xxiii. When the seventy years of the captivity were expired, the good

prophets and preachers, Zerubbabel, Joshua, Haggai, and others, having confidence in the word of God, and being concerned to possess their natural, civil, and religious rights, endeavoured, by all means, to extricate themselves and their countrymen from that mortifying state into which the crimes of their ancestors had brought them. They wept, fasted, prayed, preached, prophesied, and at length prevailed. The chief instruments were Nehemiah and Ezra; the former was governor, and reformed the civil state; the latter was a scribe of the law of the God of heaven, and applied himself to ecclesiastical matters, in which he rendered the noblest service to his country, and to all posterity. He collected and collated MSS. of the sacred writings, and arranged and published the books of the holy canon in their present form. To this he added a second work, as necessary as the former: he revised and new modelled public teaching, and exemplified his plan in his own person. The Jews had almost lost, in the seventy years’ captivity, their original language; that was now become dead; and they spoke a jargon made up of their own language and that of the Chaldeans, and other nations, with whom they had been mingled. Formerly, preachers had only explained subjects: now they were obliged to explain words; words which, in the sacred code, were become obsolete, equivocal, or dead. Houses were now opened, not for ceremonial worship, as sacrificing, for this was confined to the temple; but for moral and religious instruction, as praying, preaching, reading the law, divine worship, and social duties. These houses were called synagogues: the people repaired thither for morning and evening prayer; and on Sabbaths and festivals, the law was read and expounded to them. We have a short but beautiful description of the manner of Ezra’s first preaching, Neh. viii. Upward of fifty thousand people assembled in a street, or large square, near the water gate. It was early in the morning of a Sabbath day. A pulpit of wood, in the fashion of a small tower, was placed there on purpose for the preacher; and this turret was supported by a scaffold, or temporary gallery, where, in a wing on the right hand of the pulpit, sat six of the principal preachers; and in another on the left, seven. Thirteen other principal teachers, and many Levites, were present also, on scaffolds erected for the purpose, alternately to officiate. When Ezra ascended the pulpit, he produced and opened the book of the law, and the whole congregation instantly rose up from their seats, and stood. Then he offered up prayer and praise to God. The people bowing their heads and worshipping the Lord with their faces to the ground; and at the close of the prayer, with uplifted hands, they solemnly pronounced, Amen! Amen!” Then all standing, Ezra, assisted at times by the Levites, read the law distinctly, gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading. The sermons delivered so affected the hearers, that they wept excessively; and about noon the sorrow became so exuberant and immeasurable, that it was thought necessary by the governor, the preacher, and the Levites, to restrain it. Go your way,” said they, eat the fat, and drink the sweet, send portions to them for whom nothing is prepared.” The wise and benevolent sentiments of these noble souls were imbibed by the whole congregation, and fifty thousand troubled hearts were calmed in a moment. Home they returned, to eat, to drink, to send portions, and rejoice, because they had understood the words that were declared unto them. Plato was living at this time, teaching dull philosophy to cold academics; but what was he, and what was Xenophon, or Demosthenes, or any of the Pagan orators, in comparison with these men? From this period to that of the appearance of Jesus Christ, public preaching was universal; synagogues were multiplied, vast numbers attended, and elders and rulers were appointed for the purpose of order and instruction.

The most celebrated preacher that arose before the appearance of Jesus Christ was John the Baptist. He was commissioned from heaven to be the harbinger of the Messiah. His subjects were few, plain, and important. His style was vehement, his images bold, his deportment solemn, his action eager, and his morals strict. But this bright morning star gave way to the illustrious Sun of Righteousness, who now arose on a benighted world. Jesus Christ certainly was the Prince of teachers. Who but can admire the simplicity and majesty of his style, the beauty of his images, the alternate softness and severity of his address, the choice of his subjects, the gracefulness of his deportment, and the indefatigableness of his zeal? Let the reader charm and solace himself in the study and contemplation of the character, excellency, and dignity of this divine teacher, as he will find them delineated in the evangelists.

The Apostles copied their divine Master. They formed multitudes of religious societies, and were abundantly successful in their labours. They confined their attention to religion, and left the schools to dispute, and politicians to intrigue. The doctrines they preached they supported entirely by evidence; and neither had nor required such assistance as human laws or worldly policy, the eloquence of schools or the terror of arms, could afford them.

The Apostles being dead, every thing came to pass as they had foretold; the whole Christian system, in time, underwent a miserable change; preaching shared the fate of other institutions, and the glory of the primitive church gradually degenerated. Those writers whom we call the fathers, however, held up to view by some as models for imitation, do not deserve that indiscriminate praise ascribed to them. Christianity, it is true, is found in their writings; but how sadly incorporated with Pagan philosophy and Jewish allegory! It must, indeed, be allowed, that, in general, the simplicity of Christianity was maintained, though under gradual decay, during the first three centuries. The next five centuries produced many pious and excellent preachers, both in the Latin and Greek church, though the doctrine continued to degenerate. The Greek pulpit was adorned with some eloquent orators. Basil, bishop of Cæsarea, John Chrysostom, preacher at Antioch, and afterward patriarch, as he was called, of Constantinople, and Gregory Nazianzen, who all flourished in the fourth century, seem to have led the fashion of preaching in the Greek church; Jerom and Augustine did the same in the Latin church. The first preachers differed much in pulpit action; the greater part used very moderate and sober gestures. They delivered their sermons all extempore, while there were notaries who took down what they said. Sermons in those days were all in the vulgar tongue: the Greeks preached in Greek, the Latins in Latin. They did not preach by the clock, so to speak, but were short or long as they saw occasion; though an hour was about the usual time. Sermons were generally both preached and heard standing; but sometimes both speaker and auditors sat, especially the aged and the infirm. The fathers were fond of allegory; for Origen, that everlasting allegorizer, had set them the example. Before preaching, the preacher usually went into a vestry to pray, and afterward to speak to such as came to salute him. He prayed with his eyes shut in the pulpit. The first word the preacher uttered to the people when he ascended the pulpit was, Peace be with you;” or, The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with you all;” to whom the assembly first added, Amen,” and in after times they answered, And with thy spirit.” Degenerate, however, as these days were, in comparison of those of the Apostles, yet they were golden ages in comparison with the times that followed, when metaphysical reasoning, mystical divinity, yea, Aristotelian categories, and reading the lives of saints, were substituted in the place of sermons. The pulpit became a stage where ludicrous priests obtained the vulgar laugh by the lowest kind of wit, especially at the festivals of Christmas and Easter.

But the glorious Reformation was the offspring of preaching, by which mankind were reformed; there was a standard, and the religion of the times was put to the trial by it. The avidity of the common people to read the Scriptures, and to hear them expounded, was wonderful; and the papists were so fully convinced of the benefits of frequent public instruction, that they, who were justly called unpreaching prelates, and whose pulpits to use an expression of Latimer, had been bells without clappers” for many a long year, were obliged for shame to set up regular preaching again. The church of Rome has produced some great preachers since the Reformation, but none equal to the reformed preachers. And a question naturally arises here, which it would be unpardonable to pass over in silence, concerning the singular effect of the preaching of the reformed, which was general, national, universal reformation. In the dark times of popery there had arisen now and then some famous popular preachers, who had zealously inveighed against the vices of the times, and whose sermons had produced sudden and amazing effects on their auditors; but all these effects had died away with the preachers who had produced them, and all things had gone back into their old state. Law, learning, commerce, society at large had not been improved. Here a new scene opens; preachers arise less popular, perhaps less indefatigable and exemplary; their sermons produce less striking immediate effects; and yet their auditors go away and agree by whole nations to reform. Jerom Savonarola, Jerom Narni, Capistran, Connecte, and many others, had produced, by their sermons, great immediate effects. When Connecte preached, the ladies lowered their head dresses, and committed quilled caps by hundreds to the flames. When Narni taught the people in lent, from the pulpits of Rome, half the city went from his sermons crying along the streets, Lord, have mercy upon us;” so that in only one passion week, two thousand crowns’ worth of ropes were sold to make scourges with; and when he preached before the pope to the cardinals and bishops, and painted the sin of non-residence in its own colours, he frightened thirty or forty bishops, who heard him, home to their diocesses. In the pulpit of the university of Salamanca, he induced eight hundred students to quit all worldly prospects of honour, riches, and pleasure, and to become penitents in divers monasteries. We know the fate of Savonarola, and others might be added; but all lamented the momentary duration of the effects produced by their labours. Narni himself was so disgusted with his office, that he renounced preaching, and shut himself up in his cell to mourn over his irreclaimable contemporaries; for bishops went back to the court, and rope makers lay idle again.

Our reformers taught all the good doctrines which had been taught by these men, and they added two or three more, by which they laid the axe to the root of the apostasy, and produced general reformation. Instead of appealing to popes and canons, and founders and fathers, they only quoted them, and referred their auditors to the Holy Scriptures for law. Pope Leo X. did not know this when he told Prierio, who complained of Luther’s heresy, Friar Martin has a fine genius.” They also taught the people what little they knew of Christian liberty; and so led them into a belief that they might follow their own ideas in religion, without the consent of a confessor, a diocesan, a pope, or a council. They went farther, and laid the stress of all religion on justifying faith.

Since the reformers we have had multitudes who have entered into their views with disinterestedness and success; and in the present times, both in the church and among other religious societies, names might be mentioned which would do honour to any nation; for though there are too many who do not fill up that important station with proportionate piety and talents, yet we have men who are conspicuous for their extent of knowledge, depth of experience, originality of thought, fervency of zeal, consistency of deportment, and great usefulness in the Christian church.

The preceding sketch will show how mighty an agent preaching has been in all ages, in raising, and maintaining, and reviving the spirit of religion. Wherever it has had this power, let it however be remarked, it has consisted in the declaration, the proclamation, of the truth of God, as contained in his early revelations to man, and afterward embodied in the Holy Scriptures. The effect too has been produced by preachers living themselves under the influence of this truth, and filled with faith and the Holy Ghost,” depending wholly upon God’s blessing for success, and going forth in his name, with ardent longing to win souls,” and to build up the church in knowledge and holiness. For preaching is not a profession; but a work of divine appointment, to be rightly discharged only by him who receives a commission from God, and fulfils it as under his eye, and in dependence upon his promise, Lo, I am with you alway.”

PREDESTINATION, according to some, is a judgment, or decree of God, by which he has resolved, from all eternity, to save a certain number of persons, hence named elect. Others define it, a decree to give faith in Jesus Christ to a certain number of men, and to leave the rest to their own malice and hardness of heart. A third, more Scripturally, God’s eternal purpose to save all that truly repent and unfeignedly believe his holy Gospel,”--according to the Apostle Paul, Whom he did foreknow” as believers them he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son;” to his moral image here, and to the image of his glorified humanity in heaven. According to the Calvinistical scheme, the reason of God’s predestinating some to everlasting life is not founded in a foresight of their faith and obedience; nevertheless, it is also maintained on this scheme, that the means are decreed as well as the end, and that God purposes to save none but such as by his grace he shall prepare for salvation by sanctification. The Remonstrants define predestination to be God’s decree to save believers, and condemn unbelievers. Some represent the election and predestination spoken of in Scripture, as belonging only to nations, or, at least, bodies of men, and not to particular persons. The greatest difficulties with which the modern theology is clogged turn on predestination; both the Romish and Reformed churches are divided about it; the Lutherans speak of it with horror; the Calvinists contend for it with the greatest zeal; the Molinists and Jesuits preach it down as a most dangerous doctrine; the Jansenists assert it as an article of faith; the Arminians, Remonstrants, and many others, are all avowed enemies of absolute predestination. Those strenuous patrons of Jansenism, the Port-royalists, taught, that God predestinates those whom he foresees will coöperate with his grace to the end. Dupin adds, that men do not fall into sin because not predestinated to life, but they are not predestinated because God foresaw their sins. See CALVINISM.

This doctrine has been already treated of. We shall here therefore merely subjoin a sketch of its history previous to the Reformation. The apostolic fathers, men little accustomed to the intricacy of metaphysical disquisition, deeply impressed with the truth of the Gospel, powerfully influenced by its spirit, and from their particular situation naturally dwelling much upon it as a system of direction and consolation, do not, in their writings, at all advert to the origin of evil, or to predestination, so closely allied to it. They press, with much earnestness, upon those in whom they were interested the vast importance of practical holiness, exhibit the motives which appeared to them calculated to secure it, and represent the blessedness which awaits good men, and the condemnation reserved for the wicked; but they do not once attempt to determine whether the sin which they were solicitous to remove could be accounted for, in consistency with the essential holiness and the unbounded mercy of the Deity. In short, they just took that view of this subject which every man takes when he is not seeking to enter into philosophical disquisition; never for one moment doubting that whatever is wrong was ultimately to be referred to man, and that the economy of grace proceeding from God was the most convincing proof of the tenderness of his compassion for mankind.

When, however, the church received within its communion those who had been educated in the schools of philosophy, and to whom the question as to the origin of evil must, while they frequented these schools, have become familiar, it was not to be supposed that, even although they were convinced that we should be chiefly solicitous about the formation of the Christian character, there would be no allusion to what had formerly interested them, or that they would refrain from delivering their sentiments upon it. Agreeably to this, we find, in the works of Justin Martyr, Tatian, Irenæus, Tertullian, and Origen, sufficient intimations that they had directed their attention to the difficulty now under review; and that, whether upon adequate grounds or not, they had come to a decision as to the way in which it should be explained consistently with the divine perfections. It is evident that they did not investigate the subject to the depth to which it is requisite for the full discussion of it to go; and that various questions which must be put before it can be brought completely before us, they either did not put, or hastily regarded as of very little moment: but it is enough to dwell upon the fact, that they did employ their thoughts upon it, and have so expressed themselves as to leave no doubt of the light in which it was contemplated by them. Justin, in his dialogue with Trypho, remarks that “they who were foreknown as to become wicked, whether angels or men, did so not from any fault of God, ἀιτίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ, but from their own blame;” by which observation he shows it to have been his opinion that God foresaw in what manner his intelligent creatures would act; but that this did not affect their liberty, and did not diminish their guilt. A little after he says more fully, that God created angels and men free to the practice of righteousness, having planted in them reason, through which they knew by whom they were created and through whom they existed, when before they were not, and who prescribed to them a law by which they were to be judged, if they acted contrary to right reason. Wherefore, we, angels and men, are through ourselves convicted as being wicked, if we do not lay hold of repentance. But if the Logos of God foretels that some angels and men would go to be punished, he does so because he foreknew that they would certainly become wicked by no means, however, because God made them such.” Justin thus admits that man is wholly dependent upon God, deriving existence and every thing which he has from the Almighty; but he is persuaded that we were perfectly able to retain our integrity, and that, although it was foreseen that we should not do so, this did not abridge our moral power, or fix any imputation on the Deity in consequence of our transgression. Tatian, in his oration against the Greeks, an excellent work which, although composed after the death of Justin, was written, in all probability, before its author had adopted the wild opinions which he defended toward the conclusion of his life, expresses very much the same sentiments avowed by Justin. He says, Both men and angels were created free, so that man becoming wicked through his own fault may be deservedly punished, while a good man, who, from the right exercise of his free will, does not transgress the law of God, is entitled to praise; that the power of the divine Logos having in himself the knowledge of what was to happen, not through fate or unavoidable necessity, but from free choice, predicted future things, condemning the wicked and praising the righteous.”

Irenæus, in the third book of his work against heresies, has taken an opportunity to state his notions about the origin of evil. The seventy-first chapter of that book is entitled, A proof that man is free, and has power to this extent, that of himself he can choose what is good or the contrary.” In illustration of this he remarks, God gave to man the power of election as he did to the angels. They, therefore, who do not obey are justly not found with the good, and receive deserved punishment, because God having given them what was good, they did not keep it, but despised the riches of the divine mercy.” The next chapter is entitled, A proof that some men are not good by nature, and others wicked, and that what is good is within the choice of man.” In treating on this subject, Irenæus observes, that if the reverse were the case, the good would not merit praise nor the wicked blame, because being merely what, without any will of theirs, they had been made, they could not be considered as voluntary agents. But,” he adds, since all have the same nature, and are able to retain and to do what is good, and may, on the other hand, lose it and not do it, some are, even in the sight of men, and much more in that of God, deservedly praised and others blamed.” In support of this he introduces a great variety of passages from Scripture. It appears, however, that the real difficulty attending the subject had suggested itself to his mind; for he inquires in the seventy-third chapter, why God had not from the beginning made man perfect, all things being possible to him. He gives to this question a metaphysical and unsatisfactory answer, but which so far satisfied himself as to convince him that there could not, on this ground, be any imputation justly cast on the perfections of the Almighty, and that, consequently, a sufficient explanation of the origin of evil and of the justice of punishing it, was to be found in the nature of man as a free agent, or in the abuse of that liberty with which man had been endowed. Tertullian had also speculated upon the moral condition of man, and has recorded his sentiments with respect to it. He explicitly asserts the freedom of the will; lays down the position, that, if this be denied, there can be neither reward nor punishment; and, in answer to an objection, that since free will has been productive of such melancholy consequences, it would have been better that it had not been bestowed, he enters into a formal vindication of this part of our constitution. In reply to another suggestion, that God might have interposed to prevent the choice which was to be productive of sin and misery, he maintains that this could not have been done without destroying that admirable constitution by which alone the interests of virtue can be really promoted. He thus thought that sin was to be imputed wholly to man, and that it was perfectly consistent with the attributes of God, or rather illustrated these attributes, that there should be a system under which sin was possible, because without this possibility there could have been no accountable agents.

From what has been stated on this subject, it seems unquestionable that the apostolic fathers did not at all enter upon the subject of the origin of evil; that the writers by whom they were succeeded were satisfied that, in the sense in which the term is now most commonly used, there was no such thing as predestination; that they uniformly represented the destiny of man as regulated by the use or abuse of his free will; that, with the exception of Irenæus, they did not attempt to explain why such a creature as man, who was to fall into sin, was created by a Being of infinite goodness; that the sole objection to their doctrine seemed to them to be, that prescience was incompatible with liberty, and that, when they answered this, they considered that nothing more was requisite for receiving, without hesitation, the view of man upon which they often and fondly dwelt, as a free and accountable agent, who might have held fast his integrity, and whose fall from that integrity was to be ascribed solely to himself, as it did not at all result from any appointment of the supreme Being.

Although opinions respecting original sin, directly tending to a very different view of the subject than had been previously taken, had been stated by Cyprian, yet a thorough investigation of it, and the sentiments which afterward were widely received in the Christian church, took their rise from the discussions to which the Pelagian controversy gave occasion. Previous to the part which Augustine took in that controversy, he seems to have been very much of the same sentiments with Origen and the other early fathers. But, either from what he considered as a more deliberate and complete examination of Scripture, or from perceiving the necessity imposed on him, in consequence of some of the positions which he had laid down in his writings against Pelagius, he soon changed his opinion, and advanced a notion more in harmony with these positions. Having to show the absolute necessity of divine grace, he inculcated that, in consequence of original sin, man was infallibly determined to evil, and was therefore in a state of condemnation, and he thus took away the foundation upon which the prevailing tenets rested; because it was impossible that men could be predestined to life, or the reverse, from prescience of their actions, when, without the special grace of God, they were absolutely incapacitated for obedience to the divine law. To get rid of this difficulty, Augustine, in some degree, transferred the search for the origin of sin from the state of man to the purposes of God, asserting that from all eternity the Almighty had determined to choose from the mass of mankind, lost in guilt and corruption, a certain number to be transformed to holiness, and to be admitted after this life to eternal happiness; that he did this to promote his own glory; and that, by the operation of his Spirit, granted of his own free and undeserved mercy, he produced in the elect or chosen the fruits of righteousness, and qualified them for the enjoyment of heaven. The whole of the remainder of the human race were, according to this system, left in their condition by nature, or in other words, were given up to endless misery. There immediately arose out of this view of the subject, the formidable and heart-rending objection, that God was really the author of sin; that, having so created mankind that of themselves they could not be holy, there was on the part of those delivered no virtue, as there was on the other part no blame; the case being quite different from what it would have been had God interposed with respect to creatures who had not received from himself their physical and moral constitution. Accordingly, it has been asserted that a sect did arise, which, carrying out, as the members of it affirmed, the principles of Augustine, maintained that God not only predestinated the wicked to eternal punishment, but also to the guilt and transgression for which they were punished; that the human race was thus wholly passive, the good and bad actions of men, or what were commonly termed such, being determined from all eternity by a divine decree, or fixed by hopeless, irresistible necessity. These opinions it is said that the venerable and enlightened bishop of Hippo zealously opposed, labouring to show that they were not fairly deduced from what he had taught, making a distinction probably between his account of free will and the necessity here confounded with it, and perhaps reluctant to push his tenets so far as apparently they might be carried. The fact is, that although the doctrine of absolute predestination is occasionally clearly taught by Augustine, and obviously follows from his other principles, yet he does not always write consistently with regard to it; or, at least, there is sometimes so much vagueness in his assertions and illustrations, that his authority has been claimed in support of their peculiar tenets both by the Jansenists and the Jesuits, opposite to each other as the sentiments of these two orders are upon the subject of which we are treating. Still it is beyond a question that this celebrated theologian did fix the attention of the church upon that subject much more closely than before his age had been the case, and gave rise to those discussions in relation to it which have so often agitated Christians, and tended much more to destroy the mild and tolerant spirit of the Gospel, than to throw light upon its momentous truths. The subject of predestination, however, was long regarded as one which it was not esteemed requisite absolutely to define, and which might be very much left open to speculation; for although in different countries decrees were passed, guarding against what were viewed as errors resulting from it, it is plain, from what took place upon the revival of the controversy in an after age, that there had not been formed any standard to which ecclesiastical authority required that all who were esteemed orthodox should strictly conform. See AUGUSTINE.

In the ninth century, Godeschalchus, a man of illustrious birth, who had, contrary to his inclinations, been devoted by his parents to a monastic life, and who had, with unwearied diligence, studied the science of theology, inflamed by an unhappy desire to unravel all the difficulties with which that science abounds, occupied his mind with the consideration of the question of predestination, and finally adopted, with regard to it, the doctrine of Augustine. Not satisfied with having convinced himself, he conceived it to be his duty to labour for the conviction of others; and he accordingly openly and zealously inculcated that the elect were predestinated to life, and the rest of mankind to everlasting misery. Rabanus, archbishop of Mentz, who had for some reason before this been inspired with enmity to Godeschalchus, having been informed of the tenets which he was publishing, and, as has too often been the case, veiling private antipathy under the cloak of anxiety for the purity of divine truth, opposed him with the utmost vehemence; and, having assembled a council in his own metropolitan city, procured the condemnation of the views which he reprobated. The matter was afterward taken up by Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, who was the zealous friend of Rabanus; and he also having procured the meeting of a council, confirmed the sentence that had been already passed. Not satisfied with this, he degraded Godeschalchus from the priesthood; and, with an inhumanity infinitely more detestable than heresy, he put the unfortunate monk to the torture. The fortitude of Godeschalchus was for a moment overpowered, and he consented to commit to the flames a justification of his opinions which he had presented to his execrable tormentors. It was not to be supposed that by atrocious violence like this sincere conviction could be produced in the person against whom it was directed, or that others would be disposed universally to submit to it. The controversy, accordingly, soon was renewed; writers on both sides of the question contended with the utmost warmth, and eagerly displayed the extent of their erudition. New councils were summoned, by which the decrees of former councils were reversed, and the tenets of Godeschalchus were confirmed; and the whole agitation terminated by leaving the subject in the same undefined state on the part of the church in which it had been before it was thus intemperately and cruelly discussed.

To the schoolmen, who delighted much more in losing themselves amidst inextricable difficulties and endless distinctions, than in opening the sources of knowledge and removing the difficulties with which these were surrounded, this subject, from its intricate or inexplicable nature, was admirably adapted; and they did not fail to exercise upon it their diligence and their ingenuity. Thomas Aquinas, who flourished during the thirteenth century, was a man who in more enlightened times would have really merited the high reputation which he enjoyed, and which procured for him from his contemporaries the appellation of the Angelic Doctor. He was capable of vast mental exertion, and, amidst all his avocations, produced works so voluminous that in modern days even students would shrink from the perusal of them as an overwhelming task. He wrote largely upon the nature of grace, and predestination, so intimately connected with it. His opinions upon these subjects were nearly the same with those of Augustine; and so much, indeed, was he conceived to resemble in genius and understanding that distinguished prelate, that it was asserted the soul of Augustine had been sent into the body of Aquinas. He taught that God had, from all eternity, and without any regard to their works, predestinated a certain number to life and happiness; but he found great delight in endeavouring to reconcile this position with the freedom of the human will. His celebrated antagonist, John Duns Scotus, an inhabitant of Britain, surnamed, from the acuteness and bent of his mind, the Subtile Doctor, also directed his attention, in the subsequent century, to the same thorny speculations, taking a different view of them from Aquinas; and we find in the works of these two brilliant lights of the schoolmen all that the most learned in the dark ages thought upon them.

It is unnecessary to trace the various shades of opinion which existed in the church as to predestination from this era till the Reformation: it is enough to remark, that, after all which had been written upon it, it does not appear that any peculiar sentiments with respect to it were, by the reformers, judged essential to orthodoxy. It was more wisely considered that, upon a point involved in impenetrable difficulties, and raised far above human comprehension, men might be allowed to differ, while their attachment to the best interests of pure religion could not be called in question. See CALVINISM and LUTHERANS.

The seventeenth article of the church of England is often adduced by Calvinists as favourable to their peculiar views of absolute predestination; but such a representation of it is rendered plausible only by adding to its various clauses qualifying expressions to suit that purpose. Under the articles _Church of England_, _Confessions_, and _Calvinism_, have been exhibited the just and liberal views of Cranmer and the principal English reformers on this subject,--the sources from which they drew the _articles of religion_ and the public formularies of devotion,--and some of the futile attempts of the high predestinarians in the church to inoculate the public creed with their dogmas. Cartwright and his followers, in their second Admonition to the Parliament” in 1572, complained that the articles speak dangerously of falling from grace;” and in 1587 they preferred a similar complaint. The labours of the Westminster Assembly at a subsequent period, and their abortive result, in relation to this subject, are well known. Long before Arminius had turned his thoughts to the consideration of general redemption, a great number of the English clergy had publicly taught and defended the same doctrine. It was about 1571 when Dr. Peter Baroe, a zealous Anti-Calvinian,” as one of our church historians observes, was made Margaret Professor of Divinity in the university of Cambridge; and “he went on teaching in his lectures, preaching in his sermons, determining in the schools, and printing in several books, divers points contrary to Calvinism. And this he did for several years, without any manner of disturbance or interruption. The heads of the university, in a letter to the Lord Burleigh, dated March 8, 1595, say, he had done it for fourteen or fifteen years preceding and they might have said twenty; for he printed some of his lectures in 1574, and the prosecution he was at last under, which will be considered hereafter, was not till 1595. In 1584, Mr. Harsnet, afterward archbishop of York, preached against absolute reprobation at St. Paul’s Cross, the greatest audience then in the kingdom; as did the judicious Mr. Hooker at the Temple in the year following. In the year 1594, Mr. Barret preached at St. Mary’s in Cambridge against Calvinism, with very smart reflections upon Calvin himself, Beza, Zanchy, and several others of the most noted writers in that scheme. In the same year, Dr. Baroe preached at the same place to the same purpose. By this time Calvinism had gained considerable ground, being much promoted by the learned Whitaker and Mr. Perkins; and several of the heads of the university being in that scheme, they complained of the two sermons above mentioned to the Lord Burleigh their chancellor. Their heads endeavoured to bring Barret to a retraction, to which whether he ever submitted according to the form they drew up, may reasonably be doubted. At length the matter was laid before Archbishop Whitgift, who was offended at their proceedings, and writes to the Lord Burleigh, that some of the points which the heads had enjoined Barret to retract were such as the most learned Protestants, then living, varied in judgment upon; and that _the most ancient and best divines in the land were in the chiefest points in opinion against the heads and their resolutions_. Another letter he sent to the heads themselves, telling them that they had enjoined Barret to affirm that which was contrary to the doctrine holden and expressed by many sound and learned divines in the church of England, and in other churches likewise men of best account; and that which for his own part he thought to be false and contrary to the Scriptures; for the Scriptures are plain, that God by his absolute will did not hate and reject any man. There might be impiety in believing the one, there could be none in believing the other; neither was it contrary to any article of religion established by authority in this church of England, but rather agreeable thereto. This testimony of the archbishop is very remarkable; and though he afterward countenanced the Lambeth articles, that is of little or no weight in the case. The question is not about any man’s private opinion, but about the doctrine of the church; and supposing the archbishop to be a Calvinist, as he seems to have been at least in some points, this only adds the greater weight to his testimony, that our church has no where declared in favour of that scheme. The archbishop descended to the particulars charged against Barret, asking the heads what article of the church was contradicted by this or that notion of his; and Whitaker in his reply does not appeal to one of the articles, as against Barret, but forms his plea upon the doctrines which then generally obtained in pulpits. His words are, ‘We are fully persuaded that Mr. Barret hath taught untruth, if not against the articles, yet against the religion, of our church, publicly received, and always held in her majesty’s reign, and maintained in all sermons, disputations, and lectures.’ And even this pretence of his, weak as it would have been though true, is utterly false, directly contrary, not only to what has been already shown to be the facts of the case, but also to what the archbishop affirmed, and that too, as must be supposed, upon his own knowledge. As to Dr. Baroe, he met with many friends, who espoused his cause. Mr. Strype particularly mentions four, Mr. Overal, Dr. Clayton, Mr. Harsnet, Dr. Andrews; all of them great and learned men, men of renown, and famous in their generation. How many more there were, nobody can tell. The heads in their letter to the Lord Burleigh do not pretend that the preaching against Calvinism gave a general offence, but that it offended many; which implies that there were many others on the opposite side; and they expressly say there were divers in the Anti-Calvinian scheme, whom they represent as maintaining it with great boldness. But what put a stop to this prosecution against Baroe was, a reprimand from their chancellor, the Lord Burleigh, who wrote to the heads, that as good and as ancient were of another judgment, and that they might punish him, but it would be for well doing.”

