Minni, and
Ashkenaz:” which was literally fulfilled; as
Xenophen informs us that Cyrus, after taking
Sardis, became master of Phrygia on the Hellespont,
and took along with him many soldiers
of that country.
ASHTAROTH, or Astarte, a goddess of
the Zidonians. The word Ashtaroth properly
signifies flocks of sheep, or goats; and sometimes
the grove, or woods, because she was
goddess of woods, and groves were her temples.
.bn 0205.png
In groves consecrated to her, such lasciviousness
was committed as rendered her worship infamous.
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 represented
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 or 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 crossways,
on the first day of every month; and
this was called by the Greeks, Hecate’s supper.
Solomon, seduced by his foreign wives, introduced
the worship of Ashtaroth into Israel;
but Jezebel, daughter of the king of Tyre, and
wife to Ahab, principally established her worship.
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 Apocalyptic
churches were situated.
ASKELON, a city in the land of the Philistines,
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 to the Philistines. The
place at present is in ruins.
ASMONÆANS, a name given to the Maccabees,
the descendants of Mattathias. After
the death of Ezra and Nehemiah, the Jews
were governed by their high priest, in subjection,
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 Epiphanes,
king of Syria, when they were compelled
to take up arms in their own defence. Under
the able conduct of Judas, surnamed Maccabeus,
and his valiant brothers, the Jews maintained
a religious war for twenty-six years with
five successive kings of Syria; and after destroying
upwards of two hundred thousand of
.bn 0206.png
.pn +1
their best troops, the Maccabees finally established
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 persons,
administered the affairs of the Jews during
a period of a hundred and twenty-six years;
until, disputes arising between Hyrcanus II,
and his brother Aristobulus, the latter was
defeated by the Romans, who captured Jerusalem,
and reduced Judea to a military province,
B. C. 59.
ASNAPPER, 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.
ASP, פתן. 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 bæten
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, ([Greek: kȣ́phê],) deaf. With the PETHEN // ȣ/
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 called
“Pythius.” Those possessed with a spirit
of divination were also styled [Greek: Pythônes]. The
word occurs in Acts, xvi, 16, as the characteristic
of a young woman who had a pythonic
spirit. It is well known that the serpent was
particularly employed by the Heathens in their
enchantments and divinations. See #Serpent:SERPENT#].
Pethen, פתן, 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,
it is the gall of asps within him. He shall suck
the poison of asps: the viper’s tongue shall slay
him.” The venom of asps is the most subtle
of all; it is incurable; and, if the wounded part
be not instantly amputated, it speedily terminates
the existence of the sufferer. To these
circumstances, Moses evidently alludes in his
character of the Heathen: “Their wine is the
poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.”
To 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
paying the forfeit of his rashness with his life.
Hence, the Prophet Isaiah, predicting the conversion
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
.bn 0207.png
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, המור, Arabic, chamara and hamar.
There are three words referred by translators
to the ass: 1. המור, which is the usual appellation,
and denotes the ordinary kind; such as is
employed in labour, carriage, and domestic services.
2. פררא, rendered onager, or “wild ass.”
3. אהון, rendered she ass. To these we must
add, ערדיא, 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, formidable,
and intractable; but when domesticated,
the most gentle of all animals, and assumes a
patience and submission even more humble
than his situation. Le Clerc 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 honourable
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 grandsons
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 prohibited
in the Mosaic law, Deut. xxii, 10. This
law is thought to have respect to some idolatrous
custom of the Gentiles, who were taught
to believe that their fields would be more fruitful
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 species
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 Clerc 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. To
teach the Jews the propriety of this, a variety
of precepts relative to improper and heterogeneous
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 domestic
ass; its legs are more elegantly shaped;
and it bears its head higher. It is peculiarly
.bn 0208.png
.pn +1
distinguished by a dusky 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 Tartary,
Persia, &c. Anciently they were likewise
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 manners,
and wild, impetuous, and untamable spirit.
“Vain man would be wise, though he be
born a wild ass’s colt,” Job xi, 12; עיר פרא, “ass
colt,” not “ass’s colt;” יר being in apposition
with פרא, and not in government. The whole
is a proverbial expression, denoting extreme
perversity and ferocity, and repeatedly alluded
to in the Old Testament. Thus, Gen. xvi, 12,
it is prophesied of Ishmael that he should be
פרא אדם, 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
be so rendered. This proverbial expression has
descended among the Arabians to the present
day, who still employ, as Schultens has remarked,
the expressions, “the ass of the desert,” or
“the wild ass,” to describe an obstinate, indocile,
and contumacious person. The Prophet
Isaiah, xxxii, 14, describes great desolation by
saying that “the wild asses shall rejoice where
a city stood.” There is another kind of ass
called, אתון. Abraham had ATONOTH, Gen. xii,
16; Balaam rode on an ATON, Num. xxii, 23.
We find from 1 Chron. xxvii, 30, that David
had an officer expressly appointed to superintend
his ATONOTH; 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 ATON
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 proposed
application to Samuel, verse 6, as though
he said, “In his office of magistracy this honourable
man may have heard of these strayed
rarities, and secured them; peradventure he
can direct us.”
Thus we find that these atonoth are mentioned
in Scripture, only in the possession of
judges, patriarchs, and other great men; insomuch
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. What then shall
we say of the wealth of Job, who possessed a
thousand? Another word which is 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.
.bn 0209.png
Parkhurst supposes that this word denotes the
brayer, and that PARA and ORUD are only two
names for the same 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.
.pm start_poem
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 land (salt deserts) his resort:
The range of open mountains are his pasture,
And he searcheth after every green thing.
.pm end_poem
Gmelin observes that the onager is very fond
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 OREDIA.
We need not suppose that he was banished
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 ORUD 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 observe
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 farther
expense upon that account; for every day,
except that of the great expiation, they sacrificed
a lamb, in addition to the daily oblation,
which was called the sin offering of the Assideans.
They practised greater hardships and
mortifications than others; and their common
oath was, “By the temple;” for which our Saviour
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 restoration,
of the Jews; and were probably in the
commencement, and long afterward, a truly
pious part of the nation; but they at length
became superstitious.
ASSURANCE. The sense in which this
term is used theologically is that of a firm persuasion
of our being in a state of salvation.
The doctrine itself has been matter of dispute
among divines, and when considered as implying
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 many views
.bn 0210.png
.pn +1
questionable. Assurance of final salvation must
stand or fall with the doctrine of personal unconditional
election, and is chiefly held by divines
of the Calvinistic school; and that nothing
is an evidence of a state of present salvation
but so entire a persuasion as amounts to assurance
in the strongest sense, might be denied
upon the ground that degrees of grace, of real
saving grace, are mentioned in
Scripture. Assurance, however, is spoken of
in the New Testament, and stands prominent
as one of the leading doctrines of religious experience.
We have “full assurance of understanding;”
that is a perfect knowledge and entire
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 children
of God,” and therefore “heirs of his glory;”
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 present
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 exposed
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 repentance
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 premises--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 specific
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.
The first of these conclusions is sufficiently
.bn 0211.png
disproved by the authority of Scripture, which
exhibits justification as a blessing attainable in
this life, and represents it as actually experienced
by true believers. “Therefore being
justified by faith.” “There is now no condemnation
to them who are in Christ Jesus.”
“Whosoever believeth is justified from all
things,” &c. The quotations might be multiplied,
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 scriptures
in which the writers of the New Testament
speak of an experience, not confined
personally to themselves, or to those Christians
who were endowed with spiritual gifts, but
common to all Christians. “Being justified by
faith we have peace with God.” “We joy in
God, by whom we have received the reconciliation.”
“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, Father.”
To these may be added innumerable
passages which express the comfort, the confidence,
and the joy of Christians; their “friendship”
with God; their “access” to him; their
entire union and delightful intercourse with
him; and their absolute confidence in the success
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 forgiven,
and that the ground of that apprehension
of future punishment which causes the penitent
to “bewail his manifold sins,” is taken
away by restoration to the favour of the offended
God, must be allowed, or nothing would be
more incongruous and impossible than the comfort,
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 becoming
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 Scripture
is expressed by the term justification. The
question has been, (where the notion of an assurance
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
inference, others by the direct testimony of the
Holy Spirit to the mind. See #Holy Spirit:HOLYSPIRIT#.
ASSYRIA, a kingdom of Asia, of the extent,
origin, and duration of which very different
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
.bn 0212.png
.pn +1
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 Chederlaomer, nor any of the neighbouring
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 oppressed
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 bounded
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 monarchy,
and fixed his residence at Babylon; but it
does not appear that Nimrod reigned in Assyria.
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 tributary
to the Assyrian empire. Ninus, the successor
of Ashur, Gen. x, 11, seized on Chaldea
after the death of Nimrod, and united the kingdoms
of Assyria and Babylon. This great
prince is said to have subdued Asia, Persia,
Media, 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 subject
to Assyria. Ninus was succeeded by Semiramis,
a princess bold, 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 different
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 Babylonian. Arbaces retained
the supreme authority, and nominated governors
in Assyria and Babylon, who were honoured
with the title of kings, while they remained
.bn 0213.png
subject and tributary to the Persian monarchs
Belesis,” he says, “a Chaldean priest, who assisted
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 kingdom,
and was succeeded by Tiglath-pileser,
Salmanasar, and Sennacherib, who asserted
and maintained their independence. After the
death of Assar-haddon, the brother and successor
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 Scripture,
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 Menahem,
king of Israel, twenty-four years before
the æra of Nabonassar, 1579 years after the
flood, and, according to Blair, 769, or, according
to Newton, 790, years before Christ. Menahem,
having taken forcible possession of the
throne of Israel by the murder of Shallum,
2 Kings xv, 10, was attacked by Pul, but prevented
the hostilities meditated against him by
presenting the invader with a thousand talents
of silver. Pul, thus gratified, took the kingdom
of Israel under his protection, returned to
his own country, after having received voluntary
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 Assyria,
or since the rise of that empire. But
though this was the period in which the Assyrians
afflicted Israel, it is not so evident that
the time of the kings of Assyria must necessarily
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 and
ancient kingdoms erected their empire; conquering
the Medes, as well as other nations.”