But Dr. Whitaker, Regius Professor of Divinity in Cambridge, could not endure the farther prevalence of the doctrines of general redemption in that university; he therefore, in 1595, drew up nine affirmations, elucidatory of his views of predestination, and obtained for them the sanction of several Calvinian heads of houses, with whom he repaired to Archbishop Whitgift. Having heard their _ex parte_ statement, his grace summoned Bishops Flecher and Vaughan, and Dr. Tyndal, dean of Ely, to meet Dr. Whitaker and the Cambridge deputation at his palace in Lambeth, on the tenth of November, 1595; where, after much polishing and altering, they produced Whitaker’s affirmation in the following form, called the Lambeth Articles,” from the place in which their secret sittings had been held:--“1. God from eternity hath predestinated certain men unto life; certain men he hath reprobated. 2. The moving or efficient cause of predestination unto life is not the foresight of faith or of perseverance, or of good works, or of any thing that is in the person predestinated; but it is only the good will and pleasure of God. 3. A certain number of the predestinate is predetermined, which can neither be augmented nor diminished. 4. Those who are not predestinated to salvation shall be necessarily damned for their sins. 5. A true, living, and justifying faith, and the Spirit of God justifying, is not extinguished, doth not fall off, or vanish away, in the elect, either totally or finally. 6. A man who is a true believer, that is, one who is endued with a justifying faith, is assured with a plerophory, or firm persuasion, of faith concerning the remission of his sins, and his eternal salvation through Christ. 7. Saving grace is neither given, communicated, nor granted to all men, by which they can be saved if they will. 8. No one is able to come unto Christ unless it shall be given unto him, and unless the Father shall draw him; and all men are not drawn by the Father, that they may come unto the Son. 9. It is not placed in the choice, will, or capacity of every one to be saved.” Dr. Whitaker died a few days after his return from Lambeth, with the nine articles to which he had procured the patronage of the primate. After his demise, two competitors appeared for the vacant King’s Professorship, Dr. Wotton, of King’s College, a professed Calvinian, and Dr. Overal of Trinity College, almost as far,” says Heylin, from the Calvinian doctrine in the main platform of predestination as Baroe, Harsnet, or Barret are conceived to be. But when it came to the vote of the university, the place was carried for Overal by the major part; which plainly shows, that though the doctrines of Calvin were so hotly stickled here by most of the heads, yet the greater part of the learned body entertained them not.” “The Lambeth articles,” it is well observed, are no part of the doctrine of the church of England, having never had any the least sanction either from the parliament or the convocation. They were drawn up by Professor Whitaker; and though they were afterward approved by Archbishop Whitgift, and six or eight of the inferior clergy, in a meeting they had at Lambeth, yet this meeting was only in a private manner, and without any authority from the queen; who was so far from approving of their proceedings, that she not only ordered the articles to be suppressed, but was resolutely bent for some time to bring the archbishop and his associates under a _premunire_, for presuming to make them without any warrant or legal authority.” Such, in brief, was the origin and such the fate of the Lambeth articles, without the countenance of which the defenders of Calvinism in the church of England could find no semblance of support for their manifold affirmations on predestination and its kindred topics. These articles afford another instructive instance of the extreme ignorance of the real sentiments of their opponents, which often betrays itself in the conduct of many eminent men, when they rashly begin to fence off the reputed heterodoxy of their brethren from the sacred precincts of their own orthodoxy. Two of the ablest and most consistent Arminians of the old English school, Baroe and Plaifere, have lucidly shown how every one of these nine assertions may, without difficulty, be interpreted in accordance with their individual belief. Baroe’s clever dissertation on this subject will be found in Strype’s Life of Whitgift;” and that of Plaifere, in his own unanswerable _Apello Evangelium_.”

PRE-EXISTENCE OF JESUS CHRIST is his existence before he was born of the Virgin Mary. That he really did exist, is plain from John iii, 13; vi, 50, &c; viii, 58; xvii, 5, 24; 1 John i, 2; but there are various opinions respecting this existence. Some acknowledging, with the orthodox, that in Jesus Christ there is a divine nature, a rational soul, and a human body, go into an opinion peculiar to themselves. His body was formed in the virgin’s womb; but his human soul, they suppose, was the first and most excellent of all the works of God; was brought into existence before the creation of the world, and subsisted in happy union in heaven with the second person of the Godhead, till his incarnation. These divines differ from those called Arians, for the latter ascribe to Christ only a created deity, whereas the former hold his true and proper divinity. They differ from the Socinians, who believe no existence of Jesus Christ before his incarnation: they differ from the Sabellians, who only own a trinity of names: they differ also from the generally received opinion, which is, that Christ’s human soul began to exist in the womb of his mother, in exact conformity to that likeness unto his brethren of which St. Paul speaks, Heb. ii, 17. The writers in favour of the preëxistence of Christ’s human soul recommend their opinion by these arguments: 1. Christ is represented as his Father’s messenger, or angel, being distinct from his Father, sent by his Father, long before his incarnation, to perform actions which seem to be too low for the dignity of pure Godhead. The appearances of Christ to the patriarchs are described like the appearance of an angel, or man really distinct from God; yet one, in whom God, or Jehovah, had a peculiar indwelling, or with whom the divine nature had a personal union. 2. Christ, when he came into the world, is said, in several passages of Scripture, to have divested himself of some glory which he had before his incarnation. Now if there had existed before this time nothing but his divine nature, this divine nature, it is argued, could not properly have divested itself of any glory, John xvii, 4, 5; 2 Cor. viii, 9. It cannot be said of God that he became poor: he is infinitely self-sufficient; he is necessarily and eternally rich in perfections and glories. Nor can it be said of Christ, as man, that he was rich, if he were never in a richer state before than while he was on earth. 3. It seems needful, say those who embrace this opinion, that the soul of Jesus Christ should preëxist, that it might have an opportunity to give its previous actual consent to the great and painful undertaking of making atonement for our sins. On the other side, it is affirmed that the doctrine of the preëxistence of the human soul of Christ weakens and subverts that of his divine personality. 1. A pure intelligent spirit, the first, the most ancient, and the most excellent of creatures, created before the foundation of the world, so exactly resembles the second person of the Arian trinity, that it is impossible to show the least difference except in name. 2. This preëxistent intelligence, supposed in this doctrine, is so confounded with those other intelligences called angels, that there is great danger of mistaking this human soul for an angel, and so of making the person of Christ to consist of three natures. 3. If Jesus Christ had nothing in common like the rest of mankind except a body, how could this semi-conformity make him a real man? 4. The passages quoted in proof of the preëxistence of the human soul of Jesus Christ, are of the same sort with those which others allege in proof of the preëxistence of all human souls. 5. This opinion, by ascribing the dignity of the work of redemption to this sublime human soul, detracts from the deity of Christ, and renders the last as passive as the first is active. 6. This notion is contrary to the Scripture. St. Paul says, In all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren,” Heb. ii, 17: he partook of all our infirmities, except sin. St. Luke says, He increased in stature and wisdom,” Luke ii, 52. Upon the whole, this scheme, adopted to relieve the difficulties which must always surround mysteries so great, only creates new ones. This is the usual fate of similar speculations, and shows the wisdom of resting in the plain interpretation of the word of God.

PRESBYTERIANS are those that affirm there is no order in the church, as established by Christ and his Apostles, superior to that of presbyters; that all ministers, being ambassadors, are equal by their commission; and that elder, or presbyter, and bishop, are the same in name and office, and the terms synonymous. Their arguments against the Episcopalians are as follows:--With respect to the successors of the Apostles, they seem to have been placed on a footing of perfect equality, the διάκονοι, or deacons, not being included among the teachers. They were inferior officers, whose province it originally was to care for the poor, and to discharge those secular duties arising out of the formation of Christian communities, which could not be discharged by the ministers without interfering with the much higher duties which they had to perform. These ministers are sometimes in the New Testament styled ϖρεσϐύτεροι, or presbyters, at other times ἐπίσκοποι, or bishops; but the two appellations were indiscriminately applied to all the pastors who were the instructers of the different churches. Of this various examples may be given from the sacred writings. The Apostle Paul, upon a very affecting occasion, when he was convinced that he could never again have an opportunity of addressing them, sent for the elders or presbyters of Ephesus, the persons to whom the ministry in that church had been committed; and after mentioning all that he had done, and intimating to them the sufferings which awaited him, he addressed to them what may be considered as his dying advice, and as comprehending in it all that he judged it most essential for them to do. Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops or overseers, to feed the church of God,” Acts xx, 17, 28. Here they whose duty it was to feed the church of God, as having been set apart through the Holy Spirit for that interesting work, are termed by the Apostle presbyters and bishops, and there is not the slightest allusion to the existence of any other ἐπίσκοπος, or bishop, superior to those ἐπίσκοποι, or bishops, to whom he gives the moving charge now recorded. In his epistle to Titus, St. Paul thus writes: For this purpose I left thee in Crete,” where, as yet, it is probable that no teachers had been appointed, that thou shouldest ordain elders, or presbyters, in every city.” He then points out the class of men from which the presbyters were to be selected, adding, as the reason of this, for a bishop must be blameless as the steward of God,” Titus i, 5, 7. It is quite plain that the epithet bishop is here applicable to the same persons who were a little before styled elders, and both are declared to be the stewards of God, the guardians and instructers of his church. The Apostle Peter, in his first epistle addressed to the Jewish converts, has these words: “The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, ὁ συμπρεσϐύτερος, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight of it, ἐπισκοποῦντες, being bishops of it, not by constraint but willingly,” 1 Peter v, 1, 2. This passage is a very strong one. The Apostle speaks of himself in his extraordinary capacity, a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and in his ordinary capacity as a teacher; showing, by the use of a very significant term, that as to it he was on a footing of equality with the other pastors or presbyters. He gives it in charge to them to feed the flock of God; the charge which, under most particular and affecting circumstances, he had received from the Lord after the resurrection, and which includes in it the performance of every thing requisite for the comfort and the edification of Christians; and he accordingly expresses this by the word ἐπισκοποῦντες, being bishops over them. It cannot, with any shadow of reason, be supposed that the Apostle would exhort the elders or presbyters to take to themselves the office, and to perform the duties, of a bishop, if that term really marked out a distinct and higher order; or that he would have considered the presbyters as fitted for the discharge of the whole ministerial office, if there were parts of that office which he knew that it was not lawful for them to exercise.

It seems, by the passages that have been quoted, to be placed beyond a doubt, that, in what the Apostles said respecting the ministers of Christ’s religion, they taught that the ἐπίσκοποι and the ϖρεσβύτεροι were the same class of instructers; and that there were, in fact, only two orders pointed out by them, bishops or presbyters, and deacons. This being the case, even although it should appear that there were bishops, in the common sense of that term, recognized in the apostolic age, all that could be deduced from the fact would be, that the equality at first instituted among the teachers, had, for prudential reasons, or under peculiar circumstances, been interrupted; but it would not follow either that the positive and general declarations on the subject by the inspired writers were not true, or that it was incumbent at all times, and upon all Christians, to disregard them. It has been strenuously contended that there were such bishops in the infancy of the church, and that allusion is made to them in Scripture; but without directly opposing the assertion, this much must be admitted, that the proof of it is less clear than that bishops and presbyters were represented as the same in rank and in authority. Indeed, there does not appear to have been any occasion for this higher order. To presbyters was actually committed the most important charge of feeding the church of God, that is, of promoting the spiritual improvement of mankind; and it is remarkable that their privilege of separating from the people by ordination the ministers of religion, is explicitly acknowledged in the case of Timothy, whom the Apostle admonishes not to neglect the gift that was in him, and which had been given by prophecy, and by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery; by which can be meant only the laying on of the hands of those who were denominated presbyters or bishops. But although all the parts of the ministerial duty had been intrusted to presbyters, it is still contended that the New Testament indicates the existence of bishops as a higher order. There has, however, been much diversity of opinion in relation to this point by those who contend for the divine institution of episcopacy. Some of them maintain that the Apostles, while they lived, were the bishops of the Christian church; but this, and upon irrefragable grounds, is denied by others. Some urge that Timothy and Titus were, in what they call the true sense of the term, bishops; but many deny that, founding their denial upon these evangelists not having resided within the bounds, or been limited to the administration of any one church, being sent wherever it was resolved to bring men to the knowledge of divine truth. Many conceive that the question is settled by the epistles in the book of Revelation being addressed to the angels of the respective churches named by the Apostle. But it is far from being obvious what is implied under the appellation angel; there has been much dispute about this point, and it is certainly a deviation from all the usual rules by which we are guided in interpreting Scripture, to bring an obscure and doubtful passage in illustration of one, about the import of which, if we attend to the language used, there can be no doubt. It may, therefore, be safely affirmed that there is nothing clear and specific in the writings of the New Testament which qualifies the positive declarations that bishops and presbyters were the same officers; that the ground upon which the distinction between them is placed, is, at least, far from obviously supporting it; and that there is not the slightest intimation that the observance of such a distinction is at all important, much less absolutely essential to a true Christian church, insomuch that, where it is disregarded, the ordinances of divine appointment cannot be properly dispensed. If therefore it be established,--and some of the most learned and zealous advocates for the hierarchy which afterward arose have been compelled to admit it,--that Scripture has not recognized any difference of rank or order between the ordinary teachers of the Gospel, all other means of maintaining this difference should be with Protestants of no force. It may be shown that the admission of the distinction is not incompatible with the great ends for which a ministry was appointed, and even in particular cases may tend to promote them; but still it is merely a matter of human regulation, not binding upon Christians, and not in any way connected with the vital influence of the Gospel dispensation. The whole of the writers of antiquity may be urged in support of it, if that could be done; and, after all, every private Christian would be entitled to judge for himself, and to be directed by his own judgment, unless it be maintained that where Scripture has affirmed the existence of equality, this is to be counteracted and set at nought by the testimonies and assertions of a set of writers, who, although honoured with the name of fathers, are very far, indeed, from being infallible, and who have, in fact, often delivered sentiments which even they who, upon a particular emergency, cling to them, must confess to be directly at variance with all that is sound in reason, or venerable and sublime in religion. It also follows, from the Scriptural identity of bishops and presbyters, that no church in which this identity is preserved, can on that account be considered as having departed from the apostolic model, or its ministers be viewed, at least with any good reason, as having less ground to hope for the blessing of God upon their spiritual labours; because if we admit the contrary, we must also admit that the inspired writers, instead of properly regulating the church, betrayed it into error, by omitting to make a distinction closely allied with the essence of religion. What is this but to say that it is safer to follow the erring direction of frail mortals, than to follow the admonitions of those who, it is universally allowed, were inspired by the Holy Spirit, or commissioned by him to be the instructers of the world?

It is to be observed, however, that although bishops and presbyters were the same when the epistles of the New Testament were written, it would be going too far to contend that no departure from this should ever take place; because, to justify such a position, it would be requisite that a positive injunction should have been given that equality must at all times be carefully preserved. There is, however, no such injunction. Unlike the Old Testament, which specified every thing, even the most minute, in relation to the priesthood, the New only alludes in general terms, and very seldom, to the ministry; and the reason probably is, that, being intended for all nations, it left Christians at liberty to make such modifications in the ecclesiastical constitution as in their peculiar situation appeared best adapted for religious edification. The simple test to be applied to the varying or varied forms of church government is that indicated by our Lord himself: By their fruits ye shall know them.” Wherever the regulations respecting the ministry are such as to divert it from the purposes for which it was destined, to separate those who form it from the flock of Christ, to relax their diligence in teaching, and to destroy the connection between them and their people, so as to render their exertions of little or of no use, there we find a church not apostolical. But wherever the blessed fruits of Gospel teaching are in abundance produced, where the people and the ministers are cordially united, and where every regulation is calculated to give efficacy to the labours of those who have entered into the vineyard, we have an apostolical church, or, to speak more properly, a church of Christ, built upon a rock, because devoted to the beneficent objects for which our Saviour came into the world.

The form of church government among the Scotch Presbyterians is as follows:--The kirk session, consisting of the minister and lay elders of the congregation, is the lowest ecclesiastical judicature. The next is the presbytery, which consists of all the pastors within a certain district, and one ruling elder from each parish. The provincial synods, of which there are fifteen, meet twice in the year, and are composed of the members of the several presbyteries within the respective provinces. From the kirk sessions appeal lies to the presbyteries, from these to the synods, and from them to the general assembly, which meets annually, and is the highest ecclesiastical authority in the kingdom. This is composed of delegates from each presbytery, from every royal borough, and from each of the Scotch universities; and the king presides by a commission of his own appointment. The Scotch ordain by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery,” before which persons may be licensed to preach as probationers, but cannot administer the sacraments. The clergy are maintained by the state, and nominated to livings by patrons, as in other establishments. Those properly called the English Presbyterians, have no connection with the Scotch kirk. They are now indeed broken into separate churches, and follow the same form of church government as the Congregationalists or Independents. The name Presbyterian, therefore, is now inapplicable to them although retained. So Dr. Doddridge: Those who hold every pastor to be so a bishop or overseer of his own congregation, as that no other person or body of men have, by divine institution, a power to exercise any superior or pastoral office in it, may, properly speaking, be called, so far at least, congregational; and it is by a vulgar mistake that any such are called Presbyterians.” See EPISCOPALIANS.

PRESCIENCE, or foreknowledge, an attribute of God. (See _Omniscience_.) On this subject three leading theories have been resorted to, in order to evade the difficulties which are supposed to be involved in the opinion commonly received. The Chevalier Ramsay, among his other speculations, holds it a matter of choice in God, to think of finite ideas; and similar opinions, though variously worded, have been occasionally adopted. In substance these opinions are, that though the knowledge of God be infinite as his power is infinite, there is no more reason to conclude, that his knowledge should be always exerted to the full extent of its capacity, than that his power should be employed to the extent of his omnipotence; and that if we suppose him to _choose_ not to know some contingencies, the infiniteness of his knowledge is not thereby impugned. To this it may be answered, that the infinite power of God is in Scripture represented, as in the nature of things it must be, as an infinite capacity, and not as infinite in act; but that the knowledge of God is on the contrary never represented there to us as a capacity to acquire knowledge, but as actually comprehending all things that are, and all things that can be. 2. That the notion of God’s choosing to know some things, and not to know others, supposes a reason why he refuses to know any class of things or events; which reason, it would seem, can only arise out of their nature and circumstances, and therefore supposes at least a partial knowledge of them, from which the reason for his not choosing to know them arises. The doctrine is therefore somewhat contradictory. But, 3. It is fatal to this opinion that it does not at all meet the difficulty arising out of the question of the consistency of divine prescience, and the free actions of men; since some contingent actions, for which men have been made accountable, we are sure, have been foreknown by God, because by his Spirit in the prophets they were foretold; and if the freedom of man can in these cases be reconciled to the prescience of God, there is no greater difficulty in any other case which can possibly occur.

A second theory is, that the foreknowledge of contingent events, being in its own nature impossible, because it implies a contradiction, it does no dishonour to the divine Being to affirm, that of such events he has, and can have, no prescience whatever; and thus the prescience of God, as to moral actions, being wholly denied, the difficulty in question is got rid of. To this the same answer must be given as to the former. It does not meet the case, so long as the Scriptures are allowed to contain prophecies of rewardable and punishable actions. The great fallacy in the argument, that the certain prescience of a moral action destroys its contingent nature, lies in supposing that contingency and certainty are the opposites of each other. It is, perhaps, unfortunate, that a word which is of figurative etymology, and which consequently can only have an ideal application to such subjects, should have grown into common use in this discussion, because it is more liable, on that account, to present itself to different minds under different shades of meaning. If, however, the term _contingent_ in this controversy has any definite meaning at all, as applied to the moral actions of men, it must mean their freedom, and stands opposed, not to certainty, but to necessity. A free action is a voluntary one; and an action which results from the choice of the agent, is distinguished from a necessary one in this, that it might not have been, or have been otherwise, according to the self-determining power of the agent. It is with reference to this specific quality of a free action, that the term contingency is used; it might have been otherwise, in other words, it was not necessitated. Contingency in moral actions is, therefore, their freedom, and is opposed, not to certainty, but to constraint. The very nature of this controversy fixes this as the precise meaning of the term. The question is not, in point of fact, about the certainty of moral actions, that is, whether they _will_ happen or not; but about the nature of them, whether free or constrained, whether they _must_ happen or not. Those who advocate this theory care not about the certainty of actions, simply considered, that is, whether they will take place or not; the reason why they object to a certain prescience of moral actions, is this,--they conclude, that such a prescience renders them necessary. It is the quality of the action for which they contend, not whether it will happen or not. If contingency meant _uncertainty_, the sense in which such theorists take it, the dispute would be at an end. But though an uncertain action cannot be foreseen as certain, a free, unnecessitated action may; for there is nothing in the knowledge of the action, in the least, to affect its nature. Simple knowledge is, in no sense, a cause of action, nor can it be conceived to be causal, unconnected with exerted power: for mere knowledge, therefore, an action remains free or necessitated as the case may be. A necessitated action is not made a voluntary one by its being foreknown; a free action is not made a necessary one. Free actions foreknown will not, therefore, cease to be contingent. But how stands the case as to their certainty? Precisely on the same ground. The certainty of a necessary action foreknown, does not result from the knowledge of the action, but from the operation of the necessitating cause; and, in like manner, the certainty of a free action does not result from the knowledge of it, which is no cause at all, but from the voluntary cause, that is, the determination of the will. It alters not the case in the least, to say that the voluntary action might have been otherwise. Had it been otherwise, the knowledge of it would have been otherwise; but as the will which gives birth to the action, is not dependent upon the previous knowledge of God, but the knowledge of the action upon foresight of the choice of the will, neither the will nor the act is controlled by the knowledge; and the action, though foreseen, is still free or contingent. The foreknowledge of God has then no influence upon either the freedom or the certainty of actions, for this plain reason, that it is knowledge, and not influence; and actions may be certainly foreknown, without their being rendered necessary by that foreknowledge. But here it is said, If the result of an absolute contingency be certainly foreknown, it _can_ have no other result, it _cannot_ happen otherwise.” This is not the true inference. It _will_ not happen otherwise; but it may be asked, Why _can_ it not happen otherwise? _Can_ is an expression of potentiality, it denotes power or possibility. The objection is, that it is not possible that the action should otherwise happen. But why not? What deprives it of that power? If a necessary action were in question, it could not otherwise happen than as the necessitating cause shall compel; but then that would arise from the necessitating cause solely, and not from the prescience of the action which is not causal. But if the action be free, and it enter into the very nature of a voluntary action to be unconstrained, then it might have happened in a thousand other ways, or not have happened at all; the foreknowledge of it no more affects its nature in this case than in the other. All its potentiality, so to speak, still remains, independent of foreknowledge, which neither adds to its power of happening otherwise, nor diminishes it. But then we are told, that the prescience of it, in that case, must be uncertain.” Not unless any person can prove, that the divine prescience is unable to dart through all the workings of the human mind, all its comparison of things in the judgment, all the influences of motives on the affections, all the hesitances and haltings of the will, to its final choice. Such knowledge is too wonderful for us,” but it is the knowledge of Him who understandeth the thoughts of man afar off.” “But if a contingency _will_ have a given result, to that result it _must_ be determined.” Not in the least. We have seen that it cannot be determined to a given result by mere precognition; for we have evidence in our own minds that mere knowledge is not causal to the actions of another. It is determined to its result by the will of the agent; but even in that case, it cannot be said, that it _must_ be determined to that result, because it is of the nature of freedom to be unconstrained: so that here we have an instance in the case of a free agent that he _will_ act in some particular manner; but it by no means follows from what _will_ be, whether foreseen or not, that it _must_ be.

The third theory amounts, in brief, to this, that the foreknowledge of God must be supposed to differ so much from any thing of the kind which we perceive in ourselves, and from any ideas which we can possibly form of that property of the divine nature, that no argument respecting it can be grounded upon our imperfect notions; and that all controversy on subjects connected with it, is idle and fruitless. But though foreknowledge in God should be admitted to be something of a very different nature” to the same quality in man, yet as it is represented as _something_ equivalent to foreknowledge, whatever that something may be, since in consequence of it, prophecies have actually been uttered and fulfilled, and of such a kind, too, as relate to actions for which men have in fact been held accountable; all the original difficulty of reconciling contingent events to this something, of which human foreknowledge is a kind of shadow,” as a map of China is to China itself,” remains in full force. The difficulty is shifted, but not removed. It may, therefore, be certainly concluded, if at least the Holy Scriptures are to be our guide, that the omniscience of God comprehends his certain prescience of all events however contingent; and if any thing more were necessary to strengthen the argument above given, it might be drawn from the irrational, and, above all, the unscriptural consequences, which would follow from the denial of this doctrine. These are forcibly stated by President Edwards:--“It would follow from this notion, (namely, that the Almighty doth not foreknow what will be the result of future contingencies,) that as God is liable to be continually repenting what he has done; so he must be exposed to be constantly changing his mind and intentions as to his future conduct; altering his measures, relinquishing his old designs, and forming new schemes and projections. For his purposes, even as to the main parts of his scheme, namely, such as belong to the state of his moral kingdom, must be always liable to be broken, through want of foresight; and he must be continually putting his system to rights, as it gets out of order, through the contingence of the actions of moral agents: he must be a Being who, instead of being absolutely immutable, must necessarily be the subject of infinitely the most numerous acts of repentance, and changes of intention, of any being whatsoever; for this plain reason, that his vastly extensive charge comprehends an infinitely greater number of those things which are to him contingent and uncertain. In such a situation he must have little else to do, but to mend broken links as well as he can, and be rectifying his disjointed frame and disordered movements, in the best manner the case will allow. The supreme Lord of all things must needs be under great and miserable disadvantages, in governing the world which he has made, and has the care of, through his being utterly unable to find out things of chief importance, which hereafter shall befall his system; which, if he did but know, he might make seasonable provision for. In many cases, there may be very great necessity that he should make provision, in the manner of his ordering and disposing things, for some great events which are to happen, of vast and extensive influence, and endless consequence to the universe; which he may see afterward, when it is too late, and may wish in vain that he had known beforehand, that he might have ordered his affairs accordingly. And it is in the power of man, on these principles, by his devices, purposes, and actions, thus to disappoint God, break his measures, make him continually to change his mind, subject him to vexation, and bring him into confusion.”

Socinus and his early followers would not allow that God possesses any knowledge of future contingencies. The schoolmen, in reference to this species of knowledge in God, invented that called _scientia media_, and which they define as that by which God knows _sub conditione_, what men or angels will do according to the liberty which they have, when they are placed in these or those circumstances, or in this or in that order of things.” When Gomarus, the opponent of Arminius, found that his opinion concerning the object of reprobation was clogged with this absurdity--that it made God to be the author of Adam’s sin, he very astutely took refuge in this conditionate foreknowledge, and, in his corrected theses on predestination, published after the death of Arminius, he describes it as that by which God, through the infinite light of his own knowledge, foreknows some future things, not absolutely, but as placed under a certain condition.” Walæus, the celebrated antagonist of Episcopius, had recourse to the same expedient. This distinction has been adopted by very few of those who espouse the doctrines of general redemption; and who believe that every event, how contingent soever to the creature, is, with respect to God, certainly foreknown. An old English divine thinks, that, “in the sacred Scriptures certain not obscure vestiges are apparent of this kind of knowledge, of things that will happen thus or otherwise, on the supposition of the occurrence of this or that circumstance. Omitting the well known example of David in Keilah, 1 Sam. xxii, 12, and of Chorazin and Bethsaida, Matt. xi, 21; Luke x, 13, consult, among other sayings of the same description, the answer of our Saviour to the chief priests and scribes, who had asked, ‘Art thou the Christ? Tell us.’ And he said unto them, ‘If I tell you, ye will not believe.’ In the subsequent verse he adds, ‘If I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go,’ Luke xxii, 67, 68. You have here three events specified, which yet will not occur even on the supposition of Christ our Lord himself.” This kind of knowledge might very well be included in that of _scientia visionis_, because the latter ought to include, not what God will do and what his creatures will do under his appointment, but what they will do by his permission as free agents, and what he will do, as a consequence of this, in his character of Governor and Lord. But since the predestinarians had confounded _scientia visionis_ with a predestinating decree, the _scientia media_ well expressed what they had left quite unaccounted for, and which they had assumed did not really exist,--the actions of creatures endowed with free will, and the acts of Deity which from eternity were consequent upon them. If such actions do not take place, then men are not free; and if the rectoral acts of God are not consequent upon the actions of the creature in the order of the divine intention, and the conduct of the creature is consequent upon the foreordained rectoral acts of God, then we reach a necessitating eternal decree, which in fact, the predestinarian contends for; but it unfortunately brings after it consequences which no subtleties have ever been able to shake off,--that the only _actor_ in the universe is God himself; and that the only distinction among events is, that one class is brought to pass by God directly, and the other indirectly, not by the agency, but by the mere instrumentality, of his creatures.