It is farther argued, that God, by the Prophet
Amos, in the reign of Jeroboam, about ten or
twenty years before the reign of Pul, (see Amos
vi, 13, 14,) threatened to raise up a nation
against Israel; and that, as Pul reigned presently
after the prophecy of Amos, and was
the first upon record who began to fulfil it, he
may be justly 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
.bn 0214.png
.pn +1
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. The next king of Assyria was Shalmaneser,
or Salmanassar, who succeeded Tiglath-pileser,
B. C. 729, and invaded Ph[oe]nicia,
took the city of Samaria, and, B. C. 721, carried
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 Ethiopians
and Egyptians. In the year B. C. 711 the
Medes revolted from the Assyrians; Sennacherib
was slain; and he was succeeded by his
son Esar-Haddon, Asserhaddon, Asordan, Assaradin,
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 captives
brought from several parts of his kingdom;
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 Sennacherib
and Asser-Hadon,” says Sir I. Newton,
“the Assyrian empire seems arrived at its
greatness; being united under one monarch,
and containing Assyria, Media, Apolloniatis,
Susiana, Chaldea, Mesopotamia, Cilicia, Syria,
Ph[oe]nicia, Egypt, Ethiopia, and part of Arabia;
and reaching eastward into Elymais, and Parætæcene,
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 Cappadocia,
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;
and 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 Judith,
i, 1–15, who made war upon Arphaxad,
king of the Medes; and, though deserted by
his auxiliaries of Cilicia, Damascus, Syria,
Ph[oe]nicia, Moab, Ammon, and Egypt, routed
the army of the Medes, and slew Arphaxad.
This Arphaxad is supposed to be either Dejoces
.bn 0215.png
or his son Phraortes, mentioned by Herodotus.
Soon after the death of Phraortes, in the year
B. C. 635, the Scythians invaded the Medes
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 Nebuchadonosor
of Scripture, and Chyniladon or Chynaladan
to have been the Sarac of Polyhistor. At
length Nebuchadnezzar, the son of Nabopolassar,
married Amyit, the daughter of Astyages,
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 Astyages
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, to the Medes; Tobit, xiv, 15, Polyhistor,
and Ctesias, to both. With this victory
commenced the great successes of Nebuchadnezzar
and Cyaxares, and it laid the foundation
of the two collateral empires of the Babylonians
and Medes, which were branches of the Assyrian
empire; and hence the time of the fall of
the Assyrian empire is determined, the conquerors
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 successor
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 Assyria
was not yet slain. But in the third and
fourth years of Jehoiakim, the successor of
Josiah, the two conquerors having taken Nineveh,
and finished their war in Assyria, prosecuted
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 whatever
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 hundred
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 government
was simple. Afterward, when they
rose to the sublimity of empire, their government
seems to have been despotic, and the
empire hereditary. Their laws were probably
.bn 0216.png
.pn +1
few, and depended upon the mere will of the
prince. To Ninus we may ascribe the division
of the Assyrian empire into provinces and governments;
for we find that this institution
was fully established in the reigns of Semiramis
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 public
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 influences
of the heavenly bodies. The word is
compounded of [Greek: a)ϛê\r] star, and [Greek: lo/gos], discourse;
whence, in the literal sense of the term, astrology
should signify no more than the doctrine
or science of the stars. Astrology judiciary,
or judicial, is what we commonly call
simple astrology, or that which pretends to foretel
mortal events, even those which have a dependence
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 exploded
by the intelligent part of mankind. Judicial
astrology is commonly said to have been invented
in Chaldea, and thence transmitted to
the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans; though
some will have it of Egyptian origin, and ascribe
the invention to Cham. But we derive
it from the Arabians. The Chaldeans, and
the Egyptians, and indeed almost all the nations
of antiquity, were infatuated with the
chimæras 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 purpose.
Diodorus Siculus relates, that the Chaldeans
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 remote
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 therefore
condemned in the Scriptures, and ranked
with practices the most offensive and provoking
to the Divine Majesty.
.bn 0217.png
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. He had two daughters,
Mandane and Amyit: Mandane married Cambyses,
the Persian, and was the mother of
Cyrus; Amyit married Nebuchadnezzar, the
son of Nabopolassar, and was the mother of
Evilmerodach.
Astyages, otherwise called Ahasuerus in the
Greek, Dan. ix, 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 Saracus
in Nineveh, took the city, and dismembered
the Assyrian empire. Astyages was with
Cyrus at the conquest of Babylon, and succeeded
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.
ASUPPIM, a word which signifies gatherings,
and the name of the treasury of the temple
of Jerusalem, 1 Chron. xxvi, 15.
ATHALIAH, the daughter of Omri, king of
Samaria, and wife to Jehoram, king of Judah.
This princess, being informed that Jehu had
slain her 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 Jehosheba,
the sister of Ahaziah, by the father’s
side only, was at this time married to Jehoiada,
the high priest; and while Athaliah’s executioners
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 engaged
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 into 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 seconded
with the joyful shouts and acclamations
of the people. 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 antagonist
.bn 0218.png
.pn +1
of Arius. The Athanasian Creed, though
generally admitted not to be drawn up by this
father, (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
in 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,” &c.
The true key to the Athanasian Creed lies in
the knowledge of the errors to which it was opposed.
The Sabellians considered the Father,
Son, 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 Athanasian
Creed, and approve its terms, who object
to its damnatory clauses. See #Arians:ARIANS#.
ATHANASIUS, 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 controversy
gained 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, Athanasius
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 prevailed
upon to pronounce against him a sentence
of banishment. In the beginning of the
reign of Constantius he was recalled; but was
again disturbed and deposed through the influence
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. Arianism,
however, being in favour at court, he
was condemned by a council convened at Arles,
and by another at Milan, and was obliged
to fly into the deserts. He returned with the
other bishops whom Julian the apostate recalled
from banishment, and in A. D. 362, held a
.bn 0219.png
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 another
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 distinctions,
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, [Greek: a] negative, and [Greek: Theo\s], God, signifying
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 providence
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 abundantly
convinced mankind of a divine power and providence,
that there was no such creature as an
Atheist, till their ridiculous idolatries had tempted
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 philosophers;
and hence some have ascribed the
origin of Atheism to the philosophy of Greece.
This is true, if they mean that species of refined
Atheism, which contrives any impious
scheme of principles to account for the origin
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
.bn 0220.png
.pn +1
of none who, forming a philosophical scheme of
impiety, became a sect, and erected colleges of
Atheistical learning, till the arrogant and enterprising
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 providence
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 æra. “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 infected
France, and now of late it hath crossed the
seas, and invaded our nation, and hath prevailed
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 unhallowed
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 religion,
true or false. The two leading hypotheses
which have prevailed, among Atheists,
respecting this world and its origin, are, that
of Ocellus Lucanus, adopted and improved by
Aristotle, that it was eternal; and that of Epicurus,
that it was formed by a fortuitous concourse
of atoms. “That the soul is material
and mortal, Christianity an imposture, the
Scripture a forgery, the worship of God superstition,
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 opinions
that ever infested the mind of man, nothing
can possibly equal that of Atheism, which
is such a monstrous contradiction of all evidence,
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, self-evident to every man of thought,
that there can be no effect without a cause,
what shall we say of that manifold combination
.bn 0221.png
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 contemptible
weed we can tread upon, is really
sufficient to confound Atheism, and baffle all
its pretensions. How much more that astonishing
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 consider
the nature and instincts of brute animals,
and afterward look into the operations of his
own mind, and will he presume to say or suppose
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, unactive 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 materials
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, because
it gives no tolerable account of the existence
of the world. This is one of the greatest
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 æra 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 so obvious to
a thinking mind, that to waste time in disputing
with an Atheist, is approaching too
much toward that irrationality, which may be
considered as one of the most striking characteristics
of the sect.
The more noted Atheist, since the Reformation,
are Machiavel, Spinoza, Hobbes, Blount,
and Vanini. To these may be added Hume,
.bn 0222.png
.pn +1
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 Atheistical
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 happiness
of man, that there was a God, an intelligent
and wise, a just and good Being, to
govern the world. Whatever 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. If 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,
or a 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 superior
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.
.bn 0223.png
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 celebrated
court was held which took cognizance
of matters of religion, blasphemies against the
gods, the building of temples, &c. (See #Areopagus:AREOPAGUS#.)
The inscription on the altar, “to the
unknown God,” which St. Paul so appropriately
made the text of his discourse, was adopted
on the occasion of the city having been relieved
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 probable,
because there was something in the circumstances
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 greater
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 prejudices. One of the peculiar privileges
of the Areopagitæ 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 description
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 canopy
of heaven. Before him there was spread
a glorious prospect of mountains, islands, seas,
and skies; behind him towered the lofty Acropolis,
crowned with all its marble temples.
Thus every object, whether in the face of nature,
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 our
being.”
.bn 0224.png
.pn +1
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 accomplish
by means which, with respect to the
Supreme Governor himself, preserve his character
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 considerations
which so manifestly show, from its own
internal constitution, the superlative importance
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 government,
must be considered as a problem of very
difficult solution. A government which admitted
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 authority;
to punish without mercy, is to destroy,
and where all are guilty, to make the destruction
universal. That we cannot sin with impunity,
is a matter determined. The Ruler of
the world is not careless of the conduct of his
creatures; for that penal consequences are attached
to the offence, is not a subject of argument,
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 restrains
evil by penalty, and encourages obedience
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 transgressions
cannot injure. The reasons, therefore,
which compel him to maintain his authority
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 universe,
to which sin, if encouraged by a negligent
administration, or by entire or frequent
impunity, would be the source of endless disorder
and misery; and if the granting of pardon
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
case as arising out of the general welfare of
.bn 0225.png
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 any
thing vindictive in his nature,--charges which
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 punishment,
and his restoration to the divine favour,
ought, for the interests of mankind themselves,
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 compelling,
and that disobedience should as truly,
though not unconditionally, subject us to the
deserved penalty, as though no hope of forgiveness
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 universe,
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 exercise
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 extended
to all, government would be at an end.