PRIEST, a general name for the minister of religion. The priest under the law was, among the Hebrews, a person consecrated and ordained of God to offer up sacrifices for his own sins and those of the people, Lev. iv, 5, 6. The priesthood was not annexed to a certain family till after the promulgation of the law of Moses. Before that time the first-born of every family, the fathers, the princes, the kings were priests. Cain and Abel, Noah, Abraham, Job, Abimelech and Laban, Isaac and Jacob, offered themselves their own sacrifices. In the solemnity of the covenant that the Lord made with his people at the foot of Mount Sinai, Moses performed the office of mediator, Exod. xxiv, 5, 6; and young men were chosen from among the children of Israel to perform the office of priests. But after the Lord had chosen the tribe of Levi to serve him in his tabernacle, and the priesthood was annexed to the family of Aaron, then the right of offering sacrifices to God was reserved to the priests alone of this family. The Lord ordained, Num. xvi, 40, that no stranger, which was not of the seed of Aaron, should come near to offer incense unto the Lord, that he might not be as Korah and his company. The punishment of Uzziah is well known, 2 Chron. xxvi, 19, who, having presumed to offer incense to the Lord, was suddenly smitten with a leprosy, put out of his palace, and excluded from the administration of affairs to the day of his death. However, it seems that, on certain occasions, the judges and the kings of the Hebrews offered sacrifices unto the Lord, especially before a constant place of worship was fixed at Jerusalem; for in 1 Sam. vii, 8, we are told that Samuel, who was no priest, offered a lamb for a burnt-sacrifice to the Lord; and in 1 Sam. ix, 13, it is said that this prophet was to bless the offering of the people, which should seem to be a function appropriated to the priests; lastly, 1 Sam. xvi, 5, he goes to Bethlehem, where he offers a sacrifice at the inauguration or anointing of David. Saul himself offered a burnt-offering to the Lord, perhaps as being king of Israel, 1 Sam. xiii, 9, 10. Elijah also offered a burnt-offering upon Mount Carmel, 1 Kings xviii, 33. David himself sacrificed, (at least the text expresses it so,) at the ceremony of bringing the ark to Jerusalem, and at the floor of Araunah, 2 Sam. vi, 13. Solomon went up to the brazen altar that was at Gibeon, and there offered sacrifices, 2 Chron. i, 5. It is true the above passages are commonly explained by supposing that these princes offered their sacrifices by the hands of the priests; but the sacred text will by no means favour such explanations; and it is very natural to imagine, that in the quality of kings and heads of the people, they had the privilege of performing some sacerdotal functions, upon some extraordinary occasions; thus we see David clothed with the priestly ephod, and consulting the Lord; and upon another occasion we find David and Solomon pronounce solemn benedictions on the people, 2 Sam. vi, 18; 1 Kings viii, 55. God having reserved to himself the first-born of all Israel, because he had preserved them from the hand of the destroying angel in Egypt, by way of exchange or compensation accepted of the tribe of Levi for the service of the tabernacle, Numbers iii, 41. Of the three sons of Levi, Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, the Lord chose the family of Kohath, and out of this the house of Aaron, to exercise the functions of the priesthood. All the rest of the family of Kohath, even the children of Moses and their descendants, remained of the order of mere Levites. See LEVITES.

The posterity of the sons of Aaron, namely, Eleazar and Ithamar, Lev. x, 1–5; 1 Chron. xxiv, 1, 2, had so increased in number in the time of David, that they were divided into twenty-four classes, which officiated a week at a time alternately. Sixteen classes were of the family of Eleazar, and eight of the family of Ithamar. Each class obeyed its own prefect or ruler. The class _Jojarib_ was the first in order, and the class _Abia_ was the eighth, 1 Mac. ii, 1; Luke i, 5; 1 Chron. xxiv, 3–19. This division of the priesthood was continued as a permanent arrangement after the time of David, 2 Chron. viii, 14; xxxi, 2; xxxv, 4, 5. Indeed, although only four classes returned from the captivity, the distinction between them, and also the ancient names, were still retained, Ezra ii, 36–39; Neh. vii, 39–42; xii, 1.

Aaron, the high priest was set apart to his office by the same ceremonies with which his sons the priests were, with this exception, that the former was clothed in his robes, and the sacred oil was poured upon his head, Exod. xxix, 5–9; Lev. viii, 2. The other ceremonies were as follows. The priests, all of them with their bodies washed, and clad in their appropriate dress, assembled before the altar, where a bullock, two rams, unleavened bread, and wafers of two kinds in baskets, were in readiness. When they had placed their hands upon the head of the bullock, he was slain by Moses as a sin-offering. He touched the horns of the altar with the blood, poured the remainder of it round its base, and placed the parts which were to compose the sacrifice on its top. The remaining parts of the animal were all burned without the camp, Exod. xxix, 10–14; Lev. viii, 2, 3, 14–17. They in like manner placed their hands on the head of one of the rams, which was also slain by Moses for a whole burnt-offering, the blood was sprinkled around the altar, and the parts of the ram were separated and burned upon it, Exod. xxix, 15–18; Lev. viii, 18–21. The other ram, when the priests had laid their hands upon him, was likewise slain by Moses for the sacrifice of consecration. He touched with the blood the tip of the right ear of the priests, the thumb of the right hand, and the great toe of the right foot. The rest of the blood he sprinkled in part upon the bottom of the altar, and a part he mingled with the consecrated oil, and sprinkled on the priests and their garments. He anointed the high priest by pouring a profusion of oil upon his head; whence he is called the anointed, Lev. v, 3, 5, 16; vi, 15; Psalm cxxxiii, 2. Certain parts of the sacrifice, namely, the fat, the kidneys, the haunches, the caul above the liver, and the right shoulder, also one cake of unleavened bread, a cake of oiled bread, and a wafer, were placed by Moses upon the hands of the priests, that they might offer them to God. This ceremony was called “filling the hands,” expressions which accordingly in a number of passages mean the same as consecrating, Exod. xxxii, 29; Leviticus xvi, 32; 1 Chronicles xxix, 5. All the parts which have been mentioned as being placed in the hands of the priests, were at last burned upon the altar. This ceremony, which continued for eight days, for ever separated the priests from all the other Israelites, not excepting the Levites; so that there was subsequently no need of any farther consecration, neither for themselves nor their posterity, Exodus xxix, 35–37; Lev. x, 7; Rom. i, 1; Eph. iii, 3; Acts xiii, 2, 3. That the ceremonies of inauguration or consecration, however, were practised at every new accession of a high priest to his office, seems to be hinted in the following passages, Exod. xxix, 29; Lev. xvi, 32; xxi, 10; Num. xx, 26–28; xxxv, 25.

It was not customary for the priests to wear the sacerdotal dress except when performing their official duties, Exod. xxviii, 4, 43; Ezek. xlii, 14; xliv, 19. The description of the dress of the priests which is given in Exodus xxviii, is by some thought defective, as many things are passed in silence, apparently for the reason that they were at that time sufficiently well known, without being expressly stated. Some additional information is communicated to us by Josephus; but the dress of the priests, as he describes it, may have been in some respects of recent origin. It was as follows: 1. A sort of hose, made of cotton or linen, which was fastened round the loins, and extended down so as to cover the thighs, Lev. vi, 10; Ezek. xliv, 18. 2. A tunic of cotton which extended, in the days of Josephus, down to the ankles. It was furnished with sleeves, and was fabricated all of one piece without being sewn, Exod. xxviii, 39, 41; xxix, 5; John xix, 23. 3. The girdle. According to Josephus it was a hand’s breadth in width, woven in such a manner as to exhibit the appearance of scales, and ornamented with embroidered flowers in purple, dark blue, scarlet, and white. It was worn a little below the breast, encircled the body twice, and was tied in a knot before. The extremities of the girdle hung down nearly to the ankle. The priest, when engaged in his sacred functions, in order to prevent his being impeded by them, threw them over his left shoulder, Exod. xxxix, 27–29. 4. The mitre or turban was originally acuminated in its shape, was lofty, and was bound upon the head, Exod. xxviii, 8, 40; xxix, 9; Lev. viii, 13. In the time of Josephus the shape of the mitre had become somewhat altered; it was circular, was covered with a piece of fine linen, and sat so closely on the upper part of the head, (for it did not cover the whole of the head,) that it would not fall off when the body was bent down. The Hebrew priests, like those of Egypt and other nations, performed their sacred duties with naked feet; a symbol of reverence and veneration, Exod. iii, 5; Josh. v, 15.

The ordinary priests served immediately at the altar, offered sacrifices, killed and flayed them, and poured the blood at the foot of the altar, 2 Chron. xxix, 34; xxxv, 11. They kept a perpetual fire burning upon the altar of burnt-sacrifices, and in the lamps of the golden candlestick that was in the sanctuary; they prepared the loaves of shew bread, baked them, and changed them every Sabbath day. Every day, night, and morning, a priest appointed by casting lots at the beginning of the week, brought into the sanctuary a smoking censer, and set it upon the golden table, otherwise called the altar of perfumes, Luke i, 9. The priests were not suffered to offer incense to the Lord with strange fire, Lev. x, 1, 2; that is, with any other fire than what should be taken from the altar of burnt-sacrifices. It is well known with what severity God chastised Nadab and Abihu for having failed in this. Those that would dedicate themselves to perpetual service in the temple were well received, and were maintained by the constant and daily offerings, Deut. xviii, 6–8. The Lord had given no lands of inheritance to the tribe of Levi in the distribution of the land of promise. He designed that they should be supported by the tithes, the first fruits, the offerings that were made in the temple, by their share of the sin-offerings, and thanksgiving-offerings that were sacrificed in the temple, of which certain parts were appropriated to the priests. They had also a share in the wool when the sheep were shorn. All the first-born, both of man and beast, belonged to the Lord, that is, to his priests. The men were redeemed for the sum of five shekels, Num. xviii, 15, 16. The first-born of impure animals were redeemed or exchanged, but the clean animals were not redeemed; they were sacrificed to the Lord, their blood was sprinkled about the altar, and all the rest belonged to the priest, Num. xviii, 17–19. The first fruits of trees, Lev. xix, 23, 24, that is, those that came on the fourth year, belonged also to the priest. They gave also to the priests and Levites an allowance out of the dough that they kneaded. They had the tithe of all the fruits of the land, and of all animals which were fed under the shepherd’s crook, Lev. xxvii, 31, 32. God also provided them with houses and accommodations, by appointing them forty-eight cities for their habitations, Num. xxxv, 1–3. In the precincts of these cities they possessed as far as a thousand cubits beyond the walls. Of these forty-eight cities six were appointed to be cities of refuge, for the sake of those who should commit any casual or involuntary manslaughter; the priests had thirteen of these for their share, and all the others belonged to the Levites, Josh. xxi, 19. One of the chief employments of the priests, next to attending upon the sacrifices and the service of the tabernacle or temple, was the instruction of the people and the deciding controversies, distinguishing the several sorts of leprosy, the causes of divorce, the waters of jealousy, vows, all causes relating to the law, the uncleannesses that were contracted several ways; all these things were brought before the priests, Hosea iv, 6; Mal. ii, 7, &c; Lev. xiii, 14; Num. v, 14, 15. They publicly blessed the people in the name of the Lord. In time of war their business was to carry the ark of the covenant, to consult the Lord, to sound the holy trumpets, and encourage and harangue the army.

The term priest is most properly given to Christ, of whom the high priests under the law were types and figures, he being the high priest especially ordained of God, who, by the sacrifice of himself, and by his intercession, opens the way to reconciliation with God, Heb. viii, 17; ix, 11–25. The word is also applied to every true believer who is enabled to offer up himself “a spiritual sacrifice acceptable to God through Christ,” 1 Pet. ii, 5; Rev. i, 6. But it is likewise improperly applied to Christian ministers, who have no sacrifices to offer; unless, indeed, when it is considered as contracted from _presbyter_, which signifies an elder, and is the name given in the New Testament to those who were appointed to the office of teaching and ruling in the church of God. See AARON.

PRISCILLA, a Christian woman, well known in the Acts, and in St. Paul’s epistles; sometimes placed before her husband Aquila. From Ephesus this pious pair went to Rome, where they were when St. Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans, A. D. 58. He salutes them the first of all, with great commendations, Rom. xvi, 3. They returned into Asia some time afterward; and St. Paul, writing to Timothy, desires him to salute them on his behalf, 2 Tim. iv, 19, A. D. 65.

PROFANE, an epithet applied to those who abuse and contemn holy things. The Scripture calls Esau profane, because he sold his birthright, which was considered a holy thing, not only because the priesthood was annexed to it, but also because it was a privilege relating to Christ, and a type of the title of believers to the heavenly inheritance, Heb. xii, 16. The priests of the race of Aaron were enjoined to distinguish between sacred and profane, between pure and polluted, Lev. x, 10; xix, 7, 8. Hence they were prohibited the use of wine during their attendance on the temple service, that their spirits might not be discomposed by excitement. To profane the temple, to profane the Sabbath, to profane the altar, are common expressions to denote the violation of the rest of the Sabbath, the entering of foreigners into the temple, or the want of reverence in those that entered it, and the impious sacrifices that were offered on the altar of the Lord.

PROMISE, an assurance given by God, in his word, of bestowing blessings upon his people, 2 Pet. i, 4. The word in the New Testament is usually taken for the promises that God heretofore made to Abraham, and the other patriarchs, of sending the Messiah, and conferring his Holy Spirit and eternal life on those that should believe on him. It is in this sense that the Apostle Paul commonly uses the word promise, Rom. iv, 13, 14; Gal. iii, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, 29. The promises of the new covenant are called better than those of the old, Heb. viii, 6, because they are more spiritual, clear, comprehensive, and universal than those of the Mosaic covenant. The time of the promise, Acts vii, 17, is the time of fulfilling the promise. The “children of the promise” are, 1. The Israelites descended from Isaac, in opposition to the Ishmaelites descended from Ishmael and Hagar. 2. The Jews converted to Christianity, in opposition to the obstinate Jews, who would not believe in Christ. 3. All true believers who are born again by the supernatural power of God, and who by faith lay hold on the promise of salvation in Jesus Christ.

PROPHECY, the prediction of future events; it is especially understood of those predictions which are contained in the Holy Scriptures; all of which claim divine inspiration, and by their wonderful fulfilment are proved to have proceeded from God, who only with certainty can know the future. Prophecy is one great branch of the external evidence of the truth of the Scriptures; and the nature and force of this kind of evidence may here be properly pointed out. No argument _à priori_ against the possibility of prophecy can be attempted by any one who believes in the existence and infinitely perfect nature of God. The infidel author of “The Moral Philosopher,” indeed, rather insinuates than attempts fully to establish a dilemma with which to perplex those who regard prophecy as one of the proofs of a divine revelation. He thinks that either prophecy must respect events necessary, as depending upon necessary causes, which might be certainly foreknown and predicted; or that, if human actions are free, and effects contingent, the possibility of prophecy must be given up, as it implies foreknowledge, which, if granted, would render them necessary. The first part of this objection might be allowed, were there no predictions to be adduced in favour of a professed revelation, except such as related to events which human experience has taught to be dependent upon some cause, the existence and necessary operation of which are within the compass of human knowledge. But to foretel such events would not be to prophesy, any more than to say that it will be light to-morrow at noon, or that on a certain day and hour next year there will occur an eclipse of the sun or moon, when that event has been previously ascertained by astronomical calculation. If, however, it were allowed that all events depended upon a chain of necessary causes, yet, in a variety of instances, the argument from prophecy would not be at all affected; for the foretelling of necessary results in certain circumstances is beyond human intelligence, because they can only be known to him by whose power those necessary causes on which they depend have been arranged, and who has prescribed the times of their operation. To borrow a case, for the sake of illustration, from the Scriptures, though the claims of their predictions are not now in question; let us allow that such a prophecy as that of Isaiah respecting the taking of Babylon by Cyrus was uttered, as it purports to be, more than a century before Cyrus was born, and that all the actions of Cyrus and his army, and those of the Babylonian; monarch and his people, were necessitated is it to be maintained that the chain of necessitating causes running through more than a century could be traced by a human mind, so as to describe the precise manner in which that fatality would unfold itself, even to the turning of the river, the drunken carousal of the inhabitants, and the neglect of shutting the gates of the city? This being by uniform and universal experience known to be above all human apprehension, would therefore prove that the prediction was made in consequence of a communication from a superior and divine Intelligence. Were events, therefore, subjected to invincible fate and necessity, there might nevertheless be prophecy.

The other branch of the dilemma is founded on the notion that if we allow the moral freedom of human actions, prophecy is impossible, because certain foreknowledge is contrary to that freedom, and fixes and renders the event necessary. To this the reply is, that the objection is founded on a false assumption, the divine foreknowledge having no more influence in effectuating or making certain any event than human foreknowledge in the degree in which it may exist, there being no moral causality at all in knowledge. This lies in the will, which is the determining acting principle in every agent; or, as Dr. Samuel Clarke has expressed it, in answer to another kind of objector, “God’s infallible judgment concerning contingent truths does no more alter the nature of the things, and cause them to be necessary, than our judging right at any time concerning a contingent truth makes it cease to be contingent; or than our science of a present truth is any cause of its being either true or present. Here, therefore, lies the fallacy of our author’s argument. Because, from God’s foreknowing the existence of things depending upon a chain of necessary causes, it follows that the existence of the things must needs be necessary; therefore, from God’s judging infallibly concerning things which depend not on necessary but free causes, he concludes that these things also depend not upon free but necessary causes. Contrary, I say, to the supposition in the argument; for it must not be first supposed that things are in their own nature necessary; but from the power of judging infallibly concerning free events, it must be proved that things, otherwise supposed free, will thereby unavoidably become necessary.” The whole question lies in this, Is the simple knowledge of an action a necessitating cause of the action? And the answer must be in the negative, as every man’s consciousness will assure him. If the causality of influence, either immediate, or by the arrangement of compelling events, be mixed up with this, the ground is shifted; and it is no longer a question which respects simple prescience. (See _Prescience_.) This metaphysical objection having no foundation in truth, the force of the evidence arising from predictions of events, distant, and beyond the power of human sagacity to anticipate, and uttered as authentications of a divine commission, is apparent. “Such predictions, whether in the form of declaration, description, or representation of things future,” as Mr. Boyle justly observes, “are supernatural things, and may properly be ranked among miracles.” For when, for instance, the events are distant many years or ages from the uttering of the prediction itself, depending on causes not so much as existing when the prophecy was spoken and recorded, and likewise upon various circumstances and a long arbitrary series of things, and the fluctuating uncertainties of human volitions, and especially when they depend not at all upon any external circumstances nor upon any created being, but arise merely from the counsels and appointment of God himself,--such events can be foreknown only by that Being, one of whose attributes is omniscience, and can be foretold by him only to whom the “Father of lights” shall reveal them; so that whoever is manifestly endued with that predictive power must, in that instance, speak and act by divine inspiration, and what he pronounces of that kind must be received as the word of God; nothing more being necessary to assure us of this than credible testimony that such predictions were uttered before the event, or conclusive evidence that the records which contain them are of the antiquity to which they pretend.

The distinction between the prophecies of Scripture and the oracles of Heathenism is marked and essential. In the Heathen oracles we cannot discern any clear and unequivocal tokens of genuine prophecy. They were destitute of dignity and importance, had no connection with each other, tended to no object of general concern, and never looked into times remote from their own. We read only of some few predictions and prognostications, scattered among the writings of poets and philosophers, most of which, beside being very weakly authenticated, appear to have been answers to questions of merely local, personal, and temporary concern, relating to the issue of affairs then actually in hand, and to events speedily to be determined. Far from attempting to form any chain of prophecies, respecting things far distant as to time or place, or matters contrary to human probability, and requiring supernatural agency to effect them, the Heathen priests and soothsayers did not even pretend to a systematic and connected plan. They hardly dared, indeed, to assume the prophetic character in its full force, but stood trembling, as it were, on the brink of futurity, conscious of their inability to venture beyond the depths of human conjecture. Hence their predictions became so fleeting, so futile, so uninteresting, that, though they were collected together as worthy of preservation, they soon fell into disrepute and almost total oblivion. (See _Oracles_.) The Scripture prophecies, on the other hand, constitute a series of divine predictions, relating principally to one grand object, of universal importance, the work of man’s redemption, and carried on in regular progression through the patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian dispensations, with a harmony and uniformity of design, clearly indicating one and the same divine Author. They speak of the agents to be employed in it, and especially of the great agent, the Redeemer himself; and of those mighty and awful proceedings of Providence as to the nations of the earth, by which judgment and mercy are exercised with reference both to the ordinary principles of moral government, and especially to this restoring economy, to its struggles, its oppositions, and its triumphs. They all meet in Christ, as in their proper centre, and in him only; however many of the single lines, when considered apart, may be imagined to have another direction, and though they may pass through intermediate events. If we look, says Bishop Hurd, into the prophetic writings, we find that prophecy is of a prodigious extent; that it commenced from the fall of man, and reaches to the consummation of all things; that for many ages it was delivered darkly to a few persons, and with large intervals from the date of one prophecy to that of another; but, at length, became more clear, more frequent, and was uniformly carried on in the line of one people, separated from the rest of the world,--among other reasons assigned, for this principally, to be the repository of the divine oracles; that, with some intermission, the spirit of prophecy subsisted among that people to the coming of Christ; that he himself and his Apostles exercised this power in the most conspicuous manner, and left behind them many predictions, recorded in the books of the New Testament, which profess to respect very distant events, and even run out to the end of time, or, in St. John’s expression, to that period “when the mystery of God shall be perfected.” Farther, beside the extent of this prophetic scheme, the dignity of the Person whom it concerns deserves our consideration. He is described in terms which excite the most august and magnificent ideas. He is spoken of, indeed, sometimes as being “the seed of the woman,” and as “the Son of man;” yet so as being at the same time of more than mortal extraction. He is even represented to us as being superior to men and angels; as far above all principality and power; above all that is accounted great, whether in heaven or in earth; as the word and wisdom of God; as the eternal Son of the Father; as the Heir of all things, by whom he made the worlds; as the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person. We have no words to denote greater ideas than these; the mind of man cannot elevate itself to nobler conceptions. Of such transcendent worth and excellence is that Jesus said to be, to whom all the prophets bear witness! Lastly, the declared purpose for which the Messiah, prefigured by so long a train of prophecy, came into the world, corresponds to all the rest of the representation. It was not to deliver an oppressed nation from civil tyranny, or to erect a great civil empire, that is, to achieve one of those acts which history accounts most heroic. No: it was not a mighty state, a victor people,

_Non res Romanæ perituraque regna_, [Not the empire of Rome and kingdoms about to perish,]

that was worthy to enter into the contemplation of this divine Person. It was another and far sublimer purpose, which he came to accomplish; a purpose, in comparison of which all our policies are poor and little, and all the performances of man as nothing. It was to deliver a world from ruin; to abolish sin and death; to purify and immortalize human nature; and thus, in the most exalted sense of the words, to be the Saviour of men and the blessing of all nations. There is no exaggeration in this account: a spirit of prophecy pervading all time, characterizing one Person of the highest dignity, and proclaiming the accomplishment of one purpose, the most beneficent, the most divine, the imagination itself can project. Such is the Scriptural delineation of that economy which we call prophetic.

The advantage of this species of evidence belongs then exclusively to our revelation. Heathenism never made any clear and well founded pretensions to it. Mohammedanism, though it stands itself as a proof of the truth of Scripture prophecy, is unsupported by a single prediction of its own.

The objection which has been raised to Scripture prophecy, from its supposed obscurity, has no solid foundation. There is, it is true, a prophetic language of symbol and emblem; but it is a language which is definite and not equivocal in its meaning, and as easily mastered as the language of poetry, by attentive persons. This, however, is not always used. The style of the prophecies of Scripture very often differs in nothing from the ordinary style of the Hebrew poets; and, in not a few cases, and those too on which the Christian builds most in the argument, it sinks into the plainness of historical narrative. Some degree of obscurity is essential to prophecy: for the end of it was not to gratify human curiosity, by a detail of future events and circumstances; and too great clearness and speciality might have led to many artful attempts to fulfil the predictions, and so far the evidence of their accomplishment would have been weakened. The two great ends of prophecy are, to excite expectation before the event, and then to confirm the truth by a striking and unequivocal fulfilment; and it is a sufficient answer to the allegation of the obscurity of the prophecies of Scripture, that they have abundantly accomplished those objects, among the most intelligent and investigating, as well as among the simple and unlearned, in all ages. It cannot be denied, for instance, leaving out particular cases which might be given, that by means of these predictions the expectation of the incarnation and appearance of a divine Restorer was kept up among the people to whom they were given, and spread even to the neighbouring nations; that as these prophecies multiplied, the hope became more intense; and that at the time of our Lord’s coming, the expectation of the birth of a very extraordinary person prevailed, not only among the Jews, but among other nations. This purpose was then sufficiently answered, and an answer is given to the objection. In like manner prophecy serves as the basis of our hope in things yet to come; in the final triumph of truth and righteousness on earth, the universal establishment of the kingdom of our Lord, and the rewards of eternal life to be bestowed at his second appearing. In these all true Christians agree; and their hope could not have been so uniformly supported in all ages and under all circumstances, had not the prophecies and predictive promises conveyed with sufficient clearness the general knowledge of the good for which they looked, though many of its particulars be unrevealed. The second end of prophecy is, to confirm the truth by the subsequent event. Here the question of the actual fulfilment of Scripture prophecy is involved; and it is no argument against the unequivocal fulfilment of several prophecies, that many have doubted or denied what the believers in revelation have on this subject so strenuously contended for. How few of mankind have read the Scriptures with serious attention, or been at the pains to compare their prophecies with the statements in history. How few, especially of the objectors to the Bible, have read it in this manner! How many of them have confessed unblushingly their unacquaintance with its contents, or have proved what they have not confessed by the mistakes and misrepresentations into which they have fallen! As for the Jews, the evident dominion of their prejudices, their general averseness to discussion, and the extravagant principles of interpretation they have adopted for many ages, which set all sober criticism at defiance, render nugatory any authority which might be ascribed to their denial of the fulfilment of certain prophecies in the sense adopted by Christians. We may add to this, that among Christian critics themselves there may be much disagreement. Eccentricities and absurdities are found among the learned in every department of knowledge, and much of this waywardness and affectation of singularity has infected interpreters of Scripture. But, after all, there is a truth and reason in every subject, which the understandings of the generality of men will apprehend and acknowledge whenever it is fully understood and impartially considered; to this in all such cases the appeal can only be made, and here it may be made with confidence. Instances of the signal fulfilment of numerous prophecies are scattered through various articles in this volume; so that it is not necessary to repeat them here. A few words on the _double sense_ of prophecy may, however, be added.

For want of a right apprehension of the true meaning of this somewhat unfortunate term which has obtained in theology, an objection of another kind has been raised, as though no definite meaning could be assigned to the prophecies of Scripture. Nothing can be more unfounded. The double sense of many prophecies in the Old Testament, says an able writer, has been made a pretext by ill disposed men, for representing them as of uncertain meaning, and resembling the ambiguity of the Pagan oracles. But whoever considers the subject with due attention, will perceive how little ground there is for such an accusation. The equivocations of the Heathen oracles manifestly arose from their ignorance of future events, and from their endeavours to conceal that ignorance by such indefinite expressions, as might be equally applicable to two or more events of a _contrary_ description. But the double sense of the Scripture prophecies, far from originating in any doubt or uncertainty, as to the fulfilment of them in either sense, springs from a foreknowledge of their accomplishment in _both_; whence the prediction is purposely so framed as to include both events, which, so far from being contrary to each other, are typical the one of the other, and are thus connected together by a mutual dependency or relation. This has often been satisfactorily proved, with respect to those prophecies which referred, in their primary sense, to the events of the Old Testament, and, in their farther and more complex signification, to those of the New: and on this double accomplishment of some prophecies is grounded our firm expectation of the completion of others, which remain yet unfulfilled in their secondary sense, but which we justly consider as equally uncertain in their issue as those which are already past. So far, then, from any valid objection lying against the credibility of the Scripture prophecies, from these seeming ambiguities of meaning, we may urge them as additional proofs of their coming from God. For, who but the Being that is infinite in knowledge and in counsel could so construct predictions as to give them a twofold application, to events distant from, and, to human foresight, unconnected with, each other? What power less than divine could so frame them as to make the accomplishment of them in one instance a solemn pledge and assurance of their completion in another instance, of still higher and more universal importance? Where will the scoffer find any thing like this in the artifices of Heathen oracles, to conceal their ignorance, and to impose on the credulity of mankind? See ORACLES.

On this subject it may be observed, by way of general illustration, that the remarkable personages under the old dispensation were sometimes in the description of their characters, and in the events of their lives, the representatives of the future dispensers of evangelical blessings, as Moses and David were unquestionably types of Christ, Ezek. xxxiv, 23; Matt. xi, 14; Heb. vi, 20; vii, 1–3. Persons likewise were sometimes descriptive of things, as Sarah and Hagar were allegorical figures of the two covenants, Gal. iv, 22–31; Rom. ix, 8–13. And, on the other hand, things were used to symbolize persons, as the brazen serpent and the paschal lamb were signs of our healing and spotless Redeemer, Exodus xii, 46; John iii, 14; xix, 36. And so, lastly, ceremonial appointments and legal circumstances were preördained as significant of Gospel institutions, 1 Cor. x, 1–11; Heb. viii, 5; ix, x; 1 Pet. iii, 20, 22. Hence it was that many of the descriptions of the prophets had a twofold character; bearing often an immediate reference to present circumstances, and yet being in their nature predictive of future occurrences. What they reported of the type was often in a more signal manner applicable to the thing typified, Psalm xxi, 4–6; xl, 1, 7–10; xii, 4; Lam. xiii, 1–30; John xiii, 18; Dan. xi, 36, 37; what they spoke literally of present, was figuratively descriptive of future particulars; and what was applied in a figurative sense to existing persons, was often actually characteristic of their distant archetypes, Psalm xxii, 16–18, &c. Many passages then in the Old Testament, which in their first aspect appear to be historical, are in fact prophetic, and they are so cited in the New Testament, not by way of ordinary accommodation, or casual coincidence, but as intentionally predictive, as having a double sense, a literal and a mystical interpretation, Hosea xi, 1; Matt. ii, 15.

Beside these historical passages, of which the covert allusions were explained by the interpretation of the Gospel writers, who were enlightened by the Spirit to unfold the mysteries of Scripture, the prophets often uttered positive predictions which, in consequence of the correspondence established between the two dispensations, were descriptive of a double event, however they might be themselves ignorant of the full extent of those prophecies which they delivered. For instance, their promises of present success and deliverances were often significant of distant benefits, and secular consolations conveyed assurances of evangelical blessings, 2 Sam. vii, 13, 14; Heb. i, 5. Thus their prophecies received completion in a first and secondary view. As being in part signs to excite confidence, they had an immediate accomplishment, but were afterward fulfilled in a more illustrious sense, 1 Kings xiii, 2, 3; Isaiah vii, 14; Matt. i, 22; Dan. ix, 27; xii, 7; 1 Macc. i, 54; Matt. xxiv, 15; the prophets being inspired, by the suggestions of the Spirit, to use expressions magnificent enough to include the substance in the description of the figure. That many of the prophecies in the Old Testament were direct, and singly and exclusively applicable to, and accomplished in, our Saviour, is certain, Gen. xlix, 10; Psalm xlii, xlv; Isaiah lii, liii; Daniel vii, 13, 14; Micah v, 2; Zech. ix, 9; Mal. iii, 1.

It requires much attention to comprehend the full import and extent of this typical dispensation, and the chief obscurities which prevail in the sacred writings are to be attributed to the double character of prophecy. To unravel this is, however, an interesting and instructive study; though an admiration of the spiritual meaning should never lead us to disregard or undervalue the first and evident signification; for many great men have been so dazzled by their discoveries in this mode of explication, as to be hurried into wild and extravagant excess; as is evident from the writings of Origen and Jerom; as also from the Commentaries of Austin, who acknowledges that he had too far indulged in the fancies of an exuberant imagination, declaring that the other parts of Scripture are the best commentaries. The Apostles and the evangelists are, indeed, the best expositors; and where those infallible guides have led the way, we need not hesitate to follow their steps by the light of clear reason and just analogy.

It is this double character of prophecy which occasions those unexpected transitions and sudden interchanges of circumstance so observable in the prophetic books. Hence different predictions are sometimes blended and mixed together; temporal and spiritual deliverances are foretold in one prophecy; and greater and smaller events are combined in one point of view. Hence, likewise, one chain of connected design runs through the whole scheme of prophecy, and a continuation of events successively fulfilling, and successively branching out into new predictions, continued to confirm the faith, and to keep alive the expectations, of the Jews. Hence was it the character of the prophetic spirit to be rapid in its description, and regardless of the order of history; to pass with quick and unexpected celerity from subject to subject, and from period to period. “And we must allow,” says Lord Bacon, “for that latitude that is agreeable and familiar to prophecy, which is of the nature of its Author, with whom a thousand years are but as one day.” The whole of the great scheme must have been at once present to the divine Mind; but God described its parts in detail to mankind, in such measures and in such proportions, that the connection of every link was obvious, and its relations apparent in every point of view, till the harmony and entire consistency of the plan were displayed to those who witnessed its perfection in the advent of Christ.

PROPHETS. A prophet, in the strict and proper sense, was one to whom the knowledge of secret things was revealed, that he might declare them to others, whether they were things past, or present, or to come. The woman of Samaria perceived our Saviour was a prophet, by his telling her the secrets of her _past_ life, John iv, 19. The Prophet Elisha had the _present_ conduct of his servant Gehazi revealed to him, 2 Kings v, 26. And most of the prophets had revelations concerning _future_ events; above all, concerning the coming and kingdom of the Messiah: “He has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David, as he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began,” Luke i, 69, 70. Nevertheless, in a more lax or analogical sense, the title prophet is sometimes given to persons who had no such revelation, nor were properly inspired. Thus Aaron is said to be Moses’s prophet: “The Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet,” Exod. vii, 1: because Aaron received the divine messages, which he carried immediately from Moses; whereas other prophets receive their messages immediately from God himself. In this respect, as Moses stood in the place of God to Pharaoh, so Aaron acted in the character of his prophet. The title of prophets is given also to the sacred musicians, who sung the praises of God, or who accompanied the song with musical instruments. Thus “the sons of Asaph, and of Heman, and of Jeduthun,” are said to “prophesy with harps, with psalteries, and with cymbals,” 1 Chron. xxv, 1; and they prophesied, it is said, “according to the order of the king.” Perhaps Miriam, the sister of Aaron, may be called a prophetess only on this account, that she led the concert of the women, who sung the song of Moses with timbrels and with dances, Exodus xv, 20, 21. Thus the Heathen poets, who sung or composed verses in praise of their gods, were called by the Romans _vates_, or prophets; which is of the same import with the Greek ϖροφήτης, a title which St. Paul gives to Epimenides, a Cretan poet, Titus i, 12.

Godwin observes, that, for the propagation of learning, colleges and schools were in divers places erected for the prophets. The first intimation we have in Scripture of these schools is in 1 Sam. x, 5, where we read of “a company of prophets coming down from the high place with a psaltery, a tabret, a pipe, and a harp before them, and they did prophesy.” They are supposed to be the students in a college of prophets at גכעת, or “the hill,” as we render it, “of God.” Our translators elsewhere retain the same Hebrew word, as supposing it to be the proper name of a place, “Jonathan smote the garrison of the Philistines that was in Geba,” 1 Sam. xiii, 3. Some persons have imagined that the ark, or at least a synagogue, or some place of public worship, was at this time at Geba, and that this is the reason of its being styled in the former passage גבעת האלהים, the hill of God. We read afterward of such another company of prophets at Naioth in Ramah, “prophesying, and Samuel standing as appointed over them,” 1 Sam. xix, 19, 20. The students in these colleges were called sons of the prophets, who are frequently mentioned in after ages, even in the most degenerate times. Thus we read of the sons of the prophets that were at Bethel; and of another school at Jericho; and of the sons of the prophets at Gilgal, 2 Kings ii, 3, 5; iv, 38. It should seem, that these sons of the prophets were very numerous; for of this sort were probably the prophets of the Lord, whom Jezebel cut off; “but Obadiah took a hundred of them, and hid them by fifty in a cave,” 1 Kings xviii, 4. In these schools young men were educated under a proper master, who was commonly, if not always, an inspired prophet, in the knowledge of religion, and in sacred music, 1 Sam. x, 5; xix, 20, and were thereby qualified to be public preachers, which seems to have been part of the business of the prophets on the Sabbath days and festivals, 2 Kings iv, 23. It should seem, that God generally chose the prophets, whom he inspired, out of these schools. Amos, therefore, speaks of it as an extraordinary case, that though he was not one of the sons of the prophets, but a herdsman, “yet the Lord took him as he followed the flock, and said unto him, Go, prophesy unto my people Israel,” Amos vii, 14, 15. That it was usual for some of these schools, or at least for their tutors, to be endued with a prophetic spirit, appears from the relation of the prophecies concerning the ascent of Elijah, delivered to Elisha by the sons of the prophets, both at Jericho and at Bethel, 2 Kings ii, 3, 5.

The Hebrew prophets present a succession of men at once the most singular and the most venerable that ever appeared, in so long a line of time, in the world. They had special communion with God; they laid open the scenes of the future; they were ministers of the promised Christ. They upheld religion and piety in the worst times, and at the greatest risks; and their disinterestedness was only equalled by their patriotism. The houses in which they lived were generally mean, and of their own building, 2 Kings vi, 2–4. Their food was chiefly pottage of herbs, unless when the people sent them some better provision, as bread, parched corn, honey, dried fruits, and the like, 1 Kings xiv, 3; 2 Kings iv, 38, 39, 42. Their dress was plain and coarse, tied about with a leathern girdle, Zech. xiii, 4; 2 Kings i, 8. Riches were no temptation to them; therefore Elisha not only refused Naaman’s presents, but punished his servant Gehazi very severely for clandestinely obtaining a small share of them, 2 Kings v, 15, &c. To succeeding ages they have left a character consecrated by holiness, and “visions of the Holy One,” which still unveil to the church his most glorious attributes, and his deepest designs. “Prophecy,” says the Apostle Peter, “came not of old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” 2 Pet. i, 21. They flourished in a continued succession during a period of more than a thousand years, reckoning from Moses to Malachi, all coöperating in the same designs, uniting in one spirit to deliver the same doctrines, and to predict the same blessings to mankind. Their claims to a divine commission were demonstrated by the intrinsic excellency of their doctrine; by the disinterested zeal and undaunted courage with which they prosecuted their ministry, and persevered in their great design, and by the unimpeachable integrity of their conduct. But even those credentials of a divine mission were still farther confirmed by the exercise of miraculous powers, and by the completion of many less important predictions which they uttered, Deut. xiii, 1–3; xviii, 22; Joshua x, 13; 1 Sam. xii, 8; 2 Kings i, 10; Isa. xxxviii, 8; xlii, 9; 1 Sam. ix, 6; 1 Kings xiii, 3; Jer. xxviii, 9; Ezek. xxxiii, 33. When not immediately employed in the discharge of their sacred office, they lived sequestered from the world, in religious communities, or wandered “in deserts, in mountains, and in caves of the earth;” distinguished by their apparel, and by the general simplicity of their style of life, 2 Kings i, 8; iv, 10, 38; vi, 1; Isa. xx, 2; Matt. iii, 4; Heb. xi, 38; Rev. xi, 3. They were the established oracles of their country, and consulted upon all occasions when it was necessary to collect the divine will on any civil or religious question. These illustrious personages were likewise as well the types as the harbingers of that greater Prophet whom they foretold; and in the general outline of their character, as well as in particular events of their lives, they prefigured to the Jews the future Teacher of mankind. Like him, also, they laboured by every exertion to instruct and reclaim; reproving and threatening the sinful, however exalted in rank, or encircled by power, with such fearless confidence and sincerity as often excited respect. The most intemperate princes were sometimes compelled unwillingly to hear and to obey their directions, 1 Kings xii, 21–24; xiii, 2–6; xx, 42, 43; xxi, 27; 2 Chron. xxviii, 9–14; though often so incensed by their rebuke, as to resent it by the severest persecutions. Then it was that the prophets exhibited the integrity of their characters, by zealously encountering oppression, hatred, and death, in the cause of religion. Then it was that they firmly supported “trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover, of bonds and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword; they wandered about, destitute, afflicted, tormented,” evil intreated for those virtues of which the memorial should flourish to posterity, and martyred for righteousness, which, whenever resentment should subside, it would be deemed honourable to reverence, Matthew xxiii, 27–29.

The manner in which the prophets published their predictions was, either by uttering them aloud in some public place, or by affixing them on the gates of the temple, Jer. vii, 2; Ezek. iii, 10, where they might be generally seen and read. Upon some important occasions, when it was necessary to rouse the fears of a disobedient people, and to recall them to repentance, the prophets, as objects of universal attention, appear to have walked about publicly in sackcloth, and with every external mark of humiliation and sorrow. They then adopted extraordinary modes of expressing their convictions of impending wrath, and endeavoured to awaken the apprehensions of their country, by the most striking illustration of threatened punishment. Thus Jeremiah made bonds and yokes, and put them upon his neck, Jer. xxvii, strongly to intimate the subjection that God would bring on the nations whom Nebuchadnezzar should subdue. Isaiah likewise walked naked, that is, without the rough garment of the prophet, and barefoot, as a sign of the distress that awaited the Egyptians, Isa. xx. So Jeremiah broke the potter’s vessel, Jer. xix; and Ezekiel publicly removed his household goods from the city, 2 Kings xxv, 4, 5; Ezek. xii, 7; more forcibly to represent by these actions some correspondent calamities ready to fall on nations obnoxious to God’s wrath; this mode of expressing important circumstances by action, being customary and familiar among all eastern nations. The great object of prophecy was, as has been before observed, a description of the Messiah, and of his kingdom, Matt. xxvi, 56; Luke i, 70; xviii, 31; xxiv, 44; John i, 45; Acts iii, 18, 24; x, 43; xiii, 29; xv, 15; xxviii, 23; 1 Pet. i, 10–12. These were gradually unfolded by successive prophets in predictions more and more distinct. They were at first held forth in general promises; they were afterward described by figures, and shadowed out under types and allusive institutions, and finally foretold in the full lustre of descriptive prophecy. The Hebrew prophets were chosen of God to testify beforehand of the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. See PROPHECY.

PROPITIATION. To propitiate is to appease, to atone, to turn away the wrath of an offended person. In the case before us, the wrath turned away is the wrath of God; the person making the propitiation is Christ; the propitiating offering or sacrifice is his blood. All this is expressed in most explicit terms in the following passages: “And he is the propitiation for our sins,” 1 John ii, 2. “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins,” 1 John iv, 10. “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood,” Rom. iii, 25. The word used in the two former passages is ἱλασμὸς; in the last ἱλαϛήριον. Both are from the verb ἱλάσκω, so often used by Greek writers to express the action of a person who, in some appointed way, turned away the wrath of a deity; and therefore cannot bear the sense which Socinus would put upon it,--the destruction of sin. This is not supported by a single example. With all Greek authorities, whether poets, historians, or others, the word means to _propitiate_, and is, for the most part, construed with an accusative case, designating the person whose displeasure is averted. As this could not be denied, Crellius comes to the aid of Socinus, and contends that the sense of this word was not to be taken from its common use in the Greek tongue, but from the Hellenistic use of it in the Greek of the New Testament, the LXX. and the Apocrypha. But this will not serve him; for both by the LXX. and in the Apocrypha, it is used in the same sense as in the Greek classic writers. “He shall offer his ἱλασμὸν, _sin-offering_, saith the Lord God,” Ezek. xliv, 27. “And the priest shall take the blood of the ἐξιλασμοῦ, _sin-offering_,” Ezek. xlv, 19. Κριὸς τοῦ ἱλασμοῦ, “The ram of the atonement,” Num. v, 8. To which may be added, out of the Apocrypha, “Now as the high priest was making ἱλασμὸν, an _atonement_,” 2 Macc. iii, 33.

The propitiatory sense of the word ἱλασμὸς being thus fixed, the modern Socinians have conceded, in their note on 1 John ii, 2, in their Improved Version, that it means the “pacifying of an offended party;” but they subjoin, that Christ is a propitiation, because by his Gospel he brings sinners to repentance, and thus averts the divine displeasure. The concession is important; and the comment cannot weaken it, because of its absurdity; for, in that interpretation of propitiation, Moses, or any of the Apostles, or any minister of the Gospel now, who succeeds in bringing sinners to repentance, is as truly a propitiation for sin as Christ himself. On Rom. iii, 25, however, the authors of the Improved Version continue to follow their master Socinus, and translate the passage, “whom God hath set forth a propitiation, through faith in his blood,” “whom God hath set forth _as_ a mercy seat in his own blood,” and lay great stress upon this rendering, as removing that countenance to the doctrine of atonement by vicarious sufferings which the common translation affords. The word ἱλαϛὴριον is used in the Septuagint version, and in the Epistle to the Hebrews, to express the mercy seat or covering of the ark. But so little is to be gained by taking it in this sense in this passage, that this rendering is adopted by several orthodox commentators as expressing, by a figure, or rather by emphatically supplying a type to the antitype,--the doctrine of our Lord’s atonement. The mercy seat was so called, because, under the Old Testament, it was the place where the high priest, on the feast of expiation, sprinkled the blood of the sin-offerings, in order to make an atonement for himself and the whole congregation; and, since God accepted the offering which was then made, it was, for this reason, accounted the medium through which God showed himself propitious to the people. With reference to this, Jesus Christ may be called a mercy seat, as being the person in or through whom God shows himself propitious to mankind. And as, under the law, God was propitious to those who came to him by appearing before his mercy seat with the blood of their sin-offerings; so, under the Gospel dispensation, he is propitious to those who come unto him by Jesus Christ, through faith in that blood which is elsewhere called “the blood of sprinkling,” and which he shed for the remission of sins. Some able critics have, however, argued, from the force of the context, that the word ought to be taken actively, and not merely declaratively; not as “a propitiatory,” but as “a propitiation,” which, says Grotius, is shown by the mention which is afterward made of blood, to which the power of propitiation is ascribed. Others supply θῦμα or ἱερεῖον, and render it _expiatory sacrifice_. But, whichever of these renderings be adopted, the same doctrine is held forth to us. The covering of the ark was rendered a propitiatory only by the blood of the victims sprinkled before and upon it; and when the Apostle says, that God hath set forth Jesus Christ to be a propitiatory, he immediately adds, having the ceremonies of the temple in his view, “through faith in his blood.” The text, therefore, contains no exhibition of any means of obtaining mercy but through the blood of sacrifice, according to the rule laid down in the Epistle to the Hebrews, “Without shedding of blood there is no remission;” and is in strict accordance with Ephesians i, 7, “We have redemption through his blood, the remission of sins.” It is only by his blood that Christ reconciles us to God.

Unable as they who deny the vicarious nature of the sufferings of Christ are to evade the testimony of the above passages which speak of our Lord as “a propitiation,” their next resource often is to deny the existence of wrath in God, in the hope of proving that propitiation, in a proper sense, cannot be the doctrine of Scripture, whatever may be the force of the mere terms which the sacred writers employ. In order to give plausibility to their statement, they pervert the opinion of the orthodox, and argue as though it formed a part of the doctrine of Christ’s propitiation and oblation for sin, to represent God as naturally an implacable and vengeful being, and only made placable and disposed to show mercy by satisfaction being made to his displeasure through our Lord’s sufferings and death. This is as contrary to Scripture as it is to the opinions of all sober persons who hold the doctrine of Christ’s atonement. God is love; but it is not necessary, in order to support this truth, to assume that he is nothing else. He has other attributes, which harmonize with this and with each other; though, assuredly, that harmony cannot be established by any who deny the propitiation for sin made by the death of Christ. It sufficiently proves that there is not only no implacability in God, but a most tender and placable affection toward the sinning human race itself, and that the Son of God, by whom the propitiation was made, was the free gift of the Father to us. This is the most eminent proof of his love, that, for our sakes, and that mercy might be extended to us, “He spared not his own Son; but delivered him up freely for us all.” Thus he is the fountain and first moving cause of that scheme of recovery and salvation which the incarnation and death of our Lord brought into full and efficient operation. The true questions are, indeed, not whether God is love, or whether he is of a placable nature; but whether God is holy and just; whether we, his creatures, are under law or not; whether this law has any penalty, and whether God, in his rectoral character, is bound to execute and uphold that law. As the justice of God is punitive, (and if it is not punitive, his laws are a dead letter,) then is there wrath in God; then is God angry with the wicked; then is man, as a sinner, obnoxious to this anger; and so a propitiation becomes necessary to turn it away from him. Nor are these terms unscriptural; they are used in the New Testament as emphatically as in the Old; though, the former is, in a special sense, a revelation of the mercy of God to man. John declares that, if any man believeth not on the Son of God, “the wrath of God abideth upon him;” and St. Paul affirms, that “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.” The day of judgment is, with reference to the ungodly, said to be “the day of wrath;” God is called “a consuming fire;” and, as such, is the object of “reverence and godly fear.” Nor is this his displeasure light, and the consequences of it a trifling and temporary inconvenience. When we only regard the consequences which have followed sin in society, from the earliest ages, and in every part of the world, and add to these the many direct and fearful inflictions of punishment which have proceeded from the “Judge of the whole earth,” then, to use the language of Scripture, “our flesh may well tremble because of his judgments.” But when we look at the future state of the wicked as represented in Scripture, though it is expressed generally, and surrounded with the mystery of a place, and a condition of being, unknown to us in the present state, all evils which history has crowded into the lot of man appear insignificant in comparison of banishment from God, separation from good men, public condemnation, torment of spirit, “weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth,” “everlasting destruction,” “everlasting fire.” Let men talk ever so much or eloquently of the pure benevolence of God, they cannot abolish the facts recorded in the history of human suffering in this world as the effects of transgression; nor can they discharge these fearful comminations from the pages of the book of God. These cannot be criticised away; and if it is “Jesus who saves us from this wrath to come,” that is, from those effects of the wrath of God which are to come, then, but for him, we should have been liable to them. That principle in God, from which such effects follow, the Scriptures call wrath; and they who deny the existence of wrath in God, deny, therefore, the Scriptures.

It by no means follows, however, that this wrath is a passion in God; or that, though we contend that the awful attribute of his justice requires satisfaction, in order to the forgiveness of the guilty, we afford reason to any to charge us with attributing vengeful affections to the divine Being. “Our adversaries,” says Bishop Stillingfleet, “first make opinions for us, and then show that they are unreasonable. They first suppose that anger in God is to be considered as a passion, and that passion a desire of revenge; and then tell us, that if we do not prove that this desire of revenge can be satisfied by the sufferings of Christ, then we can never prove the doctrine of satisfaction to be true; whereas, we do not mean by God’s anger, any such passion, but the just declaration of God’s will to punish, upon our provocation of him by our sins; we do not make the design of the satisfaction to be that God may please himself in revenging the sins of the guilty upon the most innocent person, because we make the design of punishment not to be the satisfaction of anger as a desire of revenge, but to be the vindication of the honour and rights of the offended person by such a way as he himself shall judge satisfactory to the ends of his government.” See ATONEMENT and EXPIATION.

PROPITIATORY, among the Jews, was the cover or lid of the ark of the covenant, which was lined both within and without with plates of gold, insomuch that there was no wood to be seen. Some even take it to have been one piece of massive gold. The cherubims spread their wings over the propitiatory. This propitiatory was a type or figure of Christ. See PROPITIATION.

PROSELYTE, Προσήλυτος, signifies _a stranger_, _a foreigner_; the Hebrew word גר, or נכר, also denotes a stranger, one who comes from abroad, or from another place. In the language נכר of the Jews, those were called by this name who came to dwell in their country, or who embraced their religion, being not Jews by birth. In the New Testament they are called sometimes proselytes, and sometimes Gentiles, fearing God, Acts ii, 5; x, ii, 22; xiii, 16, 50. The Jews distinguish two kinds of proselytes. The first, proselytes of the gate; the others, proselytes of justice or righteousness. The first dwelt in the land of Israel, or even out of that country, and, without obliging themselves to circumcision, or to any other ceremony of the law, feared and worshipped the true God, observing the rules imposed on Noah. These were, according to the rabbins, 1. To abstain from idolatry; 2. From blasphemy; 3. From murder; 4. From adultery; 5. From theft; 6. To appoint just and upright judges; 7. Not to eat the flesh of any animal cut off while it was alive. Maimonides says, that the first six of these precepts were given to Adam, and the seventh to Noah. The privileges of proselytes of the gate were, first, that through holiness they might have hope of eternal life. Secondly, they could dwell in the land of Israel, and share in the outward prosperities of it. It is said they did not dwell in the cities, but only in the suburbs and the villages; but it is certain that the Jews often admitted into their cities, not only proselytes of habitation, but also Gentiles and idolaters, as appears by the reproaches on this account, throughout the Scriptures.

Proselytes of justice or of righteousness were those converted to Judaism, who had engaged themselves to receive circumcision, and to observe the whole law of Moses. Thus were they admitted to all the prerogatives of the people of the Lord. The rabbins inform us that, before circumcision was administered to them, and before they were admitted into the religion of the Hebrews, they were examined about the motives of their conversion; whether the change was voluntary, or whether it proceeded from interest, fear, ambition, &c. When the proselyte was well proved and instructed, they gave him circumcision; and when the wound of his circumcision healed, they gave him baptism, by plunging his whole body into a cistern of water, by only one immersion. Boys under twelve years of age, and girls under thirteen, could not become proselytes till they had obtained the consent of their parents, or, in case of refusal, the concurrence of the officers of justice. Baptism in respect of girls had the same effect as circumcision in respect of boys. Each of them, by means of this, received, as it were, a new birth, so that those who were their parents before were no longer regarded as such after this ceremony, and those who before were slaves now became free.

Many, however, are of opinion that there appears to be no ground whatever in Scripture for this distinction of proselytes of the gate, and proselytes of righteousness. “According to my idea,” says Dr. Tomline, “proselytes were those, and those only, who took upon themselves the obligation of the whole Mosaic law, but retained that name till they were admitted into the congregation of the Lord as adopted children. Gentiles were allowed to worship and offer sacrifices to the God of Israel in the outer court of the temple; and some of them, persuaded of the sole and universal sovereignty of the Lord Jehovah, might renounce idolatry without embracing the Mosaic law; but such persons appear to me never to be called proselytes in Scripture, or in any ancient Christian writer.” He also observes that “the term _proselytes of the gate_ is derived from an expression frequent in the Old Testament; namely, ‘the stranger that is within thy gates;’ but I think it evident that the strangers were those Gentiles who were permitted to live among the Jews under certain restrictions, and whom the Jews were forbidden ‘to vex or oppress,’ so long as they live in a peaceable manner.” Dr. Lardner says, “I do not believe that the notion of two sorts of Jewish proselytes can be found in any Christian writer before the fourteenth century or later.” Dr. Jennings also observes that “there does not appear to be sufficient evidence in the Scripture history of the existence of such proselytes of the gate, as the rabbins mention; nor, indeed, of any who with propriety can be styled proselytes, except such as fully embraced the Jewish religion.”

PROSEUCHÆ. That the Jews had houses, or places for prayer, called ϖροσευχαὶ, appears from a variety of passages in Philo; and, particularly in his oration against Flaccus, he complains that their ϖροσευχαὶ were pulled down, and there was no place left in which they might worship God and pray for Cæsar. Among those who make the synagogues and _proseuchæ_ to be different places, are the learned Mr. Joseph Mede and Dr. Prideaux; and they think the difference consists partly in the form of the edifice; a synagogue, they say, being roofed like our houses or churches; and a _proseucha_ being only encompassed with a wall, or some other mound or enclosure, and open at the top, like our courts. They make them to differ in situation; synagogues being in towns and cities, _proseuchæ_ in the fields, and frequently by the river side. Dr. Prideaux mentions another distinction in respect to the service performed in them. In synagogues, he says, the prayers were offered up in public forms in common for the whole congregation; but in the _proseuchæ_ they prayed, as in the temple, every one apart for himself. And thus our Saviour prayed in the _proseucha_ into which he entered. Yet, after all, the proof in favour of this notion is not so strong, but that it still remains a question with some, whether the synagogues and the _proseuchæ_ were any thing more than two different names for the same place; the one taken from the people’s assembling in them, the other from the service to which they were more immediately appropriated, namely, prayer. Nevertheless, the name _proseuchæ_ will not prove that they were appropriated only to prayer, and therefore were different from synagogues, in which the Scriptures were also read and expounded; since the temple, in which sacrifices were offered, and all the parts of divine service were performed, is called οικος προσευχης, _a house of prayer_, Matt. xxi, 13.

PROTESTANT. The Emperor Charles V. called a diet at Spire, in 1529, to request aid from the German princes against the Turks, and to devise the most effectual means for allaying the religious disputes which then raged in consequence of Luther’s opposition to the established religion. In this diet it was decreed by Ferdinand, archduke of Austria, and other popish princes, that in the countries which had embraced the new religion it should be lawful to continue in it till the meeting of a council; but that no Roman Catholic should be allowed to turn Lutheran, and that the reformers should deliver nothing in their sermons contrary to the received doctrine of the church. Against this decree, six Lutheran princes, namely, John and George, the electors of Saxony and Brandenburg, Ernest and Francis, the two dukes of Lunenburg, the landgrave of Hesse, and the prince of Anhalt, with the deputies of thirteen imperial towns, namely, Strasburg, Ulm, Nuremberg, Constance, Rottingen, Windsheim, Memmingen, Nortlingen, Lindaw, Kempten, Hailbron, Wissemburg, and St. Gall, formally and solemnly _protested_ and declared that they appealed to a general council; and hence the name of Protestants, by which the followers of Luther have ever since been known. Nor was it confined to them; for it soon after included the Calvinists, and has now of a long time been applied generally to the Christian sects, of whatever denomination, and in whatever country they may be found, which have separated from the see of Rome.

Mr. Chillingworth, addressing himself to a writer in favour of the church of Rome, speaks of the religion of the Protestants in the following excellent terms: “Know then, sir, that when I say the religion of Protestants is in prudence to be preferred before yours, on the one side, I do not understand by your religion the doctrine of Bellarmine, or Baronius, or any other private man among you, nor the doctrine of the Sorbonne, of the Jesuits, or of the Dominicans, or of any other particular company among you, but that wherein you all agree, or profess to agree, the doctrine of the council of Trent; so, accordingly, on the other side, by the religion of Protestants, I do not understand the doctrine of Luther, or Calvin, or Melancthon, nor the confession of Augsburg, or Geneva, nor the catechism of Heidelberg, nor the articles of the church of England; no, nor the harmony of Protestant confessions; but that in which they all agree, and which they all subscribe with a greater harmony, as a perfect rule of faith and action; that is, the Bible. The Bible, I say, the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants. Whatsoever else they believe beside it, and the plain, irrefragable, indubitable consequences of it, well may they hold it as a matter of opinion; but as a matter of faith and religion, neither can they with coherence to their own grounds believe it themselves, nor require belief of it of others, without most high and most schismatical presumption. I, for my part, after a long, and, as I verily believe and hope, impartial, search of the true way to eternal happiness, do profess plainly that I cannot find any rest for the sole of my foot but upon this rock only. I see plainly, and with my own eyes, that there are popes against popes, and councils against councils; some fathers against other fathers, the same fathers against themselves; a consent of fathers of one age against a consent of fathers of another age; traditive interpretations of Scripture are pretended, but there are few or none to be found; no tradition but that of Scripture can derive itself from the fountain, but may be plainly proved either to have been brought in in such an age after Christ, or that in such an age it was not in. In a word, there is no sufficient certainty but of Scripture only for any considering man to build upon. This, therefore, and this only, I have reason to believe. This I will profess; according to this I will live; and for this, if there be occasion, I will not only willingly, but even gladly, lose my life, though I should be sorry that Christians should take it from me. Propose me any thing out of this book, and require whether I believe or no, and, seem it never so incomprehensible to human reason, I will subscribe it with hand and heart, as knowing no demonstration can be stronger than this, God hath said so, therefore it is true. In other things, I will take no man’s liberty of judging from him; neither shall any man take mine from me.”