This scheme of bringing men within the exercise
of a merciful prerogative, does not therefore
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, surrounded
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 repentance
to regulate human governments, every
criminal would escape, and judicial forms would
become a subject for ridicule. Nor is it recognised
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 government
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 introduced
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
.bn 0226.png
.pn +1
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 interested?
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 Christianity
affords a satisfactory solution of the
problem. They assume principles either destructive
of moral government, or which cannot,
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 Gospel
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 sinfulness”
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 is a 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 renew
our fallen nature in righteousness, at the
moment we are justified through faith, and to
place us in circumstances in which we may
henceforth “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 judgment
is still appointed,--future and eternal
punishments still display their awful sanctions,--a
new and singular display of the awful purity
of the divine character is afforded,--yet pardon
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 Christianity
teaches us to have been actually and
exclusively adopted. It is rendered, indeed,
“worthy of all acceptation,” by the circumstance
of its meeting the difficulties we have
just dwelt upon,--difficulties which could not
otherwise have failed to make a gloomy impression
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 removing
the apprehensions we might feel as to
the severity of the divine Lawgiver, but as exalting
him in our esteem as “the righteous
Lord, who loveth righteousness,” who surrendered
his beloved Son to suffering and
.bn 0227.png
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 impressive
and affecting than any abstract description
could convey, or than any act of creating
and providential power and grace could exhibit,
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 Lawgiver
himself. If it be important to us to know
the extent and reality of our danger, by the
death of Christ it is displayed, not in description,
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 joyous,”
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 the 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 affection
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, and
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 Acts
of the Apostles, the following words of Isaiah
are, by Philip the evangelist, distinctly applied
to Christ, and to his death: “He was led as a
sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb
before his shearer, 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 particular
part of the prophecy being applied to
our Lord’s death, the whole must relate to the
.bn 0228.png
.pn +1
same 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 iniquities;
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 a strong 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:
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed
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 distinctly
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 sacrifice
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 martyrdom.
“While we were yet sinners Christ
died for us; much more then, being now justified
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 body
of his flesh through death,” Col. i, 20, 22.
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 Testament,
it is therefore asserted that the death of
Christ had an efficacy in the procuring of human
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; something
more than a pattern of a holy and patient
martyrdom; something more than a necessary
.bn 0229.png
antecedent to his resurrection, by which he
gave a grand and clear proof of our resurrection
from the dead. Christ’s death was all
these, but it was something more. It was an
atonement for the sins of mankind; and in
this way only it became the accomplishment
of our eternal redemption. See #Day of Expiation:DAYOFEXPIATION#.
AUGSBURGH, or AUGUSTAN CONFESSION.
In 1530, a diet of the German princes
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 Melancthon
was employed to draw up this famous confession
of faith which may be considered as the
creed of the German reformers, especially of
the more temperate among them. It consisted
of twenty-one articles, including the following
points:--The Trinity, original sin, the
incarnation, justification by faith, the word and
sacraments, necessity of good works, the perpetuity
of the church, infant baptism, the Lord’s
Supper, repentance and confession, the proper
use of the sacraments, church order, rites and
ceremonies, the magistracy, a future judgment,
free will, the worship of saints, &c. It then
proceeds to state the abuses of which the reformers
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 Smalcald,
drawn up by Luther; his catechisms, &c,
form the symbolical books of the Lutheran
church; and it must be owned that they contain
concessions in favour of some parts of
popery, particularly the real presence, that few
Protestants in this country would admit.
AUGUSTINE, or, as he is sometimes called
in the court style of the middle ages, St. Austin,
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 mentioned
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 disquisition
which subsequently distinguished the
era of the Schoolmen. He was born, November
13th, A. D. 354, at Tagasta, an episcopal
city of Numidia in Africa. His parents, Patricius
and Monica, were Christians of respectable
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
.bn 0230.png
.pn +1
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 subsequent
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 incidents
of his childhood, youth, and mature age,
in his celebrated book of “Confessions,” have
afforded abundant matter of ridicule to the profane
and infidel wits of this and the last age.
The reflections, however, which accompany his
narrative, are generally important and judicious,
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 literature
and philosophy by infidels themselves,
than St. Augustine’s otherwise despised “Confessions,”
and his “City of God.” But, whatever
else is taught in this remarkable piece of
autobiography, every pious reader will be delighted
with the additional proofs which it contains
of the ultimate prevalence of faithful
prayer, especially on the part of Christian parents.
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 lodged
with a Manichee;--and when he finally settled
at Milan as professor of rhetoric. St.
Ambrose was at that time, A. D. 384, bishop
of Milan, and to his public discourses Augustine
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 “conversion.”
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 soundest
divines and most worthy dignitaries of the
church of England were in the habit of
with approbation to this well attested instance
of change of heart. One of his Christian
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 addressed
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!)
.bn 0231.png
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 follow
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 spirit.
Unwilling to unman himself, as he accounted
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 tomorrow?
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 applicable
to him, in reference to his former habits
and present state of mind: “Not in rioting and
drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness,
not in strife and envying: but put ye on
the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision
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 considered
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 Christian
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 Valerius,
bishop of Hippo, now a part of the Barbary
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 various
orders of heretics.
.bn 0232.png
.pn +1
Augustine had hitherto directed his theological
artillery principally against the predestinarian
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 dangerous
class of heretics. In the year 412 he
began to write against the injurious doctrines
of Pelagias, a native of Britain, who 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 transmitted
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 reception
which their doctrines obtained; and Celestius
began zealously to disseminate them in
Africa, while Pelagius sowed the same tares in
Palestine, whence they were speedily transplanted
to almost every corner of Christendom.
If 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 perseverance
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 necessary
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 predestination
and reprobation. These novel opinions
were refuted by St. Augustine and St. Jerom,
as well as by Orosius a Spanish presbyter,
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 interpretation
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 original
.bn 0233.png
sin, he maintained that it was derived from
our first parents; and he believed he had ascertained
in what the original sin conveyed by
Adam to his posterity consisted. In his sentiments,
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 bequeathed
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 council
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 coöperation
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 perceptible
in the manner in which they express themselves,
because they had not examined the
subject with the same attention as the theologians
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, except
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 naturally
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 coöperation 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 perseverance
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 foresaw
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 degree
.bn 0234.png
.pn +1
new moulded the science of theology, and
had combined with it as an essential part of
divine truth, that the fate of mankind was determined
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 consistency,
to introduce into his system a limitation
with respect to baptism, and to prevent
the opinions concerning it from interfering
with those which flowed from the doctrine of
predestination. He accordingly taught, that
baptism 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 affirmed
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 external
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, regeneration,
and salvation been necessarily connected
with the outward ordinance of baptism; and
limits its proper efficacy to those who are comprehended,
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 disparagement
of his baptismal views, in a letter to Dr.
Ward: “This I do yield to my Lord of Sarum
most willingly, that the justification, sanctification,
and adoption which children have in
baptism, is not univocè [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 eucharist
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 sacramentalitér;
[sacramentally;] which is a false and
absurd contraposition. The opinion of the
Franciscans out of Scotus and Bernard, mentioned
in the council of Trent, seems to be
the true opinion; for they make the sacraments
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 sacramentally,
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 maintain that children
.bn 0235.png
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 passover
they may; and sith [if] the use of this
sacrament toties 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 condescend
unto, or that children dying without
baptism are damned.” These remarks are important,
as proceeding from the pen of the
personal friend of Father Paul, who wrote the
History of the council of Trent.
In the various discussions which have arisen
concerning predestination and the doctrines
with which it is connected, some modern divines
have quoted the arguments of St.
against the Manichees, and others those
which he employed against the Pelagians, according
to the discordant views which the
combatants severally entertain on these controverted
points. One of them has thus expressed
himself, in his endeavour to reconcile St Augustine
with himself:--“The heresy of Pelagius
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,
coöperating in some measure with those heavenly
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 condemn
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 coöperation of man
is at all exerted to produce the renewal of our
nature; but, when the renewal had been produced,
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 Manichæans, 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 condemn
him who had not power to fulfil the commands!
.bn 0236.png
.pn +1
Yet these unhappy persons [the Manichees]
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 will is that by which we commit
sin, and by which we live righteously.’
Nothing can be plainer than that the writer of
these passages admitted the liberty of the human
will, and the necessity of our own exertions
in conjunction with divine grace. How
this is to be reconciled with his general doctrine,
is perhaps indicated in the following
passage from his book De Gratiâ et lib. Arbitrio,
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 doing 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 doctrinal
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 various
pacifacatory 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 contemporaries;
and hastily as some of his lucubrations
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 acquired
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 besieged.
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
.bn 0237.png
which I spend my time, you would be both surprised
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 Marcellinus
requested,] because the present juncture
will not permit them to be postponed. For the
rule of charity 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,
daring 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 Apostolical
precept, which forbids Christians from
going to law before Pagan tribunals. In reference
to this employment his biographer, Posidonius,
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 subjects;
but looked upon all this as unprofitable
occupation, which drew him aside from that
which was better and more agreeable to himself.”
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 expected
in the very infancy of Biblical criticism.
He 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 literal
meaning; yet the works of this father are
not wholly destitute of remarks and critical
interpretations, that are pertinent and judicious:
to such, after a series of extracts from his
.bn 0238.png
.pn +1
writings, Dr. Lardner has referred his readers.
With regard to his knowledge of Greek, this
impartial and candid author is of opinion, that
he understood that language better than some
have supposed; and he has cited several passages
from which it may be perceived, that St.
Augustine frequently compared his copies of
the Latin version with those of the Greek original.
Le Clerc himself allows that he sometimes
explains Greek words and phrases in a
very felicitous manner. Indeed, the commencement
of his correspondence with St.
Jerom proves him to have been no contemptible
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 Septuagint,
as he had previously done in the book of
Job. Voltaire and other profane wits have, in
the exercise of their buffoonery, impeached his
moral conduct; but their charges, when impartially
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 zealous
pursuit of truth, an indefatigable application,
an invincible patience, a sincere piety,
and a subtle and lively wit, conspired to establish
his fame upon the most lasting foundations.”
Such a testimony as this far outweighs
the vituperative remarks and petty sneers of a
thousand infidels. See #Pelagians:PELAGIANS# and #Synods:SYNODS#.
AUGUSTUS, emperor of Rome, and successor
of Julius Cæsar. The battle of Actium,
which he fought with Mark Antony, and which
made him master of the empire, happened fifteen
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 Jesus 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 loaded
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 Joseph
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
Joseph should have married the daughter of
the priest of On, had that name among the
Egyptians denoted only the material light;
which, however, no doubt they, like all the
.bn 0239.png
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 prosecuted
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 #Goel:GOEL#.
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 Ph[oe]nicians 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 Ph[oe]nician 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
belonged entirely to the priests, he was struck
with a leprosy, and continued without the city,
separated 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
earthquake 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 earthquake 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 succeeded
him after his death, which happened in
the fifty-second year of his reign, A. M. 3246.
.bn 0240.png
.pn +1
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 Jerusalem,
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.
.sp 2
BAAL, BEL, or BELUS, denoting lord, a
divinity among several ancient nations; as the
Canaanites, Ph[oe]nicians, Sidonians, Carthaginians,
Babylonians, Chaldeans, and Assyrians.
The term Baal, which is itself an
appellative, served at first to denote the true
God, among those who adhered to the true religion.
Accordingly, the Ph[oe]nicians, 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
lord. But they, as well as other nations, gradually
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 supposed
that the descendants of Ham first worshipped
the sun under the title of Baal, 2
Kings xxiii, 5, 11; and that they afterward ascribed
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, however,
that when the custom prevailed of deifying
and worshipping those who were in any
respect distinguished among mankind, the appellation
of Baal was not restricted to the sun,
but extended to those eminent persons who
were deified, and who became objects of worship
in different nations. The Ph[oe]nicians 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 Moloch
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. In process
of time, many other deities, beside the principal
ones just mentioned, were distinguished
by the title of Baal among the Ph[oe]nicians,
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 generally
placed on eminences: they were places
inclosed by walls, within which was maintained
a perpetual fire; and some of them bad statues
or images, called in Scripture “Chamanim.”
.bn 0241.png
Maundrell, in his journey from Aleppo to Jerusalem,
some remains of these enclosures
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 violent
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 is remarkable that we do not find the
name Baal so much in popular use east of
Babylonia; but it was general west of Babylonia,
and to the very extremity of western
Europe, including the British isles. The worship
of Bel, Belus, Belenus, or Belinus, 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 Tilliebeltane or
Tulliebeltane; that is, the eminence, or rising
ground, of the fire of Baal. In the neighbourhood
is a Druidical temple of eight upright
stones, where it is supposed the fire was kindled.
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
through 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 autumn,
on the first day of November; which
being neither at the solstice nor equinox, deserves
attention. It may be accounted for by
supposing that the lapse of ages has removed
it from its ancient station, and that the observance
is kept on the same day, nominally,
though that be now removed some weeks backward
from its true station. However that may
be, in North Wales especially, this fire is attended
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
places, and upon the terraces of houses. Baal
had 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,
.bn 0242.png
.pn +1
16; xxiii, 4, 5, 12; 1 Kings xviii, 22; 2 Kings
x, 19; 1 Kings xiv, 24; xv, 12; 2 Kings 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 compounded 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 Shechemites,
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 Ph[oe]nicians,
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 allusion
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 Moabites,
on Mount 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 extravagant
joy, his fictitious return to life. He was
in 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 discover
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 believe
that he was denominated “the god of
flies” by his votaries, because he defended them
from flies, which are extremely troublesome in
hot countries; in the same manner as the
Eleans worshipped Hercules under the appellation
of [Greek: A)po/myios], the fly chaser. Pliny is of
opinion, that the name of Achor, the god invoked
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 [Greek: A)po/myios], and by the Romans
.bn 0243.png
Muscarius; that is to say, fly driver; 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 probably
see the reason why Ahaziah sent to Beelzebub
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 commentators
who think that the idol of Ekron himself
is intended, have indulged in an improbable
fancy. See #Hornet:HORNET#.
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 country,
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 extremity,
over against Pihahiroth, or the opening
in the mountains which led from the desert,
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 killed
his master treacherously at the siege of
Gibbethon, a city of the Philistines, A. M.
3051, and usurped the crown, which he possessed
twenty-four years, 1 Kings xv, 27, &c.
And, to secure himself in his usurpation, he
massacred all the relatives of his predecessor;
which barbarous action proved the accomplishment
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 dispersed,
through the confusion of their language.
The time when this tower was built is differently
stated in the Hebrew and Samaritan
chronologies. The former fixes it in the year
101 after the flood, which Mr. Faber thinks
encumbered with insuperable difficulties. This
writer then goes on to show, that the chronology
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
.bn 0244.png
.pn +1
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 chronology
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 Armenia
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 beginning
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 dominant
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
confusion of tongues. All this probably occupied
the farther space of twenty or twenty-one
years; 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 Samaritan
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
.bn 0245.png
described by Captain Mignan, in his Travels
in Chaldea:--
“At day light 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 eastern
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 Mujellibah,
‘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, invisible
to mortals, in which those rebellious angels
were condemned by God to be hung with their
heels upward, until the day of judgment, as a
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, composed
of kiln-burnt and sun-dried bricks, rising
irregularly 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, particularly
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 sold brick
work, sloping toward the top, and rising from
a confused heap of rubbish. The chief material
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 hollows
worn partly by the weather, but more
generally formed by the Arabs, who are incessantly
digging for bricks, and hunting for
antiquities.”
BABYLON, 2 Kings xxiv, 1. The capital
of Chaldea, built by Nimrod, Gen. x, 10. It
.bn 0246.png
.pn +1
was under Nebuchadnezzar that Babylon, then
become the seat of universal empire, is supposed
to have acquired that extent and magnificence,
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 exclaimed,
“Is not this great Babylon that I 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 computation,
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 75 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 Semiramis.
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 celebrated
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
.bn 0247.png
philosopher, who accompanied Alexander to
Babylon, 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 Diodorus,
adjoining to the bridge, was a palace;
that on the western bank being by much the
larger. This palace was eight miles in circumference,
and strongly fortified with three
walls one within another. Within it were the
celebrated pensile or hanging 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 Babylonians:
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 flowers,
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 debased
subjects or unhappy captives, was undertaken
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 entered
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. At a
time when nothing but magnificence was
around this city, emphatically called the great,
fallen Babylon was delineated by the pencil of
inspiration exactly as every traveller now describes
its ruins.
The immense fertility of Chaldea, which
retained also the name of Babylonia till after
the Christian æra, corresponded with the greatness
of Babylon. It was the most fertile region
of the whole east. Babylonia was one
vast plain, adorned and enriched by the Euphrates
and the Tigris, from which, and from
the numerous canals that intersected the country
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 parallel,
over so extensive a region, either in ancient
or modern times. Herodotus states, that he
knew not how to speak of its wonderful fertility,
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 final extinction of its
.bn 0248.png
.pn +1
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 render
it at last complete. The judgments of
Heaven are not casual, but sure; they are not
arbitrary, but righteous. And they were denounced
against the Babylonians, and the inhabitants
of Chaldea, expressly because of their
idolatry, tyranny, oppression, pride, covetousness,
drunkenness, falsehood, and other wickedness.
The burden of 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 indignation,
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 Chaldees’ 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
cry 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 out of 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 destruction,
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 daughter
of the Chaldeans. Sit thou silent, and get
thee into darkness, O daughter of the Chaldeans;
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
.bn 0249.png
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 not
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 intelligent
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
man[oe]uvre 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,) besiege,
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 nations
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 assembly
of great nations from the north country,”
&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 failed,
they became as women.” So 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 unwalled
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 Euphrates.
And while the unconscious and reckless
citizens were engaged in dancing and merriment,
the river was suddenly turned into the
lake, the trench, and the canals; and the Persians,
both foot and horse, so soon as the subsiding
.bn 0250.png
.pn +1
of the water permitted, entered by its
channel, and were followed by the allies in
array, along the dry part of the river. “I will
dry up thy sea, and make thy springs dry. That
saith to the deep, Be dry, I will dry up thy
rivers.”--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 another,
to show the king of Babylon that his
city is taken at the end, and that the passages
are shut.” “They were taken,” says Herodotus,
“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!”--“In their heat I will make
their feasts, and I will make them drunken,
that they may rejoice and sleep a perpetual
sleep, and not wake, saith the Lord. I will
bring them down like lambs to the slaughter,”
&c. “I will make drunken her princes and
her wise men, her captains and her rulers, and
her mighty men, and they shall sleep a perpetual
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 prevailed.
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 merriment,
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 fortified,
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 himself,
(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” (leading 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 “numbered”
his kingdom and finished it; it was
“divided,” and given to the Medes and Persians;
the lives of the Babylonian princes, and
lords, and rulers, and captains, closed with
that night’s festival; the drunken slept “a perpetual
sleep, and did not wake.”--“I will fill
.bn 0251.png
thee with men as with caterpillars.” Not only
did the Persian army enter with ease as caterpillars,
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 approached;
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, Hyrcanian,
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
whole of his army, consisting of one hundred
and twenty thousand horse, two thousand
chariots, and six hundred thousand foot. Babylon,
which was taken when not aware, and
within whose walls no enemy, except a captive,
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 particular,
a strict coincidence between the predictions
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 prophecy.
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 Chaldeans.”
After the Babylonians rebelled against
Darius, the walls were reduced in height, and
all the gates destroyed. “The wall of Babylon
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 20,000,000l, beside treasures of vast amount.
“I will punish Bel in Babylon, and I will bring
forth out of his mouth that which he has swallowed
up; I will do judgment upon the graven
images of Babylon.”--Alexander the Great attempted
to restore it to its former glory, and
designed to make it the metropolis of a universal
empire. But while the building of the
temple of Belus, and the reparation of the embankments
of the Euphrates, were actually
carrying on, the conqueror of the world died,
at the commencement of this his last undertaking,
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 Seleucia
was the chief cause of the decline of
Babylon, and drained it of a great part of its
population. And at a later period, or about 130
years before the birth of Christ, Humerus, a
.bn 0252.png
.pn +1
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 pretexts,
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 desolation.