Under such views the Bible is held as the only sure foundation upon which all true Protestants build every article of the faith which they profess, and every point of doctrine which they teach; and all other foundations, whether they be the decisions of councils, the confessions of churches, the prescripts of popes, or the expositions of private men, are considered by them as sandy and unsafe, or as in nowise to be ultimately relied on. Yet, on the other hand, they by no means fastidiously reject them as of no use; for while they admit the Bible, or the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, to be the only infallible rule by which we must measure the truth or falsehood of every religious opinion, they are sensible that all men are not equally fitted to understand or to apply this rule; and that the wisest men want, on many occasions, all the helps afforded by the learning and research of others to enable them to understand its precise nature, and to define its certain extent. These helps are great and numerous, having been supplied, in every age of the church, by the united labours of learned men in every country, and by none in greater abundance than by those in Protestant communions.

PROVERBS, short aphorisms, and sententious moral and prudential maxims, usually expressed in numbers, or rhythm, or antithesis, as being more easily remembered, and of more use, than abstruse and methodical discourses. This method of instruction appears to be peculiarly suited to the disposition and genius of the Asiatics, among whom it has prevailed from the earliest ages. The Gymnosophists of India delivered their philosophy in brief enigmatical sentences; a practice adopted and carried to a great extent by the ancient Egyptians. The mode of conveying instruction by compendious maxims obtained among the Jews, from the first dawn of their literature, to its final extinction in the east through the power of the Mohammedan arms; and it was familiar to the inhabitants of Syria and Palestine, as we learn from the testimony of St. Jerom. The eloquence of Arabia was mostly exhibited in detached and unconnected sentences, which, like so many loose gems, attracted attention by the fulness of the periods, the elegance of the phraseology, and the acuteness of proverbial sayings. Nor do the Asiatics at present differ, in this respect, from their ancestors, as numerous _amthâl_, or moral sentences, are in circulation throughout the regions of the east, some of which have been published by Hottinger, Erpenius, the younger Schultens, and others who have distinguished themselves by the pursuit of oriental learning. “The moralists of the east,” says Sir William Jones, “have, in general, chosen to deliver their precepts in short sententious maxims, to illustrate them by sprightly comparisons, or to inculcate them in the very ancient forms of agreeable apologues: there are, indeed, both in Arabic and Persian, philosophical tracts on ethics, written with sound ratiocination and elegant perspicuity; but in every part of the eastern world, from Pekin to Damascus, the popular teachers of moral wisdom have immemorially been poets; and there would be no end of enumerating their works, which are still extant in the five principal languages of Asia.” The ingenious but ever disputing and loquacious Greeks were indebted to the same means for their earliest instruction in wisdom. The sayings of the seven wise men, the golden verses of Pythagoras, the remains of Theognis and Phocylides, if genuine, and the _gnomai_ of the older poets, testify the prevalence of aphorisms in ancient Greece. Had no specimens remained of Hellenic proverbs, we might have concluded this to have been the case; for the Greeks borrowed the rudiments, if not the principal part, of their knowledge from those whom they arrogantly termed barbarians; and it is only through the medium of compendious maxims and brief sentences that traditionary knowledge can be preserved. This mode of communicating moral and practical wisdom accorded with the sedate and deliberative character of the Romans; and, in truth, from its influence over the mind, and its fitness for popular instruction, proverbial expressions exist in all ages and in all languages.

Proverbs, in the Hebrew language, are called _meshalim_, which is derived from a verb signifying both “to rule,” “to have dominion,” and “to compare,” “to liken,” “to assimilate:” hence the term denotes the highly figurative and poetical style in general, and likewise those compendious and authoritative sentences in particular which are commonly denominated proverbs. This term, which our translators have adopted after the Vulgate, denotes, according to our great lexicographer, “a short sentence frequently repeated by the people, a saw, an adage;” and no other word can, perhaps, be substituted more accurately expressing the force of the Hebrew; or, if there could, it has been so long familiarized by constant use, that a change is totally inadmissible.

The _Meshalim_, or Proverbs of Solomon, on account of their intrinsic merit, as well as of the rank and renown of their author, would be received with submissive deference; in consequence of which, they would rapidly spread through every part of the Jewish territories. The pious instructions of the king would be listened to with the attention and respect they deserve, and, no doubt, would be carefully recorded by a people attached to his person, and holding his wisdom in the highest admiration. These, either preserved in writing, or handed down by oral communication, were subsequently collected into one volume, and constitute the book in the sacred canon, entitled, “The Proverbs of Solomon, the son of David, king of Israel.” The genuineness and authenticity of this title, and those in chap. x, 1, and xxv, 1, cannot be disputed; not the smallest reason appears for calling them in question. One portion of the book, from the twenty-fifth chapter to the end of the twenty-ninth, was compiled by the men of Hezekiah, as appears from the title prefixed to it. Eliakim, Shebna, Joah, Isaiah, Hosea, and Micah, personages of eminence and worth, were contemporary with Hezekiah; but whether these or others executed the compilation, it is now impossible to determine. They were persons, however, as we may reasonably suppose, well qualified for the undertaking, who collected what were known to be the genuine proverbs of Solomon from the various writings in which they were dispersed, and arranged them in their present order. Whether the preceding twenty-four chapters, which, doubtless, existed in a combined form previous to the additional collection, were compiled by the author, or some other person, is quite uncertain. Both collections, however, being made at so early a period, is a satisfactory evidence that the Proverbs are the genuine production of Solomon, to whom they are ascribed; for, from the death of Solomon to the reign of Hezekiah, according to the Bible chronology, was a period of two hundred and forty-nine years, or, according to Dr. Hales, two hundred and sixty-five years; too short a space to admit of any forgery or material error, as either must have been immediately detected by the worthies who flourished during the virtuous reign of Hezekiah.

PROVIDENCE, the conduct and direction of the several parts of the universe, by a superior intelligent Being. The notion of a providence is founded upon this truth, that the Creator has not so fixed and ascertained the laws of nature, nor so connected the chain of second causes, as to leave the world to itself, but that he still preserves the reins in his own hands, and occasionally intervenes, alters, restrains, enforces, suspends, &c, those laws by a particular providence. Some use the word _providence_ in a more general sense, signifying by it that power or action by which the several parts of the creation are ordinarily directed. Thus Damascenus defines providence to be that divine will by which all things are ordered and directed to the proper end: which notion of providence supposes no laws at all fixed by the author of nature at the creation, but that he reserved it at large, to be governed by himself immediately. The Epicureans denied any divine providence, as thinking it inconsistent with the ease and repose of the divine nature to meddle at all with human affairs. Simplicius argues thus for a providence: If God does not look to the affairs of the world, it is either because he cannot or will not; but the first is absurd, since, to govern cannot be difficult where to create was easy; and the latter is both absurd and blasphemous. In Plato’s Tenth Dialogue of Laws, he teaches excellently, that (since what is self-moving is, by its nature, before that which moves only in consequence of being moved) mind must be prior to matter, and the cause of all its modifications and changes; and that, therefore, there is a universal Mind possessed of all perfection, which produced and which actuates all things. After this he shows that the Deity exercises a particular providence over the world, taking care of small no less than great things. In proving this he observes “that a superior nature of such excellence as the divine, which hears, sees, and knows all things, cannot, in any instance, be subject to negligence or sloth; that the meanest and the greatest part of the world are all equally his work or possession; that great things cannot be rightly taken care of without taking care of small; and that, in all cases, the more able and perfect any artist is, (as a physician, an architect, or the ruler of the state,) the more his skill and care appear in little as well as great things. Let us not, then,” says he, “conceive of God as worse than even mortal artists.”

The term providence, in its primary signification, simply denotes foresight; and if we allow the existence of a supreme Being who formed the universe at first, we must necessarily allow that he has a perfect foresight of every event which at any time takes place in the natural or moral world. Matter can have no motion, nor spirit any energy, but what is derived from him; nor can he be ignorant of the effects which they will, either separately or conjointly, produce. A common mechanic has knowledge of the work of his own hands: when he puts the machine which he has made in motion, he foresees how long it will go, and what will be the state and position of its several parts at any particular point of time; or, if he is not perfectly able to do this, it is because he is not perfectly acquainted with all the powers of the materials which he has used in its construction: they are not of his making, and they may therefore have qualities which he does not understand, and consequently cannot regulate. But in the immense machine of the universe there is nothing except that which God has made; all the powers and properties, relations and dependencies, which created things have, they have, both in kind and degree, from him. Nothing, therefore, it should seem, can come to pass at any time, or in any part of the universe, which its incomprehensible Architect did not, from the moment his almighty fiat called it into existence, clearly foresee. The providence of God is implied in his very existence as an intelligent Creator; and it imports not only an abstract foresight of all possible events, but such a predisposition of causes and effects, such an adjustment of means and ends, as seems to us to exclude that contingency of human actions with which, as expectants of positive rewards and punishments in another world, we firmly believe it to be altogether consistent.

By providence we may understand, not merely foresight, but a uniform and constant operation of God subsequent to the act of creation. Thus, in every machine formed by human ingenuity, there is a necessity for the action of some extraneous power to put the machine in motion: a proper construction and disposition of parts not being sufficient to effect the end: there must be a spring, or a weight, or an impulse of air or water, or some substance or other, on which the motion of the several parts of the machine must depend. In like manner, the machine of the universe depends upon its Creator for the commencement and the conservation of the motion of its several parts. The power by which the insensible particles of matter coalesce into sensible lumps, as well as that by which the great orbs of the universe are reluctantly, as it were, retained in their courses, admits not an explanation from mechanical causes: the effects of both of them are different from such as mere matter and motion can produce; they must ultimately be referred to God. Vegetable and animal life and increase cannot be accounted for, without recurring to him as the primary cause of both. In all these respects the providence of God is something more than foresight; it is a continual influence, a universal agency; “by him all things consist,” and “in him we live, and move, and have our being.”

Much labour has been employed to account for all the phenomena of nature by the powers of mechanism, or the necessary laws of matter and motion. But this, as we imagine, cannot be done. The primary causes of things must certainly be some powers and principles not mechanical, otherwise we shall be reduced to the necessity of maintaining an endless progression of motions communicated from matter to matter, without any first mover; or of saying that the first impelling matter moved itself. The former is an absurdity too great to be embraced by any one; and there is reason to hope that the essential inactivity of matter is at present so well understood, and so generally allowed, notwithstanding some modern oppugners of this hypothesis, that there can be but few who will care to assert the latter. All our reasonings about bodies, and the whole of natural philosophy, are founded on the three laws of motion laid down by Sir Isaac Newton, at the beginning of the “_Principia_.” These laws express the plainest truths; but they would have neither evidence nor meaning, were not inactivity contained in our idea of matter. Should it be said that matter, though naturally inert, may be made to be otherwise by divine power, this would be the same with saying that matter may be made not to be matter. If inactivity belong to it at all, it must belong to it as matter, or solid extension, and therefore must be inseparable from it. Matter is figured, movable, discerptable, inactive, and capable of communicating motion by impulse to other matter: these are not accidental but primary qualities of matter. Beside, matter void of inactivity, if we were to suppose it possible, could produce no effects. The communication of motion, its direction, the resistance it suffers, and its cessation, in a word, the whole doctrine of motion cannot be consistently explained or clearly understood without supposing the inertia of matter. Self-moving matter must have thought and design, because, whenever matter moves, it must move in some particular direction, and with some precise degree of velocity; and as there is an infinity of these equally possible, it cannot move itself without selecting one of these preferably to and exclusively of all others, and therefore not without design. Moreover, it may be plainly proved that matter cannot be the ultimate cause of the phenomena of nature, or the agent which, by any powers inherent in itself, produces the general laws of nature, without possessing the highest degree of knowledge and wisdom; which might be easily evinced or exemplified by adverting to the particular law of gravitation. “The philosopher,” says an excellent writer, “who overlooks the laws of an all-governing Deity in nature, contenting himself with the appearance of the material universe only, and the mechanical laws of motion, neglects what is most excellent, and prefers what is imperfect to what is supremely perfect, finitude to infinity, what is narrow and weak to what is unlimited and almighty, and what is perishing to what endures for ever. Sir Isaac Newton thought it most unaccountable to exclude the Deity _only_ out of the universe. It appeared to him much more just and reasonable to suppose that the whole chain of causes, or the several series of them, should centre in him as their source; and the whole system appear depending on him the only independent cause.” If, then, the Deity pervades and actuates the material world, and his unremitting energy is the cause to which every effect in it must be traced; the spiritual world, which is of greater consequence, cannot be disregarded by him. Is there not one atom of matter on which he does not act; and is there one living being about which he has no concern? Does not a stone fall without him; and does, then, a man suffer without him? The inanimate world is of no consequence, abstracted from its subserviency to the animate and reasonable world: the former, therefore, must be preserved and governed entirely with a view to the latter. But it is not mere energy or the constant exertion of power that is discernible in the frame or laws of the universe, in maintaining the succession of men, and in producing men and other beings; but wisdom and skill are also conspicuous in the structure of every object in the inanimate creation. After a survey of the beauty and elegance of the works of nature, aided by the perusal of Matt. vi, 28, &c, we may ask ourselves, Has God, in the lowest of his works, been lavish of wisdom, beauty, and skill; and is he sparing of these in the concerns of reasonable beings? Or does he less regard order, propriety, and fitness in the determination of their states? The answer is obvious. Providence also implies a particular interposition of God in administering the affairs of individuals and nations, and wholly distinct from that general and incessant exertion of his power, by which he sustains the universe in existence.

The doctrine of providence may be evinced from the consideration of the divine perfections. The first cause of all things must be regarded as a being absolutely perfect; and the idea of absolute perfection comprehends infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; hence we deduce the doctrine of providence. The Deity cannot be an indifferent spectator of the series of events in that world to which he has given being. His goodness will as certainly engage him to direct them agreeably to the ends of goodness, as his wisdom and power enable him to do it in the most effectual manner. This conclusion is conformable to all our ideas of those attributes. Could we call that being good who would refuse to do any good which he is able to do without the least labour or difficulty? God is present every where. He sees all that happens, and it is in his power, with perfect ease, to order all for the best. Can he then possess goodness, and at the same time not do this? A God without a providence is undoubtedly a contradiction. Nothing is plainer than that a being of perfect reason will, in every instance, take such care of the universe as perfect reason requires. That supreme intelligence and love, which are present to all things, and from whence all things sprung, must govern all occurrences. These considerations prove what has been called a _particular_, in opposition to a _general_, providence. We cannot conceive of any reasons that can influence the Deity to exercise _any_ providence over the world, which are not likewise reasons for extending it to _all_ that happens in the world. As far as it is confined to generals, or overlooks _any_ individual, or _any_ event, it is incomplete, and therefore unsuitable to the idea of a perfect being.

One common prejudice against this doctrine arises from the apprehension that it is below the dignity of the Deity to watch over, in the manner implied in it, the meanest beings, and the minutest affairs. To which it may be replied, that a great number of minute affairs, if they are each of them of some consequence, make up a sum which is of great consequence; and that there is no way of taking care of this sum, without taking care of each particular. This objection, therefore, under the appearance of honouring God, plainly dishonours him. Nothing is absolutely trifling in which the happiness of any individual, even the most insignificant, is at all concerned; nor is it beneath a wise and good being to interpose in any thing of this kind. To suppose the Deity above this, is to suppose him above acting up to the full extent of goodness and rectitude. The same eternal benevolence that first engaged him to produce beings, must also engage him to exercise a particular providence over them; and the very lowest beings, as well as the highest, seem to have a kind of right to his superintendence, from the act itself of bringing them into existence. Every apprehension that this is too great a condescension in him is founded on the poorest ideas; for, surely, whatever it was not too great condescension in him to create, it cannot be too great a condescension in him to take care of. Beside, with regard to God, all distinctions in the creation vanish. All beings are infinitely, that is, equally, inferior to him.

Accident, and chance, and fortune, are words which we often hear mentioned, and much is ascribed to them in the life of man. But they are words without meaning; or, as far as they have any signification, they are no other than names for the unknown operations of providence; for it is certain that in God’s universe nothing comes to pass causelessly, or in vain. Every event has its own determined direction. That chaos of human affairs and intrigues where we can see no light, that mass of disorder and confusion which they often present to our view, is all clearness and order in the sight of Him who is governing and directing the whole, and bringing forward every event in its due time and place. “The Lord sitteth on the flood. The Lord maketh the wrath of man to praise him,” as he maketh the “hail and rain to obey his word. He hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all. A man’s heart deviseth his way, but the Lord directeth his steps.” No other principle than this, embraced with a steady faith, and attended with a suitable practice, can ever be able to give repose and tranquillity to the mind; to animate our hopes, or extinguish our fears; to give us any true satisfaction in the enjoyments of life, or to minister consolation under its adversities. If we are persuaded that God governs the world, that he has the superintendence and direction of all events, and that we are the objects of his providential care; whatever may be our distress or our danger, we can never want consolation; we may always have a fund of hope, always a prospect of relief. But take away this hope and this prospect, take away the belief of God and of a superintending providence, and man would be of all creatures the most miserable; destitute of every comfort, every support, under present sufferings, and of every security against future dangers.

PSALMS. The book of Psalms is a collection of hymns, or sacred songs, in praise of God, and consists of poems of various kinds. They are the productions of different persons, but are generally called the Psalms of David, because a great part of them was composed by him, and David himself is distinguished by the name of the Psalmist. We cannot now ascertain all the Psalms written by David, but their number probably exceeds seventy; and much less are we able to discover the authors of the other Psalms, or the occasions upon which they were composed. A few of them were written after the return from the Babylonian captivity. The titles prefixed to them are of very questionable authority; and in many cases they are not intended to denote the writer but refer only to the person who was appointed to set them to music. David first introduced the practice of singing sacred hymns in the public service of God; and it was restored by Ezra. The authority of the Psalms is established not only by their rank among the sacred writings, and by the unvaried testimony of ages, but likewise by many intrinsic proofs of inspiration. Not only do they breathe through every part a divine spirit of eloquence, but they contain numberless illustrious prophecies that were remarkably accomplished, and are frequently appealed to by the evangelical writers. The sacred character of the whole book is established by the testimony of our Saviour and his Apostles, who, in various parts of the New Testament, appropriate the predictions of the Psalms as obviously apposite to the circumstances of their lives, and as intentionally composed to describe them. The veneration for the Psalms has in all ages of the church been considerable. The fathers assure us, that in the earlier times the whole book of Psalms was generally learned by heart; and that the ministers of every gradation were expected to be able to repeat them from memory. These invaluable Scriptures are daily repeated without weariness, though their beauties are often overlooked in familiar and habitual perusal. As hymns immediately addressed to the Deity, they reduce righteousness to practice; and while we acquire the sentiments, we perform the offices of piety; while we supplicate for blessings, we celebrate the memorial of former mercies; and while in the exercise of devotion, faith is enlivened by the display of prophecy. Josephus asserts, and most of the ancient writers maintain, that the Psalms were composed in metre. They have undoubtedly a peculiar conformation of sentences, and a measured distribution of parts. Many of them are elegiac, and most of David’s are of the lyric kind. There is no sufficient reason however to believe, as some writers have imagined, that they were written in rhyme, or in any of the Grecian measures. Some of them are acrostic; and though the regulations of the Hebrew measure are now lost, there can be no doubt, from their harmonious modulation, that they were written with some kind of metrical order; and they must have been composed in accommodation to the measure to which they were set. (See _Poetry of the Hebrews_.) The Hebrew copies and the Septuagint version of this book contain the same number of Psalms; only the Septuagint translators have, for some reason which does not appear, thrown the ninth and tenth into one, as also the one hundred and fourteenth and one hundred and fifteenth, and have divided the one hundred and sixteenth and one hundred and forty-seventh each into two.

It is very justly observed by Dr. Allix, that, “although the sense of near fifty Psalms be fixed and settled by divine authors, yet Christ and his Apostles did not undertake to quote all the Psalms they could, but only to give a key to their hearers, by which they might apply to the same subjects the Psalms of the same composure and expression.” With regard to the Jews, Bishop Chandler very pertinently remarks, that “they must have understood David, their prince, to have been a figure of Messiah. They would not otherwise have made his Psalms part of their daily worship; nor would David have delivered them to the church to be so employed, were it not to instruct and support them in the knowledge and belief of this fundamental article. Were the Messiah not concerned in the Psalms, it would have been absurd to celebrate twice a day, in their public devotions, the events of one man’s life, who was deceased so long ago, as to have no relation now to the Jews and the circumstances of their affairs; or to transcribe whole passages from them into their prayers for the coming of the Messiah.” Upon the same principle it is easily seen that the objections, which may seem to lie against the use of Jewish services in Christian congregations, may cease at once. Thus it may be said, Are we concerned with the affairs of David and of Israel? Have we any thing to do with the ark and the temple? They are no more. Are we to go up to Jerusalem, and to worship on Sion? They are desolated, and trodden under foot by the Turks. Are we to sacrifice young bullocks according to the law? The law is abolished, never to be observed again. Do we pray for victory over Moab, Edom, and Philistia; or for deliverance from Babylon? There are no such nations, no such places in the world. What then do we mean, when, taking such expressions into our mouths, we utter them in our own persons, as parts of our devotions, before God? Assuredly we must mean a spiritual Jerusalem and Sion; a spiritual ark and temple; a spiritual law; spiritual sacrifices; and spiritual victories over spiritual enemies; all described under the old names, which are still retained, though “old things are passed away, and all things are become new,” 2 Cor. v, 17. By substituting Messiah for David, the Gospel for the law, the church Christian for that of Israel, and the enemies of the one for those of the other, the Psalms are made our own. Nay, they are with more fulness and propriety applied now to the substance, than they were of old to the “shadow of good things then to come,” Heb. x, 1. For let it not pass unobserved, that when, upon the first publication of the Gospel, the Apostles had occasion to utter their transports of joy, on their being counted worthy to suffer for the name of their Lord and Master, which was then opposed by Jew and Gentile, they brake forth into an application of the second Psalm to the transactions then before their eyes, Acts iv, 25. The Psalms, thus applied, have advantages which no fresh compositions, however finely executed, can possibly have; since, beside their incomparable fitness to express our sentiments, they are at the same time memorials of, and appeals to, former mercies and deliverances; they are acknowledgments of prophecies accomplished; they point out the connection between the old and new dispensations, thereby teaching us to admire and adore the wisdom of God displayed in both, and furnishing while we read or sing them, an inexhaustible variety of the noblest matter that can engage the contemplations of man.

Very few of the Psalms, comparatively, appear to be simply prophetical, and to belong only to Messiah, without the intervention of any other person. Most of them, it is apprehended, have a double sense, which stands upon this ground and foundation, that the ancient patriarchs, prophets, priests, and kings, were typical characters, in their several offices, and in the more remarkable passages of their lives, their extraordinary depressions and miraculous exaltations foreshowing him who was to arise as the head of the holy family, the great prophet, the true priest, the everlasting king. The Israelitish polity, and the law of Moses, were purposely framed after the example and shadow of things spiritual and heavenly; and the events which happened to the ancient people of God were designed to shadow out parallel occurrences, which should afterward take place in the accomplishment of man’s redemption, and the rise and progress of the Christian church. (See _Prophecy_.) For this reason, the Psalms composed for the use of Israel, and by them accordingly used at the time, do admit of an application to us, who are now “the Israel of God,” Gal. vi, 16, and to our Redeemer, who is the King of this Israel. It would be an arduous and adventurous undertaking to attempt to lay down the rules observed in the conduct of the mystic allegory, so diverse are the modes in which the Holy Spirit has thought proper to communicate his counsels to different persons on different occasions; inspiring and directing the minds of the prophets according to his good pleasure; at one time vouchsafing more full and free discoveries of future events; while, at another, he is more obscure and sparing in his intimations. From hence, of course, arises a great variety in the Scripture usage of this kind of allegory as to the manner in which the spiritual sense is couched under the other. Sometimes it can hardly break forth and show itself at intervals through the literal, which meets the eye as the ruling sense, and seems to have taken entire possession of the words and phrases. On the contrary, it is much oftener the capital figure in the piece, and stands confessed at once by such splendour of language, that the letter, in its turn, is thrown into shade, and almost totally disappears. Sometimes it shines with a constant equable light, and sometimes it darts upon us on a sudden, like a flash of lightning from the clouds. But a composition is never more truly elegant and beautiful, than when the two senses, alike conspicuous, run parallel together through the whole poem, mutually corresponding with and illustrating each other.

Thus the establishment of David upon his throne, notwithstanding the opposition made to it by his enemies, is the subject of the second Psalm. David sustains in it a twofold character, literal and allegorical. If we read over the Psalm first with an eye to the literal David, the meaning is obvious, and put out of all dispute by the sacred history. There is indeed an uncommon glow in the expression, and sublimity in the figures; and the diction is now and then exaggerated, as it were, on purpose to intimate and lead us to the contemplation of higher and more important matters concealed within. In compliance with this admonition, if we take another survey of the Psalm, as relative to the person and concerns of the spiritual David, a nobler series of events instantly rises to view, and the meaning becomes more evident, as well as exalted. The colouring, which may perhaps seem too bold and glaring for the king of Israel, will no longer appear so, when laid upon his great antitype. After we have thus attentively considered the subject apart, let us look at them together, and we shall behold the full beauty and majesty of this most charming poem. We shall perceive the two senses very distinct from each other, yet conspiring in perfect harmony, and bearing a wonderful resemblance in every feature and lineament, while the analogy between them is so exactly preserved, that either may pass for the original, from whence the other was copied. New light is continually cast upon the phraseology, fresh weight and dignity are added to the sentiment, till gradually ascending from things below to things above, from human affairs to those which are divine, they bear the great important theme upward with them, and at length place it in the height and brightness of heaven. What has been observed with regard to this Psalm, may also be applied to the seventy-second; the subject of which is of the same kind, and treated in the same manner. Its title might be, “The Inauguration of Solomon.” The scheme of the allegory is alike in both; but a diversity of matter occasions an alteration in the diction. For whereas one is employed in celebrating the magnificent triumphs of victory, it is the design of the other to draw a pleasing picture of peace, and of that felicity which is her inseparable attendant. The style is therefore of a more even and temperate sort, and more richly ornamented. It abounds not with those sudden changes of the person speaking which dazzle and astonish; but the imagery is borrowed from the delightful scenes with which creation cheers the sight, and the pencil of the divine artist is dipped in the softer colours of nature. And here we may take notice how peculiarly adapted to the genius of this kind of allegory the parabolical style is, on account of that great variety of natural images to be found in it. For as these images are capable of being employed in the illustration of things divine and human, between which there is a certain analogy maintained, so they easily afford that ambiguity which is necessary in this species of composition, where the language is applicable to each sense, and obscure in neither; it comprehends both parts of the allegory, and may be clearly and distinctly referred to one or the other.

On this book Bishop Horsley remarks:--These Psalms go, in general, under the name of the Psalms of David. King David gave a regular and noble form to the musical part of the Jewish service. He was himself a great composer, both in poetry and music, and a munificent patron, no doubt, of arts in which he himself so much delighted and excelled. The Psalms, however, appear to be compositions of various authors, in various ages; some much more ancient than the times of King David, some of a much later age. Of many, David himself was undoubtedly the author; and that those of his composition were prophetic, we have David’s own authority, which may be allowed to overpower a host of modern expositors. For thus King David, at the close of his life, describes himself and his sacred songs: “David, the son of Jesse, said, and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel, said, The Spirit of Jehovah spake by me, and his word was in my tongue.’ It was the word, therefore, of Jehovah’s Spirit which was uttered by David’s tongue. But it should seem, the Spirit of Jehovah would not be wanting to enable a mere man to make complaint of his own enemies, to describe his own sufferings just as he felt them, and his own escapes just as they happened. But the Spirit of Jehovah described by David’s utterance what was known to that Spirit only, and that Spirit only could describe. So that, if David be allowed to have had any knowledge of the true subject of his own compositions, it was nothing in his own life, but something put into his mind by the Holy Spirit of God; and the misapplication of the Psalms to the literal David has done more mischief than the misapplication of any other parts of the Scriptures among those who profess the belief of the Christian religion.

The Psalms are all poems of the lyric kind, that is, adapted to music, but with great variety in the style of composition. Some are simply odes. An ode is a dignified sort of song, narrative of the facts, either of public history or private life, in a highly adorned and figured style. But the figure in the Psalms is that which is peculiar to the Hebrew language, in which the figure gives its meaning with as much perspicuity as the plainest speech. Some are of the sort called elegiac, which are pathetic compositions upon mournful subjects. Some are ethic, delivering grave maxims of life, or the precepts of religion, in solemn, but for the most part simple, strains. Some are enigmatic, delivering the doctrines of religion in enigmata, contrived to strike the imagination forcibly, and yet easy to be understood. In all these the author delivers the whole matter in his own person. But a very great, I believe the far greater, part are a sort of dramatic ode, consisting of dialogues between persons sustaining certain characters. In these dialogue Psalms the persons are frequently the psalmist himself, or the chorus of priests and Levites, or the leader of the Levitical band, opening the ode with a proem declarative of the subject, and very often closing the whole with a solemn admonition drawn from what the other persons say. The other persons are Jehovah, sometimes as one, sometimes as another, of the three Persons; Christ in his incarnate state, sometimes before, sometimes after, his resurrection; the human soul of Christ as distinguished from the divine essence. Christ, in his incarnate state, is personated sometimes as a priest, sometimes as a king, sometimes as a conqueror; and in those Psalms in which he is introduced as a conqueror, the resemblance is very remarkable between this conqueror in the book of Psalms and the warrior on the white horse in the book of Revelation, who goes forth with a crown on his head, and a bow in his hand, conquering and to conquer. And the conquest in the Psalms is followed, like the conquest in the Revelation, by the marriage of the conqueror. These are circumstances of similitude which, to any one versed in the prophetic style, prove beyond a doubt that the mystical conqueror is the same personage in both.