Notwithstanding that Cyrus resided
chiefly at Babylon, and sought to reform the
government, and remodel the manners of the
Babylonians, the succeeding kings of Persia
preferred, as the seat of empire, Susa, Persepolis,
or Ecbatana, situated in their own country:
and in like manner the successors of Alexander
did not attempt to complete his purpose of
restoring Babylon to its preeminence and glory;
but, after the subdivision of his mighty empire,
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, “Forsake
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 common
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 unscrupulously
and unsparingly “served themselves”
of the land of the Chaldeans: and Cyrus
and Darius, kings of Persia; Alexander the
Great; and Seleucus, king of Assyria; Demetrius
and Antiochus the Great; Tragan, Severus,
Julian, and Heraclius, emperors of Rome;
the victorious Omar, the successor of Mohammed;
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 Chaldea,
“they came from the utmost border, from
the coasts of the earth.”--“I will punish the
land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual
desolations; cut off the sower from Babylon,
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. Ravaged
and spoiled for ages, the Chaldees’ excellency
finally disappeared, and the land became
desolate, as still it remains. Rauwolff, who
.bn 0253.png
passed through it in 1574, describes the country
as bare, and “so dry and barren that it cannot
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 brushwood
and tufts of reedy grass.” On the other,
between Bussorah and Bagdad, “immediately
on either bank of the Tigris,” observes Mignan,
“is the untrodden 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 Scripture.
The natives, in travelling over these
pathless deserts, are compelled to explore their
way by the stars.” “The whole country between
Bagdad and Hillah is a perfectly flat and
(with the exception of a few spots as you approach
the latter place) uncultivated 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 indisputable
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 desolations.”
The course of the Tigris through Babylonia,
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. “Extensive
ridges and mountains, (near to Houmania,)
varying in height and extent, are seen
branching in every direction.” A wall, with
sixteen bastions, is the only memorial of Apollonia.
The once magnificent Seleucia is now a
scene of desolation. There is not a single entire
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 remains
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 noble pile of building,
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 Westminster
.bn 0254.png
.pn +1
Abbey.” It is supposed to have been
the lofty palace of Chosroes; but there desolation
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 attached
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 habitations
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 resemble natural hills than mounds
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 covered
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 confusion.”--“Let
nothing of her be left.” “Vast
heaps constitute all that now remains of ancient
Babylon,” says Rich. All its grandeur is departed;
all its treasures have been spoiled; all
its excellence has utterly vanished; the very
heaps are searched for bricks, when nothing
else can be found; even these are not left,
wherever they can be taken away; and Babylon
has for ages been “a quarry above ground,”
ready to the hand of every successive despoiler.
Without the most remote allusion to this prophecy,
Captain Mignan describes a mound attached
to the palace, ninety yards in breadth
by half that height, the whole of which is deeply
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 materials;
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 excavating
for bricks, that they may “take” them
“from thence,” and that “nothing may be
left;” they labour more than trebly in the fulfilment
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 pools of water in the hollows.”
.bn 0255.png
“Sit in the dust, sit on the ground, O daughter
of the Chaldeans.” The surface of the
mounds which form all that remains of Babylon,
consists of decomposed buildings, reduced
to dust; and over all the ancient streets and
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 conveying
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 inhabited.”
“It is impossible,” adds Major Keppel,
“to behold this scene and not to be reminded
how exactly the predictions of Isaiah and Jeremiah
have been fulfilled, even in the appearance
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 Israelites, and the sons of Ishmael.”
It is “a tenantless and desolate metropolis,”
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 Babylon
was to be visited with a far greater desolation,
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 Babylon
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 night. 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, completely
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.”
.bn 0256.png
.pn +1
“Wild beasts of the deserts shall lie there,
and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures;
and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs
(goats) shall dance there,” &c. “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 numbers
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 jackalls,
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 carcasses
and skeletons of animals recently killed.
The ordure of wild beasts was so strong, that
prudence got the better of curiosity; for we
had 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
islands should cry in their desolate houses.”
“The sea is come upon Babylon. She is
covered with the multitude of the waves thereof.”
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 embankment,”
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 subsiding
of the Euphrates, great part of this plain
is little better than a swamp,” &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 multitude
of waves, and the waters come upon it;”
yet, in striking contrast and seeming contradiction
to such a feature of desolation, (like
the formation of “pools of water,” from the
“casting up of heaps,”) are the elevated sunburnt
ruins, which the waters do not overflow,
and the “dry waste” and “parched and burning
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 prophecies
several of the above particulars have been
extracted:--“Is it possible that there can be
.bn 0257.png
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 transformation?
‘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 carefully
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 accomplishment
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 resembled
it less than its present desolate solitary
site! or could any prophecies respecting any
single place have been more precise, or wonderful,
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 Babylon,
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 of
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 Scriptures
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 person
maintains the true doctrines, and remains
on the firm rock, though he fall, true repentance
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 moral
but doctrinal.
BADGER, תחש. This word in a 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 ערת,
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 opinion.
Aben Ezra thinks it some animal of the
.bn 0258.png
.pn +1
bovine kind, of whose skins shoes are made;
alluding to Ezek. xvi, 10. Most modern interpreters
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 in its skin peculiarly
proper either for covering a tabernacle
or making shoes. Hasæus, Michaelis, and
others, have laboured to prove that it is the
mermaid, or homo marinus, the trichekus of
Linnæus. Faber, Dathe, and Rosenmuller,
think that it is the seal, or sea calf, vitulus
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 Abushahr
called dahash that fish which the captains
in English vessels call porpoise, and the
Germans, sea hog. In my voyage from Maskat
to Abushahr, I saw a prodigious quantity
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 colour, was intended, Exodus
xxv, 5; so that the covering of the tabernacle
was to be azure, or sky blue.
BAG, 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 manner,
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
passes, for some time at least, currently from
hand 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 Sarah
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 allusions
to the preparation of bread will be explained
by referring to eastern customs. Rauwolff
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 turning
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 intercourse
with Balak, king of the Moabites, who
.bn 0259.png
sent for him to curse the Israelites, is recorded
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. Theodoret
is of opinion that Balaam did not consult
the Lord, but that he was supernaturally inspired,
and constrained to speak against his
own inclination. Cyril says that he was a magician,
an idolater, and a false prophet, who
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 avarice,
Num. xxii, 18. St. Austin and other commentators
have inclined to this opinion. Dr.
Jortin supposes that Balaam was a worshipper
of the true God, and a priest and prophet of
great reputation; and that he was sent for by
Balak from a notion which generally prevailed,
that priests and prophets could sometimes,
by prayers and sacrifices duly and skilfully applied,
obtain favours from God, and that their
imprecations were efficacious. He conceives
that the prophet had been accustomed to revelations,
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 apostatized
from God, and, betaking himself to idolatrous
practices, fell under the delusion of the
devil, of whom he learned all his magical enchantments;
though at this juncture, when the
preservation of his people was concerned, it
might be consistent with God’s wisdom to appear
to him and overrule his mind by the impulse
of real revelations. As to what passed
between him and his ass, when that animal
was miraculously enabled to speak to its master,
commentators are divided in their opinions;
whether it really and literally happened as Moses
relates it, or whether it be an allegory only,
or was the mere imagination or vision of Balaam.
But St. Peter evidently mentions it as
a fact literally and certainly occurring: “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 superfluous;
it was well adapted to convince Balaam
.bn 0260.png
.pn +1
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 people,
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 concerning
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 disappointment
in missing the promised reward, and with
a purpose of revenging himself on the Israelites,
as the cause of it, he instructed the Moabites
and Midianites in a wicked scheme, which
was to send their daughters into the camp of
the Israelites, in order to draw them first into
lewdness, and then into idolatry, the certain
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 beyond
the commandment of the Lord my God,”
Num. 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 Jehovah, not only in his own person,
but among his descendants; so that while
the posterity of Ham fell into idolatry, and the
posterity 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, wanting
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 Israel, instead of well set hair,
Isaiah iii, 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
.bn 0261.png
children,” who cried out after him, “Go up,
thou bald head,” may here be noticed. The
town of Bethel was one of the principal nurseries
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 translation
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 resentment,
but evidently proceeded from prophetic
impulse.
BALM, צרי, Gen. xxxvii, 25; xliii, 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 therefore
very properly to express the Hebrew word
צרי, which the LXX have rendered [Greek: rhêti/nê], and
the ancients have interpreted resin indiscriminately.
BALSAM TREE, בעל־שמין; in Arabic, abuschâm,
that is, “father of scent,” sweet-scented.
According to Mr. Bruce, the balessan, balsam,
or balm, is an evergreen shrub, or tree, which
grows to about fourteen feet high, spontaneously
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 opobalsamum,
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 carpobalsamum,
made by expressing the fruit when in
maturity. The third, and least esteemed of all,
was hylobalsamum, 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 צרי as a part of their cargo, Gen. xxxvii,
25; xliii, 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. Notwithstanding
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
.bn 0262.png
.pn +1
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,
25. Theophrastus, Dioscorides, Pliny, Strabo,
Diodorus Siculus, Tacitus, Justin, Solinus, and
Serapion, speaking of its costliness and medicinal
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 Judea,
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 balsam
trees from falling into the possession of
the Romans, attests the importance which was
attached to them. This tree Pliny describes as
peculiar to the vale of Jericho, and as “more
like a vine than a myrtle.” It was esteemed
so precious a rarity, that both Pompey and Titus
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. The trees of the
opobalsamum have a resemblance to fir trees;
but they are lower, and are planted and husbanded
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 perpetual gloominess
of the air.” According to Mr. Buckingham,
this description is most accurate. “Both the
heat and the gloominess,” he says, “were observed
by us, though darkness would be an improper
term to apply to this gloom.”
BANGORIAN CONTROVERSY, a controversy
that arose with Dr. Hoadly, bishop of
Bangor. That prelate, in a sermon preached
before George I, asserted that Christ was supreme
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, established
for the purpose of diffusing and perpetuating
the knowledge and belief of Christianity.
On the meeting of the convocation, a
committee was appointed to examine this publication.
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 confusion,
and to impugn and impeach the royal
supremacy in matters ecclesiastical, and the authority
.bn 0263.png
of the legislature to enforce obedience
in matters of religion, by severe sanction. To
these proceedings a sudden stop was put by
proroguing the convocation; but the controversy
which had been commenced was continued
for several years.
BANNER, an ensign, or standard, used by
armies or caravans on their journeys in the
eastern countries. The original דגל, is rendered
by lexicographers and translators under
this word, as a noun, in which form it often
occurs, a standard, banner; as a verb, once, to
set up a banner; Psalm xx, 5; as a participle
pahul, vexillatus, one distinguished by a banner,
the chief; as a 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 Pococke,
that, “as in 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 caravan
consists, has its distinct portable beacon,
which is carried on the top of a pole, and consists
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 likewise 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 carried
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 travelling
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 movable beacons, like those of the Mecca
pilgrims, than flags or any thing of that kind?”
This ingenious author seems, however, to forget,
1. That the pillar of fire was with the
Israelites to direct their marches. 2. That the
Israelites were not a mere caravan, but an army;
and, as such, for order, required standards
as well by day as by night. See #Armies:ARMIES#.
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 entertainment
for his friends or neighbours, he
sent round a number of servants to invite the
guests; these were called vocatores by the Romans,
and [Greek: klêtô/res] by the Greeks. The day
when the entertainment is to be given is fixed
some considerable time before; and in the evening
of the day appointed, a messenger comes
to bid the guests to the feast. The custom is
.bn 0264.png
.pn +1
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 therefore
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 persons
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 Solomon,
with the crown wherewith his mother
crowned him.” “The bridegroom cometh, go
ye forth to meet him.” The names of the persons
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 tickets
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 entertainment,
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 conjunction
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 complains
to Simon, that he had given him no kiss,
had 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 is undoubtedly the most
natural and dignified posture, so it seems to
have been universally adopted by the first generations
of men; and it was not till after the
lapse of many ages, and when degenerate man
had lost much of the firmness of his primitive
character, that he began to recline.
The tables were constructed of three different
.bn 0265.png
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 was called clinium;
and three of these being united, to surround
the three tables, made the triclinium. At the
end of each clinium 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. At
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 from
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 singular
number: “He that dippeth his hand with
me in the dish, the same shall betray me,”
Matt. xxvi, 23. See #Accubation: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 entitled.
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 expressions
of welcome, pointed with his hand to
an upper seat in the assembly, to which he desired
him to move, and which he accordingly
did. These circumstances furnish a beautiful
and striking illustration of the parable which
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
.bn 0266.png
.pn +1
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 me no 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 as a stranger,
at a distance from the usual place of his residence.
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 observed
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 tradition
of the elders,” Mark vii, 3, 4. When
they washed their hands themselves, they
plunged them into the water up to the wrists;
but 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, generally
performed by the female servants of the
family. It was occasionally performed, however,
by females of the highest rank; for the
daughter of Cleobulus, one of the Grecian
sages, and king of Lindus, a 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 more than common
.bn 0267.png
respect was due; for the daughter 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 mentions
it as a sure mark of the intolerable pride
of Caligula, 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 symposiarch,
or governor of the feast. He was,
says Plutarch, one chosen among the guests,
the most pleasant and diverting in the company,
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 endeavour
accordingly to keep them all in harmony,
and in an even composure, that there might be
no disquiet nor disturbance. To do this effectually,
he first proclaimed liberty to every one
to drink what he thought proper, and then observing
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 [Greek: a)rchitri/klinos] literally
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 universally
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 symposiarch,
or governor of the feast. The existence
of such an officer among the Jews is
placed beyond a doubt, by a passage in the
apocryphal book 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 receive
a crown for the well-ordering of the feast,”
Ecclesiasticus xxxii, 1. See #Architriclinus:ARCHITRICLINUS#.
BAPTISM, from the Greek word [Greek: bapti/zô], 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 privileges
belonging to the disciples of Christ. It
.bn 0268.png
.pn +1
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 water,
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 repentance
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 recorded
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. The design
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 iii, 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 performing
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
uncleanness, 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.
It is strenuously maintained by Lightfoot. Dr.
John Owen considers the opinion, that Christian
baptism came from the Jews, as destitute
of all probability. On the 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 obtained
before and at, as well as after, our Saviour’s
time. There is also a strong intimation,
even in the Gospel itself, of such a known practice
among the Jews in the time of John the
Baptist, John i, 25. The testimonies of the
Jewish writers are of the greater weight, because
.bn 0269.png
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 persons
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 innovation
in imitation of Christians, which is not
very likely. This ceremony is performed by
immersion in the oriental churches. The practice
of the western churches is, to sprinkle the
water on the head or face of the person to be
baptized, except in the church of Milan, in
whose ritual it is 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 Father,
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 mankind
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 elsewhere, the
thing intended thereby is always implied.
There are many ceremonies delivered by ecclesiastical
writers, as used in baptism, which
were introduced after the 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. Tertullian
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 century,
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 baptism
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 his mouth and ears with spittle,
and also blew and spat upon his face. At that
time also baptized persons wore white garments
till the Sunday following. They had also various
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
.bn 0270.png
.pn +1
of Christ any longer than while Jewish prejudices
made such an external ceremony necessary.
They argue from Eph. iv, 5, in which
one baptism is spoken of as necessary to Christians,
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 explication.
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 all 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 administered
at Easter and Whitsuntide, except in
cases of necessity. Adult persons were prepared
for baptism by abstinence, prayer, and
other pious exercises. It was to answer for
them, says Mosheim, that sponsors, or godfathers,
were first instituted in the second century,
though they were afterward admitted
also in the baptism of infants. This, according
to M. Daillé, was not done till the fourth century.
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 elected
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
of 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
occur at the beginning of the third century.
Constantine the Great was not baptized till he
was at the last gasp, and in this he was followed
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, however,
that, though some seem to have laid too
great stress upon it, as if it were indispensably
necessary in order to salvation; it must be
allowed, that for any person to omit baptism,
when he acknowledges it to be an institution
.bn 0271.png
of Christ, and that it is the will of Christ that
he should submit to it, is an act of disobedience
to his authority, which is inconsistent with
true faith.
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
waters, signify to be overwhelmed with miseries
and calamities.
6. St. Paul, endeavouring to prove the resurrection
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 mentioned.
“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 sucession
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
supplies the words, [Greek: tê~s a)naϛa/seôs], and reads the
clause, “Who are baptized for the resurrection
of the dead;” or in consequence of their believing
in the doctrine of the resurrection of
the dead; on account of which faith, and their
profession of it, they are exposed to great sufferings,
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-pædobaptists
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 excluded.
“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 professed
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 [Greek: bapti/zô] signifies to immerse
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 Scripture,
and the history of the church, that they
.bn 0272.png
.pn +1
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 Pædobaptists, however, are of a different
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. viii, 12; that as
children were admitted under the former; and
that as baptism is now a sign, seal, or confirmation
of this covenant, infants have as great a
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 expressly
commanded. If baptizing infants had
been 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 to a 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. iii,
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 infants
are to be received into the church, and
as such baptized, is also inferred from the following
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 Apostles
baptizing infants, yet there is no proof that
they were excluded. Jesus Christ actually
blessed little children; and it is difficult to believe
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
probable there were children among them.
.bn 0273.png
From the year 400 to 1150, no society of men,
in all that period of seven hundred and fifty
years, ever pretended to say it was unlawful to
baptize infants: and still nearer the time of
our Saviour there appears to have been scarcely
any one who advised the delay of infant baptism.
Irenæus, who lived in the second century,
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
baptized 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 catholic
church every where declares,” says Chrysostom,
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 believe
that there needed no mention in the New
Testament of receiving infants into the church,
as it had been once appointed and never repealed.
So far from confining baptism to
adults, it must be remembered that there is not
a single instance recorded in the New Testament,
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?
11. As to the mode, the Pædobaptists deny
that the term [Greek: bapti/zô], which is a derivative of
[Greek: ba/ptô], 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 immersion;
and that it is his positive will that
no other mode should be used. As the word
[Greek: bapti/zô] is used to express the various ablutions
among 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
no where 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
.bn 0274.png
.pn +1
Supper, the time of day, the number and posture
of the communicants, the quantity and
quality of bread and wine, are circumstances
not accounted essential by any part of Christians.
If in baptism there be an expressive
emblem of the descending influence of the
Spirit, pouring must be the mode of administration;
for that is the Scriptural term most
commonly and properly used for the communication
of divine influences, Matt. iii, 11;
Mark i, 8, 10; Luke iii, 16–22; John i, 33;
Acts i, 5; ii, 38, 39; viii, 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 therefore
cannot be inapplicable to baptismal purification.
But, it is observed, that John baptized
“in 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 preposition,
[Greek: e)n], 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, [Greek: e)n], “by
water only;” but, [Greek: e)n], “by water and blood.”
There the same word, [Greek: e)n], 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 [Greek: e)n] 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, [Greek: a)po\], 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 preposition
[Greek: ei)s], translated into, often signifies no
more than to, or unto: 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 separated
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 indecent
.bn 0275.png
for so solemn an ordinance; 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 incapable
of them; as in many cases the immersion
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 improbability
that it was ever practised in the times of
the New Testament, or in the earliest periods
of the Christian church.
BAPTISTS, or ANTIPÆDOBAPTISTS,
so called from their rejecting the baptism of
infants. The Baptists in England form one of
“the three denominations of Protestant Dissenters.”
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 disapproved
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 Anabaptists
and Mennonites; and in Piedmont and
the south, they were found among the Albigenses
and Waldenses. The Baptists subsist
chiefly under two denominations,--the Particular
or Calvinistical, and the General or Arminian.
The former is by far the most numerous.