PSALMODY. The service of the ancient Christian church usually began with reading or with the singing of psalms. We are not to understand this as if their psalmody was performed in one course of many psalms together, without intermission, but rather, with some respite, and a mixture of other parts of divine service, to make the whole more agreeable and delightful. As to the persons concerned in singing the Psalms publicly in the church, they may be considered in four different respects, according to the different ways of psalmody; for sometimes the Psalms were sung by one person alone; and sometimes the whole assembly joined together, men, women, and children: this was the most ancient and general practice. At other times the Psalms were sung alternately; the congregation dividing themselves into two parts, and singing verse for verse. Beside all these, there was yet a fourth way of singing, pretty common in the fourth century, which was, when a single person began the verse, and the people joined with him in the close.

Psalmody was always esteemed a considerable part of devotion, and upon that account was usually performed in the standing posture. As to the voice or pronunciation, used in singing, it was of two sorts, the plain song, and the more artificial; the plain song was only a gentle inflexion, or turn of the voice, not very different from the chanting in our cathedrals; the artificial song seems to have been a regular musical composition, like our anthems. It was no objection against the psalmody of the church, that she sometimes made use of psalms and hymns of human composition, beside those of the inspired writers. St. Augustine himself made a psalm of many parts, in imitation of the hundred and nineteenth, to preserve his people from the errors of the Donatists. St. Hilary and St. Ambrose likewise made many hymns, which were sung in their respective churches. But two corruptions crept into the psalmody, which the fathers declaim against with great zeal. The first was, the introducing secular music, or an imitation of the light airs of the theatre, in the devotions of the church. The other was, the regarding more the sweetness of the composition than the sense and meaning; thereby pleasing the ear, without raising the affections of the soul.

The use of musical instruments in singing of psalms, seems to be as ancient as psalmody itself. The first psalm we read of was sung to a timbrel, namely, that which Moses and Miriam sung after the deliverance of the children of Israel from Egypt; and afterward, at Jerusalem, when the temple was built, musical instruments were constantly used at their public services. And this has been the common practice in all ages of the church. When the use of organs was first introduced, is not certainly known; but we find, that about A. D. 660, Constantine Copronymus, emperor of Constantinople, sent a present of an organ to King Pepin of France.

Clement Marot, groom of the bed chamber to Francis I., king of France, was the first who engaged in translating the Psalms into metre. He versified the first fifty at the instigation of Vatablus, Hebrew professor at Paris; and afterward, upon his return to Geneva, he made an acquaintance with Beza, who versified the rest, and had tunes set to them; and thus they began to be sung in private houses, and afterward were brought into the churches of the French and other countries. In imitation of this version, Sternhold, one of the grooms of the privy chamber to our King Edward VI., undertook a translation of the Psalms into metre. He went through but thirty-seven of them, the rest being soon after finished by Hopkins and others. This translation was at first discountenanced by many of the clergy, who looked upon it as done in opposition to the practice of chanting the Psalms in the cathedrals.

Early in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, metrical psalmody was introduced into this country. The new morning prayer began at St. Antholin’s, London, when a psalm was sung in the Geneva fashion, all the congregation, men, women, and boys singing together. Bishop Jewel says, that “the singing of psalms, begun in one church in London, did quickly spread itself, not only through the city, but in the neighbouring places; sometimes at Paul’s Cross six thousand people singing together.”

A curious controversy on this subject arose among the Dissenters in the end of the seventeenth century. Whether singing in public worship had been partially discontinued during the times of persecution to avoid informers, or whether the miserable manner in which it was performed gave persons a distaste to it, so it appears, that in 1691, Mr. Benjamin Keach published a tract entitled, “The Breach Repaired in God’s Worship: or, Psalms, Hymns, &c, proved to be a Holy Ordinance of Jesus Christ.” To us it may appear strange that such a point should be disputed; but Mr. Keach was obliged to labour earnestly, and with a great deal of prudence and caution, to obtain the consent of his people to sing a hymn at the conclusion of the Lord’s Supper. After six years more, they agreed to sing on the thanksgiving days; but it required still fourteen years more before he could persuade them to sing every Lord’s day; and then it was only after the last prayer, that those who chose it might withdraw without joining in it! Nor did even this satisfy these scrupulous consciences; for, after all, a separation took place, and the inharmonious seceders formed a new church in May’s Pond, where it was above twenty years longer before singing the praises of God could be endured. It is difficult at this period to believe it; but Mr. Ivimey quotes Mr. Crosby, as saying, that Mr. Keach’s was the first church in which psalm singing was introduced. This remark, however, must probably be confined to the Baptist churches. The Presbyterians, it seems, were not quite so unmusical; for the Directory of the Westminster divines distinctly stated, that “it is the duty of Christians to praise God publicly by singing of Psalms together in the congregation.” And beside the old Scotch Psalms, Dr. John Patrick, of the Charter house, made a version which was in very general use among Dissenters, Presbyterians, and Independents, before it was superseded by the far superior compositions of Dr. Watts. These Psalms, however, like those of the English and Scotch establishment, were drawled out in notes of equal length, without accent or variety. Even the introduction of the triple-time tunes, probably about the time of Dr. Watts’s psalms, gave also great offence to some people, because it marked the accent of the measure. Old Mr. Thomas Bradbury used to call this time “a long leg and a short one.” The beautiful compositions of Dr. Watts, Mr. C. Wesley, and others, have produced a considerable revolution in modern psalmody. Better versions of the Psalms, and many excellent collections of hymns, are now in use, and may be considered as highly important gifts bestowed upon the modern church of God.

PSALTERY. See MUSIC.

PTOLEMAIS. See ACCHO.

PUBLICAN, a collector or receiver of the Roman revenues. Judea being added to the provinces of the Roman empire, and the taxes paid by the Jews directly to the emperor, the publicans were the officers appointed to collect them. The ordinary taxes which the Romans levied in the provinces were of three sorts: 1. Customs upon goods imported and exported; which tribute was therefore called _portorium_, from _portus_, “a haven.” 2. A tax upon cattle fed in certain pastures belonging to the Roman state, the number of which being kept in writing, this tribute was called _scriptura_. 3. A tax upon corn, of which the government demanded a tenth part. This tribute was called _decuma_. These publicans are distinguished by Sigonius into three sorts or degrees,--the farmers of the revenue, their partners, and their securities; in which he follows Polybius. These are called the _mancipes_, _socii_, and _prædes_, who were all under the _quæstore særarii_, that presided over the finances at Rome. The _mancipes_ farmed the revenue of large districts or provinces, had the oversight of the inferior publicans, received their accounts and collections, and transmitted them to the _quæstores ærarii_. They often let out their provinces in smaller parcels to the _socii_; so called, because they were admitted to a share in the contract, perhaps for the sake of more easily raising the purchase money; at least to assist in collecting the tribute. Both the _mancipes_ and _socii_ are therefore properly styled τελῶναι, from τελος, _tributum_, and ὠνέομαι, _emo_. They were obliged to procure _prædes_, or sureties, who gave security to the government for the fulfilment of the contract. The distribution of Sigonius, therefore, or rather of Polybius, is not quite exact, since there were properly but two sorts of publicans, the _mancipes_ and the _socii_. The former are, probably, those whom the Greeks call ἀρχιτελώναι, _chiefs of the publicans_; of which sort was Zaccheus. As they were superior to the common publicans in dignity, being mostly of the equestrian order, so they were generally in their moral character. But as for the common publicans, the collectors or receivers, as many of the _socii_ were, they are spoken of with great contempt, by Heathens as well as Jews; and particularly by Theocritus, who said, that “among the beasts of the wilderness, bears and lions are the most cruel; among the beasts of the city, the publican and parasite.” The reason of the general hatred to them was, doubtless, their rapine and extortion. For, having a share in the farm of the tribute, at a certain rate, they were apt to oppress the people with illegal exactions, to raise as large a fortune as they could for themselves. Beside, publicans were particularly odious to the Jews, who looked upon them to be the instruments of their subjection to the Roman emperors, to which they generally held it sinful for them to submit. They considered it as incompatible with their liberty to pay tribute to any foreign power, Luke xx, 22, &c; and those of their own nation that engaged in this employment they regarded as Heathens, Matthew xviii, 17. It is even said, that they would not allow them to enter into their temple or synagogues, nor to join in prayers, nor even allow their evidence in a court of justice on any trial; nor would they accept of their offerings in the temple.

It appears by the Gospel that there were many publicans in Judea at the time of our Saviour. Zaccheus, probably, was one of the principal receivers, since he is called the chief of the publicans, Luke xix, 2; but St. Matthew was only an inferior publican. The Jews reproached our Saviour for showing kindness to these persons, Luke vii, 34; and he himself ranks them with harlots, Matt. xxi, 31. Some of them, it should seem, had humbling views of themselves, Luke xviii, 10. Zaccheus assures our Lord, who had honoured him with a visit, that he was ready to give the half of his goods to the poor, Luke xix, 8, and to return fourfold of whatever he had unjustly acquired.

PUBLIUS, the governor of Melita, Acts xxviii, 7–9. When St. Paul was shipwrecked on this island, Publius received him and his company into his house very kindly, and treated them for three days with great humanity.

PUL, king of Assyria. He came into the land of Israel in the time of Manahem, king of the ten tribes, 2 Kings xv, 19, &c, and invaded the kingdom on the other side of Jordan. But Manahem, by a present of one thousand talents of silver, prevailed on the king of Assyria, not only to withdraw his forces, but to recognize his title to the crown of Israel before he left the kingdom. This is the first time that we find any mention made of the kingdom of Assyria since the days of Nimrod; and Pul is the first monarch of that nation who invaded Israel, and began their transportation out of their own country.

PULSE, קלי, Lev. xxiii, 14; 1 Sam. xvii, 17; 2 Sam. xvii, 28; a term applied to those grains or seeds which grow in pods, as beans, peas, vetches, &c, from פול, _a bean_. The Vulgate renders this _kali_ in 2 Sam. xvii, 28, _frixum cicer_, “parched peas.” In Daniel i, 12, 16, the word זרעים, rendered _pulse_, may signify seeds in general.

PUNISHMENTS OF THE HEBREWS. There were several sorts of punishments in use among the Jews which are mentioned in the Scripture. 1. The punishment of the cross. (See _Cross_.) 2. Suspension, Esther vii, 10; Joshua viii, 29; 2 Samuel xxi, 12. 3. Stoning. 4. Fire. This punishment was common, Gen. xxxviii, 24; Leviticus xxi, 9. 5. The rack or tympanum, mentioned Heb. xi, 35. Commentators are much divided about the meaning of this punishment; but most of them are of opinion that the bastinado, or the punishment of the stick, is intended, and that the Apostle alludes to the cruelties exercised upon old Eleazar; for, in 2 Mac. vi, 19, where his martyrdom is spoken of, it is said that he came to the tympanum. 6. The precipice, or throwing persons headlong from a rock, with a stone tied about the neck, 2 Chron. xxv, 12. 7. Decapitation, Gen. xl, 19; Judges ix, 5; 2 Kings x, 7; Matt. xiv, 8. 8. The punishment of the saw, or to be cut asunder in the middle, Heb. xi, 37. This punishment was not unknown to the Hebrews. Some think it was originally from the Persians or Chaldeans. 9. Plucking out the eyes, Exod. xxi, 24. Some think this punishment was seldom executed, but the offender was made to suffer in his property rather than in his person: yet there are some instances on record, Judges xvi, 21; 1 Sam. xi, 2; 2 Kings xxv, 7. 10. The cutting off the extremities of the feet and hands, Judges i, 5–7; 2 Sam. iv, 12.

PUR, פור, κλῆρος, signifies _lot_. Pur, Phur, or Purim, was a solemn feast of the Jews, instituted in memory of the lots cast by Haman, the enemy of the Jews, Esther iii, 7. These lots were cast in the first month of the year, and gave the twelfth month of the same year for the execution of Haman’s design, to destroy all the Jews in Persia. Thus the superstition of Haman, in crediting these lots, caused his own ruin, and the preservation of the Jews, who, by means of Esther, had time to avert this blow. The Jews have exactly kept this feast down to our times. See HAMAN, ESTHER, and MORDECAI.

PURGATORY, a place in which, according to the church of Rome, the just, who depart out of this life, are supposed to expiate certain offences which do not merit eternal damnation. Broughton has endeavoured to prove that this notion has been held by Pagans, Jews, and Mohammedans, as well as by Christians; and that in the days of the Maccabees, the Jews believed that sin might be expiated by sacrifice after the death of the sinner. The arguments advanced for purgatory by the papists are these: Every sin, how slight soever, though no more than an idle word, as it is an offence to God, deserves punishment from him, and will be punished by him hereafter, if not cancelled by repentance here. 2. Such small sins do not deserve eternal punishment. 3. Few depart this life so pure as to be totally exempt from spots of this nature, and from every kind of debt due to God’s justice. 4. Therefore, few will escape without suffering something from his justice for such debts as they have carried with them out of this world, according to the rule of divine justice, by which he treats every soul hereafter according to his works, and according to the state in which he finds it in death. From these positions, which the papist considers as so many self-evident truths, he infers that there must be some third place of punishment; for since the infinite holiness of God can admit nothing into heaven that is not clean and pure from all sin, both great and small, and his infinite justice can permit none to receive the reward of bliss, who as yet are not out of debt, but have something in justice to suffer, there must, of necessity, be some place or state, where souls departing this life, pardoned as to the eternal guilt of sin, yet obnoxious to some temporal penalty, or with the guilt of some venial faults, are purged and purified before their admittance into heaven. And this is what he is taught concerning purgatory; though he know not where it is, of what nature the pains are, or how long each soul is detained there, yet he believes that those who are in this place are relieved by the prayers of their fellow members here on earth, as also by alms and masses offered up to God for their souls. And as for such as have no relations or friends to pray for them, or give alms to procure masses for their relief, they are not neglected by the church, which makes a general commemoration of all the faithful departed, in every mass, and in every one of the canonical hours of the divine office. Beside the above arguments, the following passages are alleged as proofs: 2 Macc. xii, 43–45; Matt. xii, 31, 32; 1 Cor. iii, 15; 1 Peter iii, 19. But it may be observed, 1. That the books of Maccabees have no evidence of inspiration, therefore quotations from them are not to be regarded. 2. If they were, the texts referred to would rather prove that there is no such place as purgatory, since Judas did not expect the souls departed to reap any benefit from the sin-offering till the resurrection. The texts quoted from the Scriptures have no reference to the doctrine, as may be seen by consulting the context, and any just commentator upon it. 3. The Scriptures, in general, speak of departed souls going immediately, at death, to a fixed state of happiness or misery, and give us no idea of purgatory, Isaiah lvii, 2; Rev. xiv, 13; Luke xvi, 22; 2 Cor. v, 8. 4. It is derogatory from the doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ. If Christ died for us, and redeemed us from sin and hell, as the Scripture speaks, then the idea of farther meritorious suffering detracts from the perfection of his sacrifice, and places merit still in the creature; a doctrine exactly opposite to the Scriptures.

PURITANS. In England, the term Puritans was applied to those who wished for a farther degree of reformation in the church than was adopted by Queen Elizabeth; and a purer form, not of faith, but of discipline and worship. It was a common name given to all who, from conscientious motives, though on different grounds, disapproved of the established religion, from the reformation under Elizabeth, to the Act of Uniformity in 1662. From that time to the revolution in 1688, as many as refused to comply with the established worship, (among whom were about two thousand clergymen, and perhaps five hundred thousand people,) were denominated Nonconformists. From the passing of the Act of Toleration on the accession of William and Mary, the name of Nonconformists was changed to that of Protestant Dissenters. Prior to the grand rebellion in 1640, the Puritans were, almost without exception, Episcopalians; but after the famous “League and Covenant” of those turbulent times the greater part of them became Presbyterians. Some, however, were Independents, and some Baptists. The objections of the latter were more fundamental; they disapproved of all national churches, as such, and disavowed the authority of human legislation in matters of faith and worship. The persecutions carried on against the Puritans during the reigns of Elizabeth and the Stuarts served to lay the foundation of a new empire, and eventually a vast republic, in the western world. Thither, as into a wilderness, they fled from the face of their persecutors; and, being protected in the free exercise of their religion, continued to increase, until at length they became an independent nation. The different principles, however, on which they had originally divided from the church establishment at home, operated in a way that might have been expected, when they came to the possession of the civil power abroad. Those who formed the colony of Massachusetts having never relinquished the principle of a national church, and of the power of the civil magistrate in matters of faith and worship, were less tolerant than those who settled at New Plymouth, at Rhode Island, and Providence Plantations. The very men who had just escaped the persecutions of the English prelates, now, in their turn, persecuted others who dissented from them; until, at length, the liberal system of toleration established in the parent country at the revolution, extended to the colonies, and in a good measure put an end to these censurable proceedings.

PURPLE, ארגמן, Exodus xxv, 4, &c; ϖορφύρα, Mark xv, 17, 20; Luke xvi, 19; John xix, 2, 5; Rev. xvii, 4; xviii, 12, 16. This is supposed to be the very precious colour extracted from the _purpura_ or _murex_, a species of shell fish; and the same with the famous Tyrian dye, so costly, and so much celebrated in antiquity. The purple dye is called in 1 Macc. iv, 23, “purple of the sea,” or sea purple; it being the blood or juice of a turbinated shell fish, which the Jews call חלזון. (See _Scarlet_.) Among the blessings pronounced by Moses upon the tribes of Israel, those of Zebulun and Issachar are, “They shall suck of the abundance of the seas, and of the treasures hid in the sand,” Deut. xxxiii, 19. Jonathan Ben Uzziel explains the latter clause thus: “From the sand are produced looking glasses, and glass in general; the treasures, the method of finding and working which, was revealed to these tribes.” Several ancient writers inform us, that there were havens in the coasts of the Zebulunites, in which the sand proper for making glass was found. The words of Tacitus are remarkable: “_Et Belus amnis Judaico mari illabitur, circa ejus os lectæ arenæ admixto nitro in vitrum excoquuntur_.” “The river Belus falls into the Jewish sea, about whose mouth those sands mixed with nitre are collected, out of which glass is formed.” But it seems much more natural to explain “the treasures hid in the sand,” of those highly valuable _murices_ and _purpuræ_ which were found on the sea coast, near the country of Zebulun and Issachar, and of which those tribes partook in common with their Heathen neighbours of Tyre, who rendered the curious dyes made from those shell fish so famous among the Romans by the names of _Sarranum ostrum_, _Tyrii colores_. In reference to the purple vestment, Luke xvi, 19, it may be observed that this was not appropriately a royal robe. In the earlier times it was the dress of any of high rank. Thus all the courtiers were styled by the historians _purpurati_. This colour is more properly crimson than purple; for the LXX., Josephus, and Philo, constantly use ϖορφύραν to express the Hebrew ארגמן, by which the Talmudists understood crimson; and that this Hebrew word expressed, not the Tyrian purple, but that brought to the city from another country, appears from Ezek. xxvii, 7. The purple robe put on our Saviour, John xix, 2, 5, is explained by a Roman custom, the dressing of a person in the robes of state, as the investiture of office. Hence the robe brought by Herod’s or the Roman soldiers, scoffingly, was as though it had been the _pictæ vestes_ usually sent by the Roman senate. In Acts xvi, 14, Lydia is said to be “a seller of purple.” Mr. Harmer styles purple the most sublime of all earthly colours, having the gaudiness of red, of which it retains a shade, softened with the gravity of blue.

PUTEOLI, so called from its baths of hot water, a city of Campania, in Italy; now called Pozzuoli, in a province of the kingdom of Naples, called Terra di Lavoro, and about eight miles from Naples. St. Paul stayed a week with the Christians of this place, in his journey as a prisoner to Rome, Acts xxviii, 13. The Alexandrian merchant vessels preferred Puteoli to all the harbours in Italy, and here they deposited their rich freights. They conducted the ships adorned with wreaths and festive garments, in the form of a fleet, one after another, into the harbour, where they were received with the greatest demonstrations of friendship. Such was the case with the sale of Alexandrian commodities throughout Italy. According to the course then pursued, the vessel in which St. Paul sailed went direct into this harbour.

QUAIL, שלו, Exod. xvi, 13; Num. xi, 31, 32; Psalm cv, 10; a bird of the gallinaceous kind. Hasselquist, mentioning the quail of the larger kind, says, “It is of the size of the turtle dove. I have met with it in the wilderness of Palestine, near the shores of the Dead Sea and the Jordan, between Jordan and Jericho, and in the deserts of Arabia Petrea. If the food of the Israelites was a bird, this is certainly it; being so common in the places through which they passed.” It is said that God gave quails to his people in the wilderness upon two occasions: first, within a few days after they had passed the Red Sea, Exod. xvi, 3–13. The second time was at the encampment at the place called in Hebrew, Kibroth-hataavah, the graves of lust, Num. xi, 32; Psalm cv, 40. Both of these happened in the spring, when the quails passed from Asia into Europe. They are then to be found in great quantities upon the coast of the Red Sea and Mediterranean. God caused a wind to arise that drove them within and about the camp of the Israelites; and it is in this that the miracle consists, that they were brought so seasonably to this place, and in so great number as to furnish food for above a million of persons for more than a month. The Hebrew word _shalav_ signifies “a quail,” by the agreement of the ancient interpreters. And the Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic languages call them nearly by the same name. The Septuagint, Symmachus, and most of commentators, both ancient and modern, understand it in the same manner; and with them agree Philo, Josephus, Apollinaris, and the rabbins; but Ludolphus has endeavoured to prove that a species of locust is spoken of by Moses. Dr. Shaw answers, that the holy psalmist, in describing this particular food of the Israelites, by calling the animals feathered fowls, entirely confutes this supposition. And it should be recollected, that this miracle was performed in compliance with the wish of the people that they might have flesh to eat.

QUAKERS. See FRIENDS.

QUESTIONS. Among the ancients no pastime was more common than that of proposing and answering difficult questions. The person who solved the question was honoured with a reward; he who failed in the attempt suffered a certain punishment; both the rewards and penalties were varied according to the disposition of the company. That the custom of proposing riddles was very ancient, and derived from the eastern nations, appears from the story of Samson, in the book of Judges, who proposed one to the Philistines at his nuptial feast. Nor were these questions confined to entertainments, but, in the primitive times, were proposed on other occasions, by those who desired to make proof of another’s wisdom and learning. Agreeably to this custom, the queen of Sheba came to prove Solomon with hard questions, 1 Kings x, 1.

QUIETISTS, the disciples of Michael de Molinos, a Spanish priest, who flourished in the seventeenth century, and wrote a book called “The Spiritual Guide.” He had many disciples in Spain, Italy, France, and the Netherlands. Some pretend that he borrowed his principles from the Spanish Illuminati; and M. Gregoire will have it that they came originally from the Persian Soofees; while others no less confidently derive them from the Greek Hesycasts. The Quietists, however, deduce their principles from the Scriptures. They argue thus: “The Apostle tells us, that ‘the Spirit makes intercession for’ or _in_ ‘us.’ Now if the Spirit pray in us, we must resign ourselves to his impulses, by remaining in a state of absolute rest, or quietude, till we attain the perfection of the unitive life,” a life of union with, and, as it should seem, of absorption in, the Deity. They contend, that true religion consists in the present calm and tranquillity of a mind removed from all external and finite things, and centered in God; and in such a pure love of the supreme Being, as is independent of all prospect of interest or reward. To prove that our love to the Deity must be disinterested, they allege, that the Lord hath made all things for himself, as saith the Scripture; and it is for his glory that he wills our happiness. To conform, therefore, to the great end of our creation, we must prefer God to ourselves, and not desire our own happiness but for his glory; otherwise we shall go contrary to his order. As the perfections of the Deity are intrinsically amiable, it is our glory and perfection to go out of ourselves, to be lost and absorbed in the pure love of infinite beauty. Madam Guion, a woman of fashion in France, born 1648, becoming pious, was a warm advocate of these principles. She asserted, that the means of arriving at this perfect love, are prayer and the self-denial enjoined in the Gospel. Prayer she defines to be the entire bent of the soul toward its divine origin. Some of her pious canticles were translated by the poet Cowper, and represent her sentiments to the best advantage. Fenelon, the amiable archbishop of Cambray, also favoured these sentiments in his celebrated publication, entitled, “The Maxims of the Saints.” The distinguishing tenet in his theology was the doctrine of the disinterested love of God for his own excellencies, independent of his relative benevolence: an important feature also in the system of Madam Guion, who, with the good archbishop, was persecuted by the pope and by Bossuet. See MYSTICS.

RAB. The title rabbi, with several others from the same root, רבב, _magnus est, vel multiplicatus est_, began first to be assumed, according to Godwin, as a distinguishing title of honour by men of learning, about the time of the birth of Christ. We find it anciently given, indeed, to several magistrates and officers of state. In Esther i, 8, it is said, the king appointed כל-רב ביתו, which we render “all the officers of his house.” In Jeremiah xli, 1, we read of the ורּי המלך, “the princes of the king.” In Job xxxii, 9, it is said, that the רבים, which we render “great men, are not always wise;” a rendering which well expresses the original meaning of the word. It was not therefore in those days properly a title of honour, belonging to any particular office or dignity, in church or state; but all who were of superior rank, and condition in life were called רבים. We do not find the prophets, or other men of learning in the Old Testament, affecting any title beside that which denoted their office; and they were contented to be addressed by their bare names. The first Jewish rabbi, said to have been distinguished with any title of honour, was Simeon, the son of Hillel, who succeeded his father as president of the sanhedrim; and his title was that of rabban. The later rabbies tell us, this title was conferred with a good deal of ceremony. When a person had gone through the schools and was thought worthy of the degree of rabbi, he was first placed in a chair somewhat raised above the company; then were delivered to him a key and a table book: the key, as a symbol of the power or authority now conferred upon him, to teach that knowledge to others which he had learned himself; and this key he afterward wore as a badge of his honour, and when he died it was buried with him: the table book was a symbol of his diligence in his studies, and of his endeavouring to make farther improvements in learning. The next ceremony in the creation of a rabbi was the imposition of hands on him by the delegates of the sanhedrim, practised in imitation of Moses’s ordaining Joshua by this rite, to succeed him in his office, Num. xxvii, 18; Deut. xxxiv, 9. And then they proclaimed his title.

According to Maimonides, the imposition of hands was not looked upon to be essential; but was sometimes omitted. They did not always, saith he, lay their hands on the head of the elder to be ordained; but called him rabbi, and said, “Behold thou art ordained, and hast power,” &c. We find this title given to John the Baptist, John iii, 26; and frequently to our blessed Saviour; as by John’s disciples, by Nicodemus, and by the people that followed, John i, 38; iii, 2; vi, 20. The reason of our Saviour’s prohibiting his disciples to be called rabbi is expressed in these words: “Be not ye called rabbi, for one is your master, even Christ,” καθηγητὴς, your guide and conductor, on whose word and instructions alone you are to depend in matters of religion and salvation. Accordingly the inspired Apostles pretend to nothing more than, as the ambassadors of Christ, to deliver his instructions; and, for their own part, they expressly disclaim all dominion over the faith and consciences of men, 2 Cor. i, 24; v, 20. The Jewish writers distinguish between the titles rab, rabbi, rabban. As for rab and rabbi, the only difference between them is, that rab was the title of such as had had their education, and taken their degree, in some foreign Jewish school; suppose at Babylon, where there was a school or academy of considerable note; rabbi was the title of such as were educated in the land of Judea, who were accounted more honourable than the others. But as for rabban, it was the highest title; which, they say, was never conferred on more than seven persons, namely, on R. Simeon, five of his descendants, and on R. Jochanan, who was of a different family. It was on this account, it should seem, that the blind man gave this title to Christ, Mark x, 51; being convinced that he was possessed of divine power, and worthy of the most honourable distinctions. And Mary Magdalene, when she saw Christ after his resurrection, “said unto him, Rabboni,” John xx, 16, that is, my rabban, like _my lord_ in English; for rabbon is the same with rabban, only pronounced according to the Syriac dialect.

There were several gradations among the Jews before the dignity of rabbin, as among us, before the degree of doctor. The head of a school was called _chacham_, or wise. He had the head seat in the assemblies and in the synagogues. He reprimanded the disobedient, and could excommunicate them; and this procured him great respect. In their schools they sat upon raised chairs, and their scholars were seated at their feet. Hence St. Paul is said to have studied at the feet of Rabbi Gamaliel, Acts xxii, 3. The studies of the rabbins are employed either on the text of the law, or the traditions, or the cabbala; these three objects form so many different schools and different sorts of rabbins. Those who chiefly apply to the letter of Scripture are called Caraites, Literalists. Those who chiefly study the traditions and oral laws of the Talmud are called Rabbanists. Those who give themselves to their secret and mysterious divinity, letters and numbers, are called Cabbalists, Traditionaries. The rabbins are generally very ignorant in history, chronology, philology, antiquity, and geography. They understand the holy language but imperfectly. They know not the true signification of a multitude of words in the sacred text. They are prodigiously conceited about their traditions, so that there is very little profit in reading them; and experience shows that most who have applied themselves to peruse their books, have been but little benefited by them, and have entertained a perfect contempt of their understanding and their works. The chief function of the rabbins is to preach in the synagogue, to make public prayers there, and to interpret the law; they have the power of binding and loosing, that is, of declaring what is forbidden, and what allowed. When the synagogue is poor and small, there is but one rabbin, who at the same time discharges the office of a judge and a teacher. But when the Jews are numerous and powerful, they appoint three pastors, and a house of judgment, where all their civil affairs are determined. Then the rabbin applies himself to instruction only, unless it be thought proper to call him into the council to give his advice, in which case he takes the chief place.

RABBATH, or RABBAT-AMMON, the capital city of the Ammonites, situated beyond Jordan. See AMMON.