Some of both denominations, General and Particular,
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 themselves
into what is called “The New Connection,”
or Association. These preserve a friendly
correspondence with their other brethren in
things which concern the general interests of
the denomination, but hold no religious communion
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 most of them 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 appears 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. Archibald
.bn 0276.png
.pn +1
M’Lean. Others have since been formed
at Dundee, Glasgow, and in most of the principal
towns of Scotland:” also at London, and in
various parts of England. They think that
the order of public worship, which uniformly
obtained in 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 make contributions for the poor every first
day of the 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 preside
in conducting the worship, to rule in cases
of discipline, and to labour in the word and
doctrine, in distinction from the brethren exhorting
one another. The elders are all laymen,
generally chosen from among the brethren;
but, when circumstances require, are
supported by their contributions. They approve
also of persons who are properly qualified for
it, being appointed by the church to preach the
Gospel and baptize, though not vested with
any pastoral charge. The discipline and government
of the Scottish Baptists are strictly
congregational.
BARACHIAS, the father of Zacharias,
mentioned Matt. xxiii, 35, as slain between the
temple and the altar. 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. Campbell
thinks, with Father Simon, that Jehoiada
had two names, Barachias and Jehoiada. See
#Zacharias: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 consented
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 chariots
of war, and encamped near the river Kishon.
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 לעו (rendered
barbarian; LXX, [Greek: ba/rbaros],) in the Hebrew sense
of it, signifies a stranger; one who knows
neither the holy language nor the law. According
to the notions of the Greeks, all
nations who were not Greeks, or not governed
by laws like the Greeks, were barbarians.
The Persians, Egyptians, Hebrews, Arabians,
Gauls, Germans, and even the Romans, were,
in their phraseology, barbarians, however learned
or polite they might be in themselves. St.
.bn 0277.png
Paul comprehends all mankind under the
names of Greeks and barbarians: “I am a
debtor both to the Greeks and to the barbarians;
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 barbarian
and Scythian almost in the same signification.
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 discourses,
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 whatever
of savage nature or manners in those respecting
whom it is used. It is most probably
derived from berbir, “a shepherd;” whence
Barbary, the country 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 Sergius
Paulus, who, sending for Paul and Barnabas,
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 righteousness,
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 immediately.
The pro-consul, who saw this
miracle, was converted. Origen and Chrysostom
think that Elymas, or Bar-Jesus, was converted
likewise; and that St. Paul speedily
restored his sight.
BARLEY, שערה, Exod. ix, 31; Lev. xxvii,
16, &c;; a well-known kind of grain. It derives
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, David’s
friends brought to him in his flight wheat,
.bn 0278.png
.pn +1
barley, flour, &c, 2 Sam. xvii, 28. Solomon
sent wheat, barley, oil, and wine, to the labourers
King Hiram had furnished him, 2 Chron.
ii, 15. Elijah had a present made him, of
twenty barley loaves, and corn in the husk,
2 Kings iv, 22. And, by miraculously increasing
the five barley loaves, Christ fed a multitude
of about five thousand, John vi, 8–10.
The jealousy-offering, in the Levitical institution,
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, contemptible
reward or price. So the false prophets
are charged with seducing the people for
handfuls of barley, and morsels of bread, Ezek.
xiii, 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 proper
name was Joses, to which the Apostles
added Barnabas, signifying the son of consolation.
He is generally considered one of the
seventy disciples, chosen by our Saviour. He
was brought up with Paul at the feet of Gamaliel.
When that Apostle came to Jerusalem,
three years after his conversion, Barnabas introduced
him to the other Apostles, Acts ix,
26, 27, about A. D. 37. Five years afterward,
the church at Jerusalem, being informed of the
progress of the Gospel at Antioch, sent Barnabas
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
great numbers; and here the disciples were
first 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 appointed
them. They departed into Cyprus, where
they converted Sergius Paulus, the pro-consul.
They 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.
Paul curing one Æneas, who had been lame
from his birth, the people of Lystra regarded
them as gods; calling Barnabas, Jupiter; and
Paul, Mercury; and would have sacrificed to
them, which the two Apostles with great difficulty
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 Gospel,
they returned to Antioch in Syria.
.bn 0279.png
In A. D. 51, Barnabas was sent with Paul
from Antioch to Jerusalem, on occasion of disputes
concerning the observance of legal rites,
to which the Jews wished to subject the Gentiles.
Paul and Barnabas were present in the
council at Jerusalem, and returned immediately
to Antioch. Peter, arriving there soon afterward,
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 notions,)
used the like dissimulation: but Paul
reproved Peter and Barnabas with great freedom.
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. Hereupon
the two Apostles separated: Paul went
toward Asia; and Barnabas, with Mark, to
Cyprus. This is all we know certainly concerning
Barnabas.
There is extant among the writings of the
fathers an epistle which is attributed to Barnabas;
though, being without an inscription,
it is not known to whom it professes to have
been addressed. It was first published by Archbishop
Usher, in Greek and Latin, and translated
by Archbishop Wake, in his “Genuine
Epistles of the Apostolical Fathers,” and has
often been reprinted. That it is not the production
of Barnabas, the companion of Paul,
may be safely concluded from internal evidence;
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 copious
to satisfy any impartial mind that it is spurious.
BARRENNESS. This was looked upon as
reproachful among 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 circumstances
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, proceeding
with beautiful uniformity: a unity of
plan ‘connecting,’ as it has been well said by
Paley, ‘the chicken roosting upon its perch
with the spheres revolving in the firmament;’
and a unity of plan connecting in like manner
the meanest accidents of a household with
the most illustrious visions of a prophet. Abstracted
from this consideration, I see in the
history of Moses details of actions, some trifling,
some even offensive, pursued at a length
(when compared with the whole) singularly
disproportionate; while things which the angels
would desire to look into are passed over
and forgotten. But this principle once admitted,
all is consecrated; all assumes a new aspect;
.bn 0280.png
.pn +1
trifles, that seem at first not bigger than
a man’s hand, occupy the heavens; and wherefore
Sarah laughed, for instance, at the prospect
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 indistinctly
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 accomplish
this desire, they (like others, when urged
by an overpowering motive) were often reckless
of the means, and rushed upon deeds which
they could not defend. Then did the wife forget
her jealousy, and provoke, instead of resenting,
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 treachery
and deceit, Gen. xxv, 23; xxvii, 13; then
did daughters turn the instincts of nature backward,
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 corruption
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 stumbling-block
to many, which, if rightly understood,
are the very testimony of the covenant;
and a principle which is thus extensive in its
application and successful in its results; which
.bn 0281.png
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 the seventy. 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 Matthias,
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, instructing 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 Apostles,
Matt. x, 3, is supposed to be the same person
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 number
of the Apostles, so the other evangelists
never mention Nathanael. And as in John
i, 45, Philip and Nathanael are mentioned together
as coming to Jesus, so in the other evangelists
Philip and Bartholomew are constantly
associated together. The supposition also acquires
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, probably
Andrew and Philip, John xxi, 2. It is
an early tradition, that Bartholomew propagated
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 appears
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, Jeremiah
having been thrown into prison, the Lord
commanded him to commit to writing all the
.bn 0282.png
.pn +1
prophecies that he had delivered until that time.
He 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 assembled
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 commanded
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 secretary’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 country,
that they should again be restored to their
own land. The latter were exceedingly affected
at hearing Jeremiah’s letter read to them,
and returned an answer to their brethren at
Jerusalem. After his return to Jerusalem, Baruch
continued his constant attendance on
Jeremiah; and when Jerusalem was besieged
by Nebuchadnezzar, and Jeremiah thrown into
prison, Baruch also was confined with him:
but when the city had surrendered, Nebuzaraddan
showed him much kindness, granted him
his liberty, and permitted him to go with Jeremiah
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 follow
the people into Egypt, where Jeremiah
soon afterward died; on which Baruch retired
to Babylon, where the rabbins say he also died
.bn 0283.png
in the twelfth year of the captivity, Jer. xxxvi;
xliii. The book of Baruch is justly placed
among the apocryphal writings. Grotius thinks
it a 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 fertile
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
Batanæa. 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 country
when Moses made the conquest thereof.
In the division of the Holy Land, it was assigned
to the half tribe of Manasseh. Of the
present state of this portion of the ancient possessions
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 summit,
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 Scriptures.
We had quitted too, the districts apportioned
to the tribes of Reuben and of Gad, and
entered that part which was allotted to the
half tribe of Manasseh, beyond Jordan eastward,
leaving the land of the children of Ammon
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 elevated
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 enumerating
the sources from which the supplies
of Tyre were drawn in the time of her great
wealth and naval splendour, the Prophet
‘Of the oaks of Bashan have they made thine
oars,’ Ezek. xxvii, 6. Some learned commentators
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 expression
of ‘the fat bulls of Bashan,’ which
occurs more than once in the Scriptures,
seemed to us equally inconsistent, as applied
.bn 0284.png
.pn +1
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 luxuriant country might
be proverbially fat, but that its possessors, too,
might be a race renowned for strength and
comeliness 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 magnificent
character; flowing beds of secondary
hills softened the romantic wildness of the picture;
gentle slopes, clothed with wood, gave a
rich variety of tints, hardly to be imitated by
the pencil; deep valleys, filled with murmuring
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 #Gnostics:GNOSTICS#.
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 concubine
is never placed on a footing with the
legitimate offspring; any attempt made by parental
fondness to do so would be resented by
the relations of the legitimate wife, and outrage
the feelings of a whole tribe. The Jewish
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 knowledge.
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
partakers, then are ye bastards and not sons,”
Heb. xii, 7, 8. To restrain the licentious desires
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, 35, says that some
of the saints were tortured, [Greek: tympani/zô], suffered
the tympanum, that is, were stretched on an
instrument of torture, and beaten to death.
BAT, עטלף, Lev. xi, 19; Deut. xiv, 18; Isaiah
.bn 0285.png
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, “Moreover
the othelaph, and every creeping thing that
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 is a 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 עטל darkness,
and עמ to fly, as if it described “the flier
in darkness.” So the Greeks called the creature
[Greek: nykteri\s], from [Greek: ny\x], night; and the Latins,
vespertilio, from vesper, “evening.” It is
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 shall
give them up, and relinquish them to the filthy
animals that frequent such places, and have
taken possession of them as their proper habitation.
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, בח־קול, 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 Virgilianæ
[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 appealed
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 #Armies:ARMIES#.