RABBATH-MOAB, the capital city of the Moabites, called otherwise Ar, or Areopolis. See MOAB.

RABBI. See RAB.

RABSHAKEH, a chief butler, or cupbearer. This is a term of dignity, and not a proper name. Rabshakeh was sent by Sennacherib, king of Assyria, to summon Hezekiah to surrender Jerusalem, 2 Kings xviii, 17, 18; xix, 4; Isaiah xxxvi.

RACA, a Syriac word which properly signifies _empty_, _vain_, _beggarly_, _foolish_, and which includes in it a strong idea of contempt. Our Saviour pronounces a censure on every person using this term to his neighbour, Matt. v, 22. Lightfoot assures us that, in the writings of the Jews, the word _raca_ is a term of the utmost contempt, and that it was usual to pronounce it with marked signs of indignation.

RACHEL, the daughter of Laban, and sister of Leah. The Prophet Jeremiah, xxxi, 15, and St. Matthew, ii, 18, have put Rachel for the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, the children of Joseph, the son of Rachel. This prophecy was completed when these two tribes were carried into captivity beyond the Euphrates; and St. Matthew made application of it to what happened at Bethlehem, when Herod put to death the children of two years old and under. Then Rachel, who was buried there, might be said to make her lamentations for the death of so many innocent children sacrificed to the jealousy of a wicked monarch.

RAHAB was a hostess of the city of Jericho, who received and concealed the spies sent by Joshua. The Hebrew calls her Zona, Joshua ii, 1, which Jerom and many others understand of a prostitute. Others think she was only a hostess or innkeeper, and that this is the true signification of the original word. Had she been a woman of ill fame, would Salmon, a prince of the tribe of Judah, have taken her to wife? Or could he have done it by the law? Beside, the spies of Joshua would hardly have gone to lodge with a common harlot, they who were charged with so nice and dangerous a commission. Those who maintain that she was a harlot, pretend that she was perhaps one of those women who prostituted themselves in honour of the Pagan deities; as if this could extenuate her crime, or the scandal of her profession if she was a public woman. It is also observable that such women are called _kadeshah_, not _zona_, in the Hebrew. Rahab married Salmon, a prince of Judah, by whom she had Boaz, from whom descended Obed, Jesse, and David. Thus Jesus Christ condescended to reckon this Canaanitish woman among his ancestors. St. Paul magnifies the faith of Rahab, Heb. xi, 31.

Rahab is also a name of Egypt, Isa. xxx, 7; li, 9.

RAIMENT. In addition to what occurs under the article _Habits_, it may be observed that to make presents of changes of raiment, Gen. xlv, 22, has always been common among all ranks of orientals. The perfuming of raiment with sweet-scented spices or extracts is also still a custom, which explains the smell of Jacob’s raiment. A coat or robe of many colours, such as Jacob gave to Joseph, is also a mark of distinction. The Turks at Aleppo thus array their sons; and, in the time of Sisera, a coat of divers colours is mentioned among the rich spoils which fell to the conquerors. A frequent change of garments is also very common both to show respect and to display opulence. Is there an allusion to this in Psalm cii, 26: “As a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed?” If so, it conveys the magnificent idea of the almighty Creator investing himself with the whole creation as with a robe, and having laid that aside, by new creations, or the successive production of beings, clothing himself with others, at his pleasure.

RAIN, the vapours exhaled by the sun, which descend from the clouds to water the earth, Eccles. xi, 3. The sacred writers often speak of the rain of the former and latter season, Deut. xi, 14; Hosea vi, 3. Twice in the year there generally fell plenty of rain in Judea; in the beginning of the civil year, about September or October; and half a year after, in the month of Abib, or March, which was the first month in the ecclesiastical or sacred year, whence it is called the latter rain in the first month, Joel ii, 23. (See _Canaan_.) The ancient Hebrews compared elocution, and even learning or doctrine, to rain: “My doctrine shall drop as the rain,” Deut. xxxii, 2.

RAMESES, or RAAMSES, a city supposed to have been situated in the eastern part of Egypt, called the land of Goshen, which was also hence termed the land of Rameses. It was one of the cities built by the Israelites as a treasure city, as it is translated in our Bibles; probably a store city, or, as others interpret it, a fortress. Its position may be fixed about six or eight miles above the modern Cairo, a little to the south of the Babylon of the Persians, the ancient Letopolis; as Josephus says that the children of Israel, after quitting this place, in their first march to Succoth, passed by the latter city.

RAMOTH, a famous city in the mountains of Gilead, 1 Kings iv, 13. It is often called Ramoth-Gilead. Josephus calls it Ramathan, or Aramatha. The city belonged to the tribe of Gad, Deut. iv, 43. It was assigned for a dwelling of the Levites, and was one of the cities of refuge beyond Jordan, Joshua xx, 8; xxi, 38. It became famous during the reigns of the latter kings of Israel, and was the occasion of several wars between them and the kings of Damascus, who had made a conquest of it, which the sovereigns of Israel endeavoured to regain, 1 Kings xxii, 3–5. Eusebius says, that Ramoth was fifteen miles from Philadelphia toward the east. St. Jerom places it in the neighbourhood of Jabbok, and consequently to the north of Philadelphia.

RAVEN, עורב, in Chaldee, _orba_, in Syriac, _croac_, in Latin, _corvus_, Gen. viii, 7; Lev. xi, 15; Deut. xiv, 14; 1 Kings xvii, 4, 6; Job xxxviii, 41; Psalm cxlvii, 9; Prov. xxx, 17; Cant. v, 11; Isa. xxxiv, 11; κόραξ, Luke xii, 24; a well known bird of prey. All the interpreters agree that _oreb_ signifies the raven, from _oreb_, “evening,” on account of its colour. Michaëlis, in proposing a question respecting certain birds, says of the _oreb_, “_Il est decidé, que c’est le corbeau; il seroit donc superflu de le demander. Mais je desirerois plus de certitude sur le nom Syriaque des corbeaux_.” [It is settled that this is the raven; it would therefore be superfluous to investigate it. But I could wish more certainty respecting the Syriac name of ravens.] One can hardly doubt that it is taken from the note of this bird. On the decrease of the waters of the flood, so that the tops of the mountains became visible, Noah sent forth out of one of the windows of the ark a raven, a bold and adventurous bird, by way of experiment, to see whether the waters were sunk or abated. Forty days the violent rain had continued; and he might think this, therefore, a likely time for the waters to run off again. In the original text, in the Samaritan, in the Chaldee and Arabic, it is said that the raven “returned” to the ark; but the Greek interpreters, the Syriac, the Latin, and most of the eminent fathers and commentators, say that it did not return any more. Here are great authorities on both sides, but the latter reading, though so contrary in sense to the other, yet in the Hebrew is not very different in the form of the letters, and appears to be the better reading of the two. For if the raven had returned, what occasion had Noah to send forth a dove? Or why did he not take the raven in unto him into the ark, as he did afterward the dove? Or why did he not send forth the same raven again, as he did afterward the same dove again? It is not improperly expressed in our translation, that “the raven went forth to and fro,” flying hither and thither, “until the waters were dried up from off the face of the earth.” He found, perhaps, in the higher grounds, some of the carcasses of those who had perished in the deluge.

The Prophet Elijah was in his retirement fed by this bird. A writer, indeed, in the Memoirs of Literature, for April, 1710, endeavours to show, from many authors, that there was in the country of Bethschan, in Decapolis, by the brook Cherith or Carith, a little town called Aorabi or Orbo, Judges vii, 25; Isa. x, 6; and he therefore explains the word _orebim_, which, in 1 Kings xvii, 4, we translate “ravens,” of the inhabitants of that village, some of whom, he contends, daily carried bread and flesh to Elijah, who had retired to and lay in a cave in the neighbourhood. On the other hand, Scheuchzer ably vindicates the commonly received opinion. The editor of Calmet, also, in the appendix, under the article _Elijah_, has some pertinent observations on this subject. “We ought to consider,” says he, “1. That Ahab sought Elijah with avidity, and took an oath of every people, no doubt, also, in his dominions, that he was not concealed among its inhabitants; his situation, therefore, required the utmost privacy, even to solitude. 2. That when the brook Cherith was dried up, the prophet was obliged to quit his asylum, which he needed not to have done, had a people been his suppliers, for they could have brought him water as well as food.”

In Psalm cxlvii, 9, it is said, “The Lord giveth to the beast his food, and to the young ravens which cry.” And in Job xxxviii, 41, “Who provideth for the raven his food, when his young ones cry unto God, wandering for want of meat?” Job and the psalmist may allude to what is said by some naturalists, that the ravens drive out their young ones early from their nests, and oblige them to seek food for their own sustenance. The same kind Providence which furnishes support to his intelligent offspring is not unmindful of the wants, or inattentive to the desires, of the meanest of his creatures.

Lo, the young ravens, from their nest exiled, On hunger’s wing attempt the aerial wild! Who leads their wanderings, and their feast supplies? To God ascend their importuning cries.

Christ instructs his disciples, from the same circumstance, to trust in the care and kindness of Heaven: “Consider the ravens; for they neither sow nor reap, neither have storehouse, nor barn; and God feedeth them. How much better are ye than the fowls!” Luke xii, 24. Solomon, speaking of the peculiar regard and veneration due to the worthy persons and salutary instructions of parents, observes, that an untimely fate, and the want of decent interment, may be expected from contrary conduct; and that the leering eye, which throws wicked contempt on a good father, and insolent disdain on a tender mother, shall be dug out of the unburied exposed corpse by the ravens of the valley, and eaten up by the young eagles, Prov. xxx, 17. It was a common punishment in the east, and one which the orientals dreaded above all others, to expose in the open fields the bodies of evil doers that had suffered by the laws of their offended country, to be devoured by the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven. The wise man insinuates that the raven makes his first and keenest attack on the eye, which perfectly corresponds with his habits, for he always begins his banquet with that part. Isiodore says of him, _Primo in cadaveribus occulum petit_; [he attacks first the eye of the dead;] and Epictetus, Ὁι μεν κορακες των τετελευτηκοτων τους οφθαλμους λυμαινονται, “the ravens devour the eyes of the dead.” Many other testimonies might be adduced, but these are sufficient to justify the allusion in the proverb.

The raven, it is well known, delights in solitude. He frequents the ruined tower or the deserted habitation. In Isaiah, xxxiv, 11, it is accordingly foretold that the raven, with other birds of similar dispositions, should fix his abode in the desolate houses of Edom. In the Septuagint and other versions the Hebrew word for _desolation_ is rendered _raven_. The meaning is, that in those splendid palaces, where the voice of joy and gladness was heard, and every sound which could ravish the ear and subdue the heart, silence was, for the wickedness of their inhabitants, to hold her reign for ever, interrupted only by the scream of the cormorant and the croaking of the raven.

READING. In the countries of the Levant the people never read silently, but go on in a kind of singing voice, aloud. The eunuch was probably thus reading when Philip overheard him, and finding that he was reading the Scriptures, said, “Understandest thou what thou readest?”

REASON, USE OF, IN RELIGION. The sublime, incomprehensible nature of some of the Christian doctrines has so completely subdued the understanding of many pious men, as to make them think it presumptuous to apply reason in any way to the revelations of God; and the many instances in which the simplicity of truth has been corrupted by an alliance with philosophy confirm them in the belief that it is safer, as well as more respectable, to resign their minds to devout impressions, than to exercise their understandings in any speculations upon sacred subjects. Enthusiasts and fanatics of all different names and sects agree in decrying the use of reason, because it is the very essence of fanaticism to substitute, in place of the sober deductions of reason, the extravagant fancies of a disordered imagination, and to consider these fancies as the immediate illumination of the Spirit of God. Insidious writers in the deistical controversy have pretended to adopt those sentiments of humility and reverence, which are inseparable from true Christians, and even that total subjection of reason to faith which characterizes enthusiasts. A pamphlet was published about the middle of the last century that made a noise in its day, although it is now forgotten, entitled, “Christianity not founded on Argument,” which, while to a careless reader it may seem to magnify the Gospel, does in reality tend to undermine our faith, by separating it from a rational assent; and Mr. Hume, in the spirit of this pamphlet, concludes his Essay on Miracles with calling those dangerous friends or disguised enemies to the Christian religion who have undertaken to defend it by the principles of human reason: “Our most holy religion,” he says, with a disingenuity very unbecoming his respectable talents, “is founded on faith, not on reason;” and, “mere reason is insufficient to convince us of its veracity.” The church of Rome, in order to subject the minds of her votaries to her authority, has reprobated the use of reason in matters of religion. She has revived an ancient position, that things may be true in theology which are false in philosophy; and she has, in some instances, made the merit of faith to consist in the absurdity of that which was believed.

The extravagance of these positions has produced, since the Reformation, an opposite extreme. While those who deny the truth of revelation consider reason as in all respects a sufficient guide, the Socinians, who admit that a revelation has been made, employ reason as the supreme judge of its doctrines, and boldly strike out of their creed every article that is not altogether conformable to those notions which may be derived from the exercise of reason. These controversies concerning the use of reason in matters of religion are disputes, not about words, but about the essence of Christianity. But a few plain observations are sufficient to ascertain where the truth lies in this subject.

The first use of reason in matters of religion is to examine the evidences of revelation. For, the more entire the submission which we consider as due to every thing that is revealed, we have the more need to be satisfied that any system which professes to be a divine revelation does really come from God.

After the exercise of reason has established in our minds a firm belief that Christianity is of divine original, the second use of reason is to learn what are the truths revealed. As these truths are not in our days communicated to any by immediate inspiration, the knowledge of them is to be acquired only from books transmitted to us with satisfying evidence that they were written above seventeen hundred years ago, in a remote country and foreign language, under the direction of the Spirit of God. In order to attain the meaning of these books we must study the language in which they were written; and we must study also the manners of the times, and the state of the countries, in which the writers lived; because these are circumstances to which an original author is often alluding, and by which his phraseology is generally affected; we must lay together different passages in which the same word or phrase occurs, because without this labour we cannot ascertain its precise signification; and we must mark the difference of style and manner which characterizes different writers, because a right apprehension of their meaning often depends upon attention to this difference. All this supposes the application of grammar, history, geography, chronology, and criticism in matters of religion; that is, it supposes that the reason of man had been previously exercised in pursuing these different branches of knowledge, and that our success in attaining the true sense of Scripture depends upon the diligence with which we avail ourselves of the progress that has been made in them. It is obvious that every Christian is not capable of making this application. But this is no argument against the use of reason, of which we are now speaking. For they who use translations and commentaries rely only upon the reason of others, instead of exercising their own. The several branches of knowledge have been applied in every age by some persons for the benefit of others; and the progress in sacred criticism, which distinguishes the present times, is nothing else but the continued application, in elucidating the Scripture, of reason enlightened by every kind of subsidiary knowledge, and very much improved in this kind of exercise by the employment which the ancient classics have given it since the revival of letters.

After the two uses of reason that have been illustrated, a third comes to be mentioned, which may be considered as compounded of both. Reason is of eminent use in repelling the attacks of the adversaries of Christianity. When men of erudition, of philosophical acuteness, and of accomplished taste, direct their talents against our religion, the cause is very much hurt by an unskilful defender. He cannot unravel their sophistry; he does not see the amount and the effect of the concessions which he makes to them; he is bewildered by their quotations, and he is often led by their artifice upon dangerous ground. In all ages of the church there have been weak defenders of Christianity; and the only triumphs of the enemies of our religion have arisen from their being able to expose the defects of those methods of defending the truth which some of its advocates had unwarily chosen. A mind trained to accurate and philosophical views of the nature and the amount of evidence, enriched with historical knowledge, accustomed to throw out of a subject all that is minute and irrelative, to collect what is of importance within a short compass, and to form the comprehension of a whole, is the mind qualified to contend with the learning, the wit, and the sophistry of infidelity. Many such minds have appeared in this honourable controversy during the course of this and the last century; and the success has corresponded to the completeness of the furniture with which they engaged in the combat. The Christian doctrine has been vindicated by their masterly exposition from various misrepresentations; the arguments for its divine original have been placed in their true light; and the attempts to confound the miracles and prophecies upon which Christianity rests its claim, with the delusions of imposture, have been effectually repelled. Christianity has, in this way, received the most important advantages from the attacks of its enemies; and it is not improbable that its doctrines would never have been so thoroughly cleared from all the corruptions and subtleties which had attached to them in the progress of ages, nor the evidences of its truths have been so accurately understood, nor its peculiar character been so perfectly discriminated, had not the zeal and abilities which have been employed against it called forth in its defence some of the most distinguished masters of reason. They brought into the service of Christianity the same weapons which had been drawn for her destruction, and, wielding them with confidence and skill in a good cause, became the successful champions of the truth.

The fourth use of reason consists in judging of the truths of religion. Every thing which is revealed by God comes to his creatures from so high an authority, that it may be rested in with perfect assurance as true. Nothing can be received by us as true which is contrary to the dictates of reason, because it is impossible for us to receive at the same time the truth and the falsehood of a proposition. But many things are true which we do not fully comprehend; and many propositions, which appear incredible when they are first enunciated, are found, upon examination, such as our understandings can readily admit. These principles embrace the whole of the subject, and they mark out the steps by which reason is to proceed in judging of the truths of religion. We first examine the evidences of revelation. If these satisfy our understandings, we are certain that there can be no contradiction between the doctrines of this true religion, and the dictates of right reason. If any such contradiction appear, there must be some mistake; by not making a proper use of our reason in the interpretation of the Gospel, we suppose that it contains doctrines which it does not teach; or we give the name of right reason to some narrow prejudices which deeper reflection, and more enlarged knowledge, will dissipate; or we consider a proposition as implying a contradiction, when, in truth, it is only imperfectly understood. Here, as in every other case, mistakes are to be corrected by measuring back our steps. We must examine closely and impartially the meaning of those passages which appear to contain the doctrine; we must compare them with one another; we must endeavour to derive light from the general phraseology of Scripture and the analogy of faith; and we shall generally be able, in this way, to separate the doctrine from all those adventitious circumstances which give it the appearance of absurdity. If a doctrine which, upon the closest examination, appears unquestionably to be taught in Scripture, still does not approve itself to our understanding, we must consider carefully what it is that prevents us from receiving it. There may be preconceived notions hastily taken up which that doctrine opposes; there may be pride of understanding that does not readily submit to the views which it communicates; or reason may need to be reminded, that we must expect to find in religion many things which we are not able to comprehend. One of the most important offices of reason is to recognize her own limits. She never can be moved, by any authority, to receive as true what she perceives to be absurd. But, if she has formed a just estimate of human knowledge, she will not shelter her presumption in rejecting the truths of revelation under the pretence of contradictions that do not really exist; she will readily admit that there may be in a subject some points which she knows, and others of which she is ignorant; she will not allow her ignorance of the latter to shake the evidence of the former, but will yield a firm assent to that which she does understand, without presuming to deny what is beyond her comprehension. And thus, availing herself of all the light which she now has, she will wait in humble hope for the time when a larger measure shall be imparted.

REBEKAH, the wife of Isaac. See ISAAC.

RECEIPT OF CUSTOM. Matthew, when called, was sitting at the receipt of custom, or dues on merchandise. He was a publican or tax-gatherer, or, as we should say, a custom house officer. The publicans had houses or booths built for them at the foot of bridges, at the mouth of rivers, by the sea shore, and the parts of the lake of Gennesareth, or sea of Tiberias, to collect the taxes on passengers and merchandise. See PUBLICAN.

RECHABITES. The Rechabites, though they dwelt among the Israelites, did not belong to any of their tribes; for they were Kenites, as appears from 1 Chron. ii, 55, where the Kenites are said to have come of “Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab.” These Kenites, afterward styled Rechabites, were of the family of Jethro, otherwise called Hobab, whose daughter Moses married; for “the children of the Kenite, Moses’s father-in-law,” it is said, “went up out of the city of palm trees with the children of Judah, and dwelt among the people,” Judges i, 16; and we read of “Heber the Kenite, who was of the children of Hobab, the father-in-law of Moses, who had severed himself from the Kenites,” or from the bulk of them who settled in the tribe of Judah, “and pitched his tent in the plain of Zaanaim,” Judges iv, 11. They appear to have sprung from Midian, the son of Abraham by Keturah, Gen. xxv, 2; for Jethro, from whom they are descended, is called a Midianite, Num. x, 23. Of this family was Jehonadab, the son of Rechab, a man of eminent zeal for the pure worship of God against idolatry, who assisted King Jehu in destroying the house of Ahab, and the worshippers of Baal, 2 Kings x, 15, 16, 23, &c. It was he who gave that rule of life to his children and posterity which we read of in Jer. xxxv, 6, 7. It consisted of these three articles: that they should drink no wine; that they should neither possess nor occupy any houses, fields, or vineyards; that they should dwell in tents. This was the institution of the children of Rechab; and this they continued to observe for upward of three hundred years, from the time of Jehu to that of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, when Nebuchadnezzar coming to besiege Jerusalem, the Rechabites were obliged to leave the country and take refuge in the city. In Jer. xxxv, there is a promise made to this people, that Jonadab, the son of Rechab, should not want a man to stand before the Lord; that is, that his posterity should not fail: and to this day this tribe is found among the Arabians of the desert, distinct, free, and practising exactly the institutions of Jonadab, whose name they bear, and of whose institutions they boast. This is a remarkable instance of the exact fulfilment of a minute and isolated prophecy. See BENI KHAIBIR.

RECONCILIATION. The expressions “reconciliation” and “making peace” necessarily suppose a previous state of hostility between God and man, which is reciprocal. This is sometimes called enmity, a term, as it respects God, rather unfortunate, since enmity is almost fixed in our language to signify a malignant and revengeful feeling. Of this, the oppugners of the doctrine of the atonement have availed themselves to argue, that as there can be no such affection in the divine nature, therefore, reconciliation in Scripture does not mean the reconciliation of God to man, but of man to God, whose enmity the example and teaching of Christ, they tell us, is very effectual to subdue. It is, indeed, a sad and humbling truth, and one which the Socinians in their discussions on the natural innocence of man are not willing to admit, that by the infection of sin “the carnal mind is enmity to God,” that human nature is malignantly hostile to God and to the control of his law; but this is far from expressing the whole of that relation of man in which, in Scripture, he is said to be at enmity with God, and so to need a reconciliation, the making of peace between God and him. That relation is a legal one, as that of a sovereign in his judicial capacity, and a criminal who has violated his laws and risen up against his authority, and who is, therefore, treated as an enemy. The word ἐχθρὸς is used in this passive sense, both in the Greek writers and in the New Testament. So, in Romans xi, 28, the Jews, rejected and punished for refusing the Gospel, are said by the Apostle, “as concerning the Gospel,” to be “enemies for your sakes;” treated and accounted such; “but, as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.” In the same epistle, v, 10, the term is used precisely in the same sense, and that with reference to the reconciliation by Christ: “For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son;” that is, when we were objects of the divine judicial displeasure, accounted as enemies, and liable to be capitally treated as such. Enmity, in the sense of malignity and the sentiment of hatred, is added to this relation in the case of man; but it is no part of the relation itself; it is rather a cause of it, as it is one of the actings of a corrupt nature which render man obnoxious to the displeasure of God, and the penalty of his law, and place him in the condition of an enemy. It is this judicial variance and opposition between God and man which is referred to in the term reconciliation, and in the phrase “making peace,” in the New Testament; and the hostility is, therefore, in its own nature, mutual.

But that there is no truth in the notion, that reconciliation means no more than our laying aside our enmity to God, may also be shown from several express passages. The first is the passage we have above cited: “For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God,” Rom. v, 10. Here the act of reconciling is ascribed to God, and not to us; but if this reconciliation consisted in the laying aside of our own enmity, the act would be ours alone: and, farther, that it could not be the laying aside of our enmity, is clear from the text, which speaks of reconciliation while we were yet enemies. The reconciliation spoken of here is not, as Socinus and his followers have said, our conversion. For that the Apostle is speaking of a benefit obtained for us previous to our conversion, appears evident from the opposite members of the two sentences, “much more, being justified, we shall be saved from wrath through him,” “much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.” The Apostle argues from the greater to the less. If God were so benign to us before our conversion, what may we not expect from him now we are converted? To reconcile here cannot mean to convert; for the Apostle evidently speaks of something greatly remarkable in the act of Christ; but to convert sinners is nothing remarkable, since none but sinners can be ever converted; whereas it was a rare and singular thing for Christ to die for sinners, and to reconcile sinners to God by his death, when there have been but very few good men who have died for their friends. In the next place, conversion is referred more properly to his glorious life, than to his shameful death; but this reconciliation is attributed to his death, as contradistinguished from his glorious life, as is evident from the antithesis contained in the two verses. Beside, it is from the latter benefit that we learn the nature of the former. The latter, which belongs only to the converted, consists of the peace of God, and salvation from wrath, Rom. v, 9, 10. This the Apostle afterward calls receiving the reconciliation. And what is it to receive the reconciliation, but to receive the remission of sins? Acts x, 43. To receive conversion is a mode of speaking entirely unknown. If, then, to receive the reconciliation is to receive the remission of sins, and in effect to be delivered from wrath or punishment, to be reconciled must have a corresponding signification.

“God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them,” 2 Cor. v, 19. Here the manner of this reconciliation is expressly said to be, not our laying aside our enmity, but the non-imputation of our trespasses to us by God; in other words, the pardoning of our offences and restoring us to favour. The promise, on God’s part, to do this, is expressive of his previous reconciliation to the world by the death of Christ; for our actual reconciliation is distinguished from this by what follows, “and hath committed to us the ministry of reconciliation,” by virtue of which all men were, by the Apostles, entreated and besought to be reconciled to God. The reason, too, of this reconciliation of God to the world, by virtue of which he promises not to impute sin, is grounded by the Apostle, in the last verse of the chapter, not upon the laying aside of enmity by men, but upon the sacrifice of Christ: “For he hath made him to be sin,” a sin-offering, “for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” “And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby,” Eph. ii, 16. Here the act of reconciling is attributed to Christ. Man is not spoken of as reconciling himself to God; but Christ is said to reconcile Jews and Gentiles together, and both to God, “by his cross.” Thus, says the Apostle, “he is our peace;” but in what manner is the peace effected? Not, in the first instance, by subduing the enmity of man’s heart, but by removing the enmity of “the law.” “Having abolished in” or by “his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments.” The ceremonial law only is here, probably meant; for by its abolition, through its fulfilment in Christ, the enmity between Jews and Gentiles was taken away; but still it was not only necessary to reconcile Jew and Gentile together, but to “reconcile both unto God.” This he did by the same act; abolishing the ceremonial law by becoming the antitype of all its sacrifices, and thus, by the sacrifice of himself, effecting the reconciliation of all to God, “slaying the enmity by his cross,” taking away whatever hindered the reconciliation of the guilty to God, which, as we have seen, was not enmity and hatred to God in the human mind only, but that judicial hostility and variance which separated God and man as Judge and criminal. The feeble criticism of Socinus, on this passage, in which he has been followed by his adherents to this day, is thus answered by Grotius: “In this passage the dative Θεῷ, _to God_, can only be governed by the verb ἀποκατάλλαξῃ, _that he might reconcile_; for the interpretation of Socinus, which makes _to God_ stand by itself, or that to reconcile to God is to reconcile them among themselves, that they might serve God, is distorted and without example. Nor is the argument valid which is drawn from thence, that in this place St. Paul properly treats of the peace made between Jews and Gentiles; for neither does it follow from this argument, that it was beside his purpose to mention the peace made for each with God. For the two opposites which are joined, are so joined among themselves, that they should be primarily and chiefly joined by that bond; for they are not united among themselves, except by and for that bond. Gentiles and Jews, therefore, are made friends among themselves by friendship with God.”

Here also a critical remark will be appropriate. The above passages will show how falsely it has been asserted that God is no where in Scripture said to be reconciled to us, and that they only declare that we are reconciled to God; but the fact is, that the very phrase of _our being reconciled to God_ imports the turning away of his wrath from us. Whitby observes, on the words καταλλάττειν and καταλλαγὴ, “that they naturally import the reconciliation of one that is angry or displeased with us, both in profane and Jewish writers.” When the Philistines suspected that David would appease the anger of Saul, by becoming their adversary, they said, “Wherewith should he _reconcile_ himself to his master? Should it not be with the heads of these men?” not, surely, How shall he remove his own anger against his master? but, how shall he remove his master’s anger against him? How shall he restore himself to his master’s favour? “If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee,” not, that thou hast aught against thy brother, “first be reconciled to thy brother;” that is, appease and conciliate him; so that the words, in fact, import, “See that thy brother be reconciled to thee,” since that which goes before is, not that he hath done thee an injury, but thou him. Thus, then, for us to be reconciled to God is to avail ourselves of the means by which the anger of God toward us is to be appeased, which the New Testament expressly declares to be meritoriously “the sin-offering” of Him “who knew no sin,” and instrumentally, as to each individual personally, “faith in his blood.” See PROPITIATION.

REDEEMER. The Hebrew _goel_ is thus rendered, and the title is applied to Christ, as he is the Avenger of man upon his spiritual enemy, and delivers man from death and the power of the grave, which the human avenger could not do. The right of the institution of _goel_ was only in a relative, one of the same blood; and hence our Saviour’s assumption of our nature is alluded to and implied under this term. There was also the right of buying back the family inheritance when alienated; and this also applies to Christ, our _Goel_, who has purchased back the heavenly inheritance into the human family. Under these views Job joyfully exclaims, “I know that my Redeemer,” my _Goel_, “liveth,” &c. See GOEL, MEDIATOR, and JESUS CHRIST.

REDEMPTION denotes our recovery from sin and death by the obedience and sacrifice of Christ, who, on this account, is called the Redeemer. “Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,” Rom. iii, 24. “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us,” Gal. iii, 13. “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace,” Eph. i, 7. “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish, and without spot,” 1 Pet. i, 18, 19. “And ye are not your own, for ye are bought with a price,” 1 Cor. vi, 19, 20.