BAXTERIANISM, a modification of the
Calvinistic doctrine of election advocated by
the celebrated Baxter in his treatise of “Universal
Redemption,” and in his “Methodus
Theologiæ.” The real author of the scheme,
at least in a systematized form, was Camero,
who taught divinity at Saumur, and it was unfolded
.bn 0286.png
.pn +1
and defended by his disciple Amyraldus,
whom Curcellæus refuted. Baxter says, in his
preface to his “Saint’s Rest,” “The middle way
which Camero, Crocius, Martinius, Amyraldus,
Davenant, with all the divines of Britain
and Bremen in the synod of Dort, go, I think
is nearest the truth of any that I know who
have 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 fulfilling
the precept, and to prevent God’s fulfilling
the threatening on us. Christ paid not,
therefore, the idem, but the tantundem, or
æquivalens; not the very debt which we owed
and the law required, but the value: (else it
were not strictly satisfaction, which is redditio
æquivalentis: [the rendering of an
and (it being improperly called the paying of
a debt, but properly a suffering for the guilty)
the idem is nothing but supplicium delinquentis.
[The punishment of the guilty individual.]
In criminals, dum alius solvet simul aliud solvitur.
[When another suffers, it is another
thing also that is suffered.] The law knoweth
no vicarius p[oe]næ; [substitute in punishment;]
though the law maker may admit it, as he is
above law; else there were no place for pardon,
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 strict, proper
representation of his person in point of law;
so as that the law should take it, as done or
suffered by the party himself. But only as a
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 overthrow
all Scripture theology, and to introduce
all Antinomianism; to overthrow all possibility
of pardon, and assert justification before
we sinned or were born, and to make ourselves
to have satisfied God. Therefore, we must
not 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 essentially
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 presenti 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
.bn 0287.png
general. God the Father, and Christ the Mediator,
now dealeth with no man upon the
mere rigorous terms of the first law; (obey perfectly
and live, else thou shalt die;) but giveth
to all much mercy, which, according to the
tenor of that violated law, they could not receive,
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, injuriously diminisheth the honour
of his sufferings; and hath other desperate ill
consequences.”
The benefits derived to all men equally, 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 punishment
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 resultantiam
[by mere consequence] this happy change is
made for them in their relation, upon the said
remitting of God’s right and advantage of justice
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, enacted
a law of grace of universal extent, in
regard of its tenor, by which he giveth, as a
deed or gift, Christ himself, with all his following
benefits which he bestoweth; (as benefactor
and legislator;) and this to all alike, without
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. In the new law Christ hath truly
given himself with a conditional pardon, justification,
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 justifying
and saving of all, nor of any but those that
come to be justified and saved; he did not,
therefore, die for all, nor for any that perish,
with a decree or resolution to save them,
much less did he die for all alike, as to this intent.
Christ hath given faith to none by his
law or testament, though he hath revealed,
that to some he will, as benefactor and Dominus
Absolutus, [absolute Lord,] give that grace
which shall infallibly produce it; and God
.bn 0288.png
.pn +1
hath given some to Christ that he might prevail
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 wicked
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 purchased
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 FAITH, or the power of performing
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 something
in the form of system in Baxter’s opinions
on the five disputed points, he will be much disappointed.
The parties to whom he refers as
the authors of this supposed “middle way,”
differ as much among themselves as Baxter occasionally
does from himself. Bishop Davenant
and Dr. S. Ward differed from Amyraut, Martinius,
and others of that school, on the topic
of baptismal regeneration; 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 suffering
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 absolution
and washing in baptism was but conditional
and expectative; which doth truly interest
them in all the promises of God, but under
the condition of repenting, believing and obeying,
which they never perform, and therefore
never attain the promise.” Bishop Overal has
also been claimed as a patron of this diversified
“middle system;” but it will be evident to
every one who peruses his productions, that his
chief endeavour was to display the doctrines of
.bn 0289.png
the English church as identical with those of
St. Augustine, yet basing them upon the antecedent
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 elicited
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 inexplicable!”
and in the same light it will be
viewed by all who recollect that this “sufficient
grace or power” is that “portion of special
grace which never fails to accomplish its design,--the
salvation of the individual on whom
it is bestowed!” Baxter’s celebrated “Aphorisms
of Justification,” published in 1649,
afforded employment to himself and his theological
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 Calvinistic
than Calvin, and at others more Arminian
than Arminius. The following
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 favourable
to arriving at correct and satisfactory conclusions.
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 disposed
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 physical
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 generally
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 necessary
to constitute a Calvinist, Richard Baxter
was no believer in that creed.
“While satisfied that among Baxter’s sentiments,
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
.bn 0290.png
.pn +1
much to censure. The wrangling and disputatious
manner in which he presented many of
his views, was calculated to gender an unsanctified
state of mind in persons who either abetted
or opposed his sentiments. His scholastic
and metaphysical style of arguing is unbefitting
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
the rudiments of human science. I am not
sure whether certain effects which began early
in the last century to appear among the Presbyterian
part of the Nonconformists, may not
be traced, in some degree, to the speculative
and argumentative writings of Baxter. His influence
over this class of his brethren was evidently
very great. He contributed more than
any other man to mitigate the harsh and forbidding
aspect which the Presbyterians presented
during the civil wars and the commonwealth.
This was well, but he did not stop here. He
was inimical to all the existing systems of doctrine
and discipline then contended for, or ever
before known in the world; while he did not
present any precisely defined system as his own.
He opposed Calvinism; he opposed Arminianism;
he would not allow himself to be considered
an Episcopalian, in the ordinary acceptation
of the word; he denied that he was a Presbyterian,
and scorned to be thought an Independent.
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 theological
truths on grounds belonging rather to
philosophy or metaphysics, than to revelation.
“On himself, this species of latitudinarianism
produced little injurious effect, but I fear
it had a baneful influence on others. The rejection
of all human authority and influence in
religion, requires to be balanced by a very strong
sense of the divine authority, to prevent its generating
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 ascribed
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.
“In 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 Baxterianism;
a word to which it is difficult to
.bn 0291.png
attach a definite meaning. It denotes no separate
sect or party, but rather a system of opinions
on doctrinal points, verging toward
Arminianism, and which ultimately passed to
Arianism and Socinianism. Even during Baxter’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 attributed,
it is a melancholy fact, that the declension
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.
“I wish not to be understood as stating that
Baxter either held any opinions of this description,
or was conscious of a tendency in his
sentiments toward such a fearful consummation;
but, that there was an injurious tendency
in his manner of discussing certain important
subjects. It was subtle, and full of logomachy;
it tended to unsettle, rather than to fix and determine;
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;
a region 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 ambiguities
of language, the diversities of sects,
the uncertainties of human perception and argument
are urged, till the force of revealed
truth is considerably weakened, and confidence
in our own judgment of its meaning greatly impaired.
Erroneous language is maintained to
be capable of sound meaning, and the most
Scriptural phrases to be susceptible of unscriptural
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 excellent
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 producing
universal concord and harmony. He
failed where success was impossible, however
plausible might have been the means which he
employed. He understood the causes of difference
and contention better than their remedies;
hence the measures which he used frequently
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 contributed
considerably to produce a more moderate
spirit toward each other, between Calvinists and
Arminians, than had long prevailed. Though
he satisfied neither party, he must have convinced
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
.bn 0292.png
.pn +1
other; 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 writings
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 ascribed,
both in England and abroad, to Arminianism.
See #Amyraut:AMYRAUT# and #Cameron:CAMERON#.
BAY-TREE. אזרח. It is mentioned only in
Psalm xxxvii, 35, 36: “I have seen the ungodly
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 a native tree; a tree growing
in its native soil, not having suffered by transplantation.
Such a tree spreads itself luxuriantly.
The Septuagint and Vulgate render
it cedars; but the high Dutch of Luther’s Bible,
the old Saxon, the French, the Spanish,
the Italian of Diodati, and the version of Ainsworth,
make it the laurel.
BDELLIUM, בדלה, occurs Gen. ii, 12, and
Num. xi, 7. Interpreters seem at a loss to
know what to do with this word, and have rendered
it variously. Many suppose it a mineral
production. The Septuagint translates in the
first place, [Greek: a)nthra/ka], a carbuncle, and in the
second, [Greek: kry/ϛallon], a crystal. The rabbins are
followed by Reland in calling it a crystal; but
some, instead of bedolah, read berolah, changing
the ב into ר, which are not always easily
distinguished, and are often mistaken by transcribers;
and so render it the beryl, which, say
they, is the prime kind of crystal. The bedoleh,
in Genesis, is undoubtedly some precious stone;
and its colour, mentioned in Numbers, where
the manna is spoken of as of the colour of
bdellium, 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 ellipomocrostyla, or beryl crystal.
BEAN, פול, occurs 2 Sam. xvii, 28, and
Ezek. 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 Palestine
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
onomatopæia from the noise which he makes:
“ursi Lucana origo, vel unde illi, nostri ab
ipsius voce:” [the origin of the term ursus (bear)
is Lucanian, (whence also the bears themselves,)
from the noise made by the animal.]
.bn 0293.png
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 animals
are not peculiar to the bleak regions of the
north, being found in Barbary; and Thevenot
informs us that they inhabit the wilderness adjoining
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 a bear robbed of her whelps
meet a man rather than a fool in his folly.”
And the third, Hosea xiii, 8, “I 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 is, 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 mourned,
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 affliction,
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, 2 Sam. 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 purification,
Lev. xiv, 9. The Levites, at their consecration,
were purified by bathing, and washing
their bodies and clothes; after which, they
shaved off all the hair of their bodies, and then
offered the sacrifices appointed for their consecration,
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
.bn 0294.png
.pn +1
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 preserve
your blessed beard.” When they would
express their value for any thing, they say,
“It is worth more than a man’s beard.” And
hence we may easily learn the magnitude of
the offence of the Ammonites in their treatment
of David’s ambassadors, as above mentioned;
and also the force of the emblem used
Ezek. v, 1–5, where the inhabitants of Jerusalem
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 opposition
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 intended;
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,” ציים,
those of the dry wilderness, as the root of the
word implies, “shall dwell there. Their houses
shall be full of doleful creatures,” אהים, marsh
animals. “Owls shall dwell there,” ostriches,
“and satyrs,” שעירים,