By redemption, those who deny the atonement made by Christ wish to understand _deliverance_ merely, regarding only the effect, and studiously putting out of sight the cause from which it flows. But the very terms used in the above cited passages, “to redeem,” and “to be bought with a price,” will each be found to refute this notion of a gratuitous deliverance, whether from sin or punishment, or both. Our English word, _to redeem_, literally means “to buy back;” and λυτρόω, _to redeem_, and ἀπολύτρωσις, _redemption_, are, both in Greek writers and in the New Testament, used for the act of setting free a captive, by paying λυτρον, _a ransom_ or _redemption price_. But, as Grotius has fully shown, by reference to the use of the words both in sacred and profane writers, redemption signifies not merely “the liberation of captives,” but deliverance from exile, death, and every other evil from which we may be freed; and λύτρον signifies every thing which satisfies another, so as to effect this deliverance. The nature of this redemption or purchased deliverance, (for it is not gratuitous liberation, as will presently appear,) is, therefore, to be ascertained by the circumstances of those who are the subjects of it. The subjects in the case before us are sinful men. They are under guilt, under “the curse of the law,” the servants of sin, under the power and dominion of the devil, and “taken captive by him at his will,” liable to the death of the body and to eternal punishment. To the whole of this case, the redemption, the purchased deliverance of man, as proclaimed in the Gospel, applies itself. Hence, in the above cited and other passages, it is said, “We have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins,” in opposition to guilt; redemption from “the curse of the law;” deliverance from sin, that “we should be set free from sin;” deliverance from the power of Satan; from death, by a resurrection; and from future “wrath,” by the gift of eternal life. Throughout the whole of this glorious doctrine of our redemption from these tremendous evils there is, however, in the New Testament, a constant reference to the λύτρον, _the redemption price_, which λύτρον is as constantly declared to be the death of Christ, which he endured in our stead. “The Son of man came to give his life a _ransom_ for many,” Matt. xx, 28. “Who gave himself a _ransom_ for all,” 1 Tim. ii, 6. “In whom we have _redemption_ through his blood,” Eph. i, 7. “Ye were not _redeemed_ with corruptible things, as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ,” 1 Pet. i, 18, 19. That deliverance of man from sin, misery, and all other penal evils of his transgression, which constitutes our redemption by Christ, is not, therefore, a gratuitous deliverance, granted without a consideration, as an act of mere prerogative; the ransom, the redemption price, was exacted and paid; one thing was given for another, the precious blood of Christ for captive and condemned men. Of the same import are those passages which represent us as having been “bought,” or “purchased” by Christ. St. Peter speaks of those “who denied the Lord τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτους, that bought them;” and St. Paul, in the passage above cited, says, “Ye are bought with a price, ἠγόρασθητε;” which price is expressly said by St. John to be the blood of Christ: “Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God (ἠγόρασας, hast purchased us) by thy blood,” Rev. v, 9.

RED SEA, celebrated chiefly for the miraculous passage of the Israelites through its waters. They were thrust out of Egypt, says Dr. Hales, on the fifteenth day of the first month; “about six hundred thousand men on foot, beside women and children. And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks and herds, even very much cattle,” Exod. xii, 37–39; Num. xi, 4; xxxiii, 3. After they set out from Rameses, in the land of Goshen, in the neighbourhood of Cairo, their first encampment was at Succoth, signifying “booths,” or an “enclosure for cattle,” after a stage of about thirty miles; their second, at Etham, or Adsjerud, on the edge of the wilderness, about sixty miles farther; “for the Lord led them not by the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt: but God led the people about by the way of the wilderness of the Red Sea,” or by a circuitous rout to the land of promise, in order to train them and instruct them, in the solitudes of Arabia Petræa, Exodus xiii, 17–20; Deut. xxxii, 10. Instead of proceeding from Etham, round the head of the Red Sea, and coasting along its eastern shore, the Lord made them turn southward along its western shore, and, after a stage of about twenty or thirty miles, to encamp in the valley of Bedea, where there was an opening in the great chain of mountains that line the western coast, called Pi-hahiroth, the mouth of the ridge between Migdol westward, and the sea eastward, “over against Baal-zephon,” on the eastern coast; to tempt Pharaoh, whose heart he finally hardened, to pursue them when they were “entangled in the land,” and shut in by the wilderness on their rear and flanks, and by the sea in their front. The leading motive with Pharaoh and his servants was to bring back the Israelites to bondage, and of the Egyptians in general, to recover the treasures of which they had been spoiled, Exod. xiv, 1–5. So Pharaoh pursued the Israelites by the direct way of Migdol, with six hundred chariots, his horsemen, and his army, and overtook them encamping by the sea, beside Pi-hahiroth, over against Baal-zephon. When their destruction, or their return to bondage, seemed to be inevitable, the Lord interposed and fought for Israel. He opened for them a passage across the Red Sea, where it was about twelve miles wide, and brought them through in safety; while he drowned the Egyptians, who blindly followed them to their own destruction, Psalm lxxvii, 18, &c.

On this memorable deliverance Moses composed a thanksgiving, which he and the Israelites sung unto the Lord. It is also a sublime prophecy, foretelling the powerful effect of this tremendous judgment on the neighbouring nations of Edom, Moab, Palestine, and Canaan, the future settlement of the Israelites in the promised land; and the erection of the temple and sanctuary on Mount Zion, and the perpetuity of the dominion and worship of God.

The precise place of this passage has been much contested. Some place it near Suez, at the head of the gulf; others, with more probability, about ten hours’ journey lower down, at Clysma, or the vale of Bedea. The day before the passage, by the divine command, the Israelites encamped beside Pi-hahiroth, “between Migdol and the sea, over against Baal-zephon,” Exodus xiv, 2; Num. xxxiii, 7. Pi-hahiroth signifies “the mouth of the ridge,” or chain of mountains, which line the western coast of the Red Sea, called Attaka, “deliverance,” in which was a gap, which formed the extremity of the valley of Bedea, ending at the sea eastward, and running westward to some distance, toward Cairo; Migdol, signifying “a tower,” probably lay in that direction; and Baal-zephon, signifying “the northern Baal,” was probably a temple on the opposite promontory, built on the eastern coast of the Red Sea. And the modern names of places in the vicinity tend to confirm these expositions of the ancient. Beside Attaka, on the eastern coast opposite, is a head land, called _Ras Musa_, or “the Cape of Moses;” somewhat lower, _Hamam Faraun_, “Pharaoh’s Springs;” below Girondel, a reach of the gulf, called _Birket Faraun_; and the general name of the gulf is _Bahr al Kolsum_, “the Bay of Submersion.” These names indicate that the passage was considerably below Suez, according to the tradition of the natives. The depth and breadth of the gulf, from Suez downward, is thus described by Niebuhr: “I have not found in this sea, from Suez southward, any bank or isthmus under water. When we departed from Suez, we sailed as far as Girondel, without fear of encountering any such. We had in the first place, the road of Suez, four fathom and half; at three German leagues from Suez, in the middle of the gulf, four fathoms; and about Girondel, near the shore, even to ten fathoms.” Bruce, also, describing the place of passage opposite Ras Musa, or a little below it, says, “There is here about fourteen fathom of water in the channel, and about nine in the sides, and good anchorage every where. The farthest side, the eastern, is a low sandy coast, and a very easy landing place.” Shaw reckons the breadth of the gulf at this place about ten miles; Neibuhr, three leagues and more; Bruce, something less than four leagues: we may therefore estimate it about twelve miles, from their joint reports. But this space the host of the Israelites could easily have passed in the course of a night, from the evening to the ensuing morning watch, or dawn of day, according to the Mosaical account. And surely the depth of the sea was no impediment, when the Lord divided it by “a strong east wind,” which blew across the sea all that night, and made the bottom of the sea dry land; “and the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground, and the waters were a wall unto them, on their right hand and on their left,” Exodus xiv, 21, 22.

In the queries of Michaëlis, sent to Niebuhr, when in Egypt, it was proposed to him to inquire upon the spot, whether there were not some ridges of rocks where the water was shallow, so that an army at particular times may pass over; secondly, whether the Etesian winds, which blow strongly all summer from the north-west, could not blow so violently against the sea as to keep it back on a heap, so that the Israelites might have passed without a miracle. And a copy of these queries was left, also, for Bruce, to join his inquiries likewise; his observations on which are excellent: “I must confess, however learned the gentlemen were who proposed these doubts, I did not think they merited any attention to solve them. This passage is told us by Scripture to be a miraculous one; and if so, we have nothing to do with natural causes. If we do not believe Moses, we need not believe the transaction at all, seeing that it is from his authority alone we derive it. If we believe in God, that he made the sea, we must believe he could divide it when he sees proper reason; and of that he must be the only judge. It is no greater miracle to divide the Red Sea than to divide the river Jordan. If the Etesian wind, blowing from the north-west in summer, could keep up the sea as a wall on the right, or to the south, of fifty feet high, still the difficulty would remain of building the wall on the left hand, or to the north. Beside, water standing in that position for a day must have lost the nature of fluid. Whence came that cohesion of particles which hindered that wall to escape at the sides? This is as great a miracle as that of Moses. If the Etesian winds had done this once, they must have repeated it many a time before and since, from the same causes. Yet Diodorus Siculus says the Troglodytes, the indigenous inhabitants of that very spot, had a tradition from father to son, from their very earliest ages, that ‘once this division of the sea did happen there; and that, after leaving its bottom some time dry, the sea again came back, and covered it with great fury.’ The words of this author are of the most remarkable kind: we cannot think this Heathen is writing in favour of revelation: he knew not Moses, nor says a word about Pharaoh and his host; but records the miracle of the division of the sea in words nearly as strong as those of Moses, from the mouths of unbiassed, undesigning Pagans.” Still skeptical queries have their use; they lead to a stricter investigation of facts, and thereby tend strongly to confirm the veracity of the history they mean to impeach. Thus it appears from the accurate observations of Niebuhr and Bruce, that there is no ledge of rocks running across the gulf any where, to afford a shallow passage. And the second query, about the Etesian or northerly wind, is refuted by the express mention of a strong easterly wind blowing across, and scooping out a dry passage; not that it was necessary for Omnipotence to employ it there as an instrument, any more than at Jordan; but it seems to be introduced in the sacred history by way of anticipation, to exclude the natural agency that might in after times be employed for solving the miracle; and it is remarkable that the monsoon in the Red Sea blows the summer half of the year from the north, the winter half from the south, neither of which therefore, even if wind could be supposed to operate so violently upon the waters, could produce the miracle in question.

Wishing to diminish, though not to deny, the miracle, Niebuhr adopts the opinion of those who contend for a higher passage near Suez. “For,” says he, “the miracle would be less if they crossed the sea there than near Bedea. But whosoever should suppose that the multitude of the Israelites could be able to cross it here without a prodigy would deceive himself; for, even in our days, no caravan passes that way to go from Cairo to Mount Sinai, although it would considerably shorten the journey. The passage would have been naturally more difficult for the Israelites some thousands of years back, when the gulf was probably larger, deeper, and more extended toward the north; for, in all appearance, the water has retired, and the ground near this end has been raised by the sands of the neighbouring desert.” But it sufficiently appears, even from Niebuhr’s own statement, that the passage of the Israelites could not have been taken near Suez; for, 1. He evidently confounded the town of Kolsum, the ruins of which he places near Suez, and where he supposed the passage to be made, with the bay of Kolsum, which began about forty-five miles lower down; as Bryant has satisfactorily proved, from the astronomical observations of Ptolemy and of Ulug Beigh, made at Heroum, the ancient head of the gulf. 2. Instead of crossing the sea at or near Ethan, their second station, the Israelites turned southward, along the western shore; and their third station at Pi-hahiroth, or Bedea, was at least a full day’s journey below Ethan, as Bryant has satisfactorily proved from Scripture, Exodus xiv, 2. And it was this unexpected change in the direction of their march, and the apparently disadvantageous situation in which they were then placed, entangled in the land, and shut in by the wilderness, with a deep sea in front, the mountains of Attaka on the sides, and the enemy in their rear, that tempted the Egyptians to pursue them through the valley of Bedea, by the direct route from Cairo, who overtook them encamping by the sea, beside Pi-hahiroth, opposite to Ball-zephon, Exod. xiv, 2–9.

Niebuhr wonders how the Israelites could suffer themselves to be brought into such a disadvantageous situation, or be led blindfold by Moses to their apparent destruction. “One need only travel with a caravan,” says he, “which meets with the least obstacle, namely, a small torrent, to be convinced that the orientals do not let themselves be led, like fools, by their caravan _baschi_,” or leader of the caravan. But the Israelites went out of Egypt with “a high hand,” though led by Moses, yet under the visible guidance and protection of “the Lord God of the Hebrews,” who “went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, and by night in a pillar of fire;” and who, for their encouragement, to enter the passage of the sea miraculously prepared for them, removed the cloud which went before the camp of Israel hitherto, and placed it behind them. “And it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness to the one, but gave light by night to the other: so that the one came not near the other all the night,” Exod. xiv, 8–20.

Niebuhr wonders, also, how Pharaoh and the Egyptians could be led to follow the Israelites. “Pharaoh must have wanted prudence, if, after having seen so many prodigies in Egypt, he had entered into a sea of more than three leagues wide: all the Egyptians, too, must have been bereft of understanding, in wishing to pursue the Israelites into such a sea. Doubtless they knew their own country well enough to distinguish the bottom of a large sea, which bounds Egypt on that side, from a desert.” But Pharaoh and the Egyptians probably did not know their situation. The cloud which separated them from the Israelites increased the darkness of the night; and they probably did not enter into the sea till about midnight, by which time the van of the Israelites might have reached the eastern shore. Meanwhile, the bed of the sea, now beaten by the feet of the immense multitude of men and cattle that had gone before, might not have been easily distinguishable from the desert. If we ask, Why did the Egyptians venture to pursue the Israelites by night? Why did they not wait till day light, when they could see whither they were going? Niebuhr himself has unwittingly answered the question: Pharaoh wanted “prudence,” indeed, and the Egyptians were “bereft of understanding.” And this is the Scriptural solution; for God hardened the heart of Pharaoh to follow after them, that he might be honoured upon Pharaoh and all his host; and that, by their miraculous destruction, the Egyptians might know that he was the Lord supreme, Exod. xiv, 4–18. The Egyptians did not find out their mistake till the “morning appeared,” or till day-break, when the rear of the Israelites had gained the shore, and the Egyptians had reached the middle of the sea, and their whole host had entered into it: then, indeed, they attempted to fly back, but in vain; for “their chariot wheels were broken off, so that they drave them heavily, and their host was troubled” by the Lord, who looked or frowned upon them through the cloudy pillar of fire, and overwhelmed all their host in the midst of the sea; when the sea suddenly returned to his strength at the signal of Moses stretching forth his hand over it, Exod. xiv, 24–28.

The particulars of this transaction demonstrate, that neither the host of the Israelites, nor the host of Pharaoh, could possibly have passed at the head of the gulf near Suez; where the sea was only half a league broad, according to Niebuhr’s own supposition, and consequently too narrow to contain the whole host of Pharaoh at once; whose six hundred chariots alone, exclusive of his cavalry and infantry, must have occupied more ground. Manetho, and the Egyptian writers, have passed over in silence this tremendous visitation of their nation. An ancient writer, however, Artapanus, who wrote a history of the Jews, about B. C. 130, has preserved the following curious Egyptian traditions:--“The Memphites relate, that Moses, being well acquainted with the country, watched the influx of the tide, and made the multitude pass through the dry bed of the sea. But the Heliopolitans relate, that the king, with a great army, accompanied by the sacred animals, pursued after the Jews, who had carried off with them the substance of the Egyptians; and that Moses, having been directed by a divine voice to strike the sea with his rod, when he heard it, touched the water with his rod; and so the fluid divided, and the host passed over through a dry way. But when the Egyptians entered along with them, and pursued them, it is said, that fire flashed against them in front, and the sea, returning back, overwhelmed the passage. Thus the Egyptians perished, both by the fire, and by the reflux of the tide.“

The latter account is extremely curious: it not only confirms Scripture, but it notices three additional circumstances: 1. That for their protection against the God of Israel, the Egyptians brought with them the sacred animals; and by this means God executed judgment upon all the bestial gods of Egypt, as foretold, Exod. xii, 12, that perished with their infatuated votaries; completing the destruction of both, which began with smiting the first-born both of man and beast. 2. That the recovery of the jewels of silver and jewels of gold, and raiment, which they asked and obtained of the Egyptians, according to the divine command, Exod. xii, 35, 36, was a leading motive with the Egyptians to pursue them; as the bringing back the Israelites to slavery had been with Pharaoh and his servants, or officers. 3. That the destruction of the Egyptians was partly occasioned by lightning and thunderbolts from the presence of the Lord; exactly corresponding to the psalmist’s sublime description: “The waters saw thee, O God, the waters saw thee; they were afraid: the depths also were troubled. The clouds poured out water, the air thundered, thine arrows also went abroad. Yea, he sent out his arrows, and scattered them; he shot forth lightnings, hail stones, and coals of fire, and discomfited them. Then the channels of waters were seen, and the foundations of the world were discovered, at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils,” Psalm lxxvii, 16, 17; xviii, 13–15.

The Red Sea derived its name from Edom, signifying “red,” a title of Esau, to whom the bordering country of Edom, or Idumæa, belonged, Gen. xxv, 30; xxxvi, 31–40. It was also called _Yam Suph_, “the weedy sea,” in several passages, Num. xxxiii, 10; Psalm cvi, 9, &c, which are improperly rendered “the Red Sea.” Some learned authors have supposed that it was so named from the quantity of weeds in it. “But in contradiction to this,” says Bruce, “I must confess, that I never in my life, and I have seen the whole extent of it, saw a weed of any sort in it. And indeed, upon the slightest consideration, it will appear to any one, that a narrow gulf, under the immediate influence of monsoons, blowing from contrary points six months each year, would have too much agitation to produce such vegetables, seldom found but in stagnant water, and seldomer, if ever, found in salt ones. My opinion then is, that it is from the large trees, or plants, of white coral, perfectly in imitation of plants on land, that the sea has taken the name ‘weedy.’ I saw one of these, which, from a root nearly central, threw out ramifications in a nearly central form, measuring twenty-six feet diameter every way.” This seems to be the most probable solution that has been hitherto proposed of the name. The tides in this sea are but moderate. At Suez the difference between high and low water did not exceed from three to four feet, according to Niebuhr’s observations on the tides in that gulf, during the years 1762 and 1763.

REED, אגמון, Job xl, 21; xli, 2, 20; Isaiah ix, 14; xix, 15; lviii, 5; κάλαμος, Matt. xi, 7; a plant growing in fenny and watery places; very weak and slender, and bending with the least breath of wind, Matt. xi, 7; Luke vii, 24. Thus it is threatened, “The Lord shall smite Israel as a reed is shaken in the water, and he shall root up Israel out of the good land which he gave to their fathers, and shall scatter them beyond the river, because they have made their idol groves, provoking him to anger,” 1 Kings xiv, 15. The slenderness and fragility of the reed is mentioned in 2 Kings xviii, 21; Isaiah xxxvi, 6; and is referred to in Matt. xii, 20, where the remark, illustrating the gentleness of our Saviour, is quoted from the prophecy of Isaiah, xlii, 3. The Hebrew word in these places is קנה, as also in Job xl, 21; Isaiah xix, 6; xxxv, 7; Ezek. xxix, 6. See CANE.

REFORMATION, usually spoken of the great Reformation in the church, begun by Luther in 1517. The sad departure from the standard of holiness which the Romish hierarchy should have placed before them, combined with the indecency and arrogance with which they trampled upon the rights of sovereigns, and upon the property and the comfort of all classes of men, had, for a considerable period, produced a general conviction, that a reformation of the church in its head and members, to use the expression which was then prevalent, was absolutely requisite: and some steps to accomplish this had been actually taken. The celebrated council of Constance, while, in its efforts to heal the schism which had so long grieved and scandalized the Catholic world, it set aside the rival pontiffs who claimed to be the successors of St. Peter, laid down the important maxim, that a general council was superior to a pope, and that its decisions can restrain his power; and this doctrine, which might otherwise have appeared to arise out of the extraordinary circumstances under which it was declared, was fully confirmed by the council of Basil, which met several years after, and which decided the point upon grounds that might at all times be urged. The popes, indeed, remonstrated against this, but still they were compelled to lower their tone; and they were often reminded, even within the precincts of their own court, that the period was fast approaching when the fallacy of many of their pretensions would be ascertained and exposed. It had become common, before the election of a new pontiff, to frame certain articles of reformation, which the successful candidate was required to swear that he would carry into effect; and although the oath was uniformly disregarded or violated, the views which led to the imposition of it indicated the existence of a spirit which could not be eradicated, and which might, from events that could not be foreseen, and could not be controlled, acquire a vigour which no exertion of power could resist. Such, under the beneficent arrangement of Providence, was soon actually the case. In the progress of the opposition made to some of the worst abuses of Rome, they who conducted that opposition were guided to the word of life; they studied it with avidity and with delight; and they found themselves furnished by it with sufficient armour for the mighty contest in which they were to engage. They discovered in the New Testament what Christianity really was; their representations of it were received with wonder, and read with avidity; the secession from the church of Rome became much more rapid and much more extensive than it had previously been, and all possibility of reconciliation with that church was done away. Of this the popes were fully aware; and as the only way of counteracting that which was to them so formidable, they attempted, by various devices, to fetter the press, to prevent the circulation of the Bible, and thus again to plunge the world into that intellectual darkness from which it had been happily delivered. The scheme was impracticable. The “_Indices Expurgatorii_,” in which they pointed out the works that they condemned, and which they declared it to be heresy and pollution to peruse, increased the desire to become acquainted with them; and although some who indulged that curiosity suffered the punishment denounced by the inquisition against the enemies of papal superstition, there was an immense proportion which even spiritual tyranny could not reach; so that the light which had been kindled daily brightened, till it shone with unclouded lustre through many of the most powerful and the most refined nations of Europe.

It is worthy of careful observation, that the resistance which ultimately proved so successful, was first occasioned by practices that had been devised for establishing the monstrous despotism of the popes; that when it commenced, it was directed against what was conceived to be an abuse of power, without the slightest suspicion being entertained that the power itself was unchristian; that the reformers gradually advanced; every additional inquiry to which they were conducted enlarging their views, and bringing them acquainted with fresh proofs of that daring usurpation to which men had long submitted, till at length the foundation upon which the whole system, venerated through ages, rested, was disclosed to them, and perceived to be a foundation of sand. The consequence was, that the supremacy of the pope was by multitudes abjured; that he was branded as antichrist; that communion with the popish church was avoided as sinful, and that the form of ecclesiastical polity, the essential principle of which was the infallibility of the bishop of Rome, was for ever renounced. The wonderful manner in which this signal revolution, so fraught with blessings to mankind, was accomplished, the various events which mark its history, and the characters and exertions of the men by whose agency it was effected, cannot be too often surveyed, or too deeply fixed in the memory. The whole, even with reference to the illumination of the human mind and the improvement of the social state of the world, is in a high degree interesting; and that interest is unspeakably increased by our discerning the most striking evidence of the gracious interposition of Providence dissipating the cloud which obscured divine truth, and restoring to mankind that sacred treasure which is sufficient to make all who seriously examine it wise unto salvation. It does not, however, come within the province of this work to give a minute history of the origin and progress of the Reformation, to trace the steps of Zuinglius and of Luther, and to detail the circumstances which advanced or retarded them in the glorious career upon which they had entered. Much discussion has taken place with respect to the motives by which Luther was actuated. This point, in reference to what he accomplished, is really of little moment; but there cannot be a doubt that although he might, throughout his arduous struggle, be guided occasionally by inferior considerations, he was eventually, at least, chiefly animated by the noble and disinterested wish to emancipate his fellow creatures from what he was convinced was the direct and most infatuated spiritual oppression; that he looked to Heaven for support, and that such support he largely received.

REFUGE, CITIES OF. In order to provide for the security of those who, without design, might happen to kill a person in whatever manner it should be, the Lord commanded Moses to appoint six cities of refuge, Exod. xxi, 18; Num. xxxv, 11, &c, that whoever should undesignedly spill the blood of a fellow creature, might retire thither, and have time to prepare for his defence before the judges; so that the relatives of the deceased might not pursue and kill him. Of these cities there were three on each side Jordan. Those on this side Jordan were Kedesh of Naphtali, Hebron, and Shechem; those beyond Jordan were Bezer, Golan, and Ramoth-Gilead, Joshua xx, 7, 8. They served not only for the Hebrews, but for strangers also that should dwell in their country. These cities were to be of easy access, and to have good roads to them, and bridges wherever there should be occasion. The width of these roads was, at least, to be two-and-thirty cubits, or eight-and-forty feet. When there were any cross roads, they were careful to erect posts with an inscription pointing to the city of refuge. Every year, on the fifteenth of the month Adar, which answers to our February moon, the magistrates of the city visited the roads, to see if they were in good condition. The city was to be well supplied with water and provisions. It was not allowed to make any weapons there, lest the relatives of the deceased should be furnished with arms for the gratifying of their revenge. Lastly, it was necessary that whoever took refuge there, should understand a trade or calling, that he might not be chargeable to the inhabitants. They were wont to send some prudent persons to meet those who were pursuing their revenge for the relations, that they might dispose them to clemency, and persuade them to wait the decision of justice.

Though the man-slayer had fled to the city of refuge, yet he was not on this account exempted from the pursuit of justice. An information was preferred against him, Num. xxxv, 12; he was summoned before the judges, and before the people, to clear himself, and to prove that the murder was merely casual and involuntary. If he was found innocent, he dwelt safely in the city to which he had retired; if otherwise, he was put to death according to the severity of the law. The following texts of Scripture are not very explicit whether the affair was under the cognizance of the judges of the place where the murder was committed, or of the judges of the city of refuge to which the murderer had fled, Deut. xix, 11, 12; Joshua xx, 4–6; Num. xxxv, 25; and the commentators are at variance in this matter. But it appears, from a passage of Joshua, that the man-slayer was to undergo two trials; first, in the city of refuge, where the judges summarily examined the affair, and heard his allegations at his first arrival; secondly, when he was taken back to his own city, to be judged by the magistrates of the place, who took the cause under a more strict and scrupulous examination. If the latter judges declared him innocent, they had him reconducted, under a strong guard, to the city of refuge to which he had before fled. He was not, however, immediately liberated; but, to inspire the greater horror even of involuntary murder, it seems as if the law would punish it by a kind of banishment; for he was obliged to dwell in the city, without going out of it, till the death of the high priest; and if before that time he was imprudent enough to leave the city, the avenger of blood might safely kill him; but after the death of the high priest, he was at liberty to go whither he pleased without molestation.

It is a curious fact, that the North American Indian nations have most of them either a house or town of refuge, which is a sure asylum to protect a man-slayer, or the unfortunate captive, if they can once enter it. “In almost every Indian nation,” says Adair, “there are several peaceable towns which are called old, beloved, ancient, holy, or white towns: (white being their fixed emblem of peace, friendship, prosperity, happiness, purity, &c:) they seem to have been formerly towns of refuge; for it is not in the memory of their oldest people that ever human blood was shed in them, although they often force persons from thence, and put them to death elsewhere.” Sanctuaries affording security for criminals are still known in the east, and anciently were established in Europe.

REGENERATION, a new birth; that work of the Holy Spirit by which we experience a change of heart. It is expressed in Scripture by being born again, John iii, 7; born from above; being quickened, Eph. ii, 1; by Christ being formed in the heart, Gal. iv, 19; by our partaking of the divine nature, 2 Peter i, 4. The efficient cause of regeneration is the divine Spirit. That man is not the author of it, is evident from John i, 12, 13; iii, 4; Eph. ii, 8, 10. The instrumental cause is the word of God, James i, 18; 1 Peter i, 23; 1 Cor. iv, 15. The change in regeneration consists in the recovery of the moral image of God upon the heart; that is to say, so as to love him supremely and serve him ultimately as our highest end, and to delight in him superlatively as our chief good. The sum of the moral law is to love the Lord our God with all our heart, and soul, and strength, and mind. This is the duty of every rational creature; and in order to obey it perfectly, no part of our inward affection or actual service ought to be, at any time, or in the least degree, misapplied. Regeneration consists in the principle being implanted, obtaining the ascendancy, and habitually prevailing over its opposite. It may be remarked, that though the inspired writers use various terms and modes of speech in order to describe this change of mind, sometimes terming it conversion, regeneration, a new creation, or the new creature, putting off the old man with his deeds, and putting on the new man, walking not after the flesh, but after the Spirit, &c; yet it is all effected by the word of truth, or the Gospel of salvation, gaining an entrance into the mind, through divine teaching, so as to possess the understanding, subdue the will, and reign in the affections. In a word, it is faith working by love that constitutes the new creature, the regenerate man, Gal. v, 6; 1 John v, 1–5. Regeneration is to be distinguished from our justification, although it is connected with it. Every one who is justified, is also regenerated; but the one places us in a new _relation_, and the other in a new moral _state_. Our Lord, in one instance, uses the term regeneration for the resurrection state: “Ye which have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging,” Matt. xix, 28. And, accordingly, Dr. Campbell translates the passage thus: “At the renovation, when the Son of man shall be seated on the glorious throne, ye, my followers, sitting also upon twelve thrones, shall judge.” We are accustomed, says he, to apply the term solely to the conversion of individuals; whereas its relation here is to the general state of things. The principal completion will be at the general resurrection, when there will be, in the most important sense, a renovation or regeneration of heaven and earth, when all things shall become new.

REHOBOAM, the son and successor of Solomon; his mother was Naamah, an Ammonitish woman, whom Solomon had married, 1 Kings xiv, 20, 21. He was forty-one years of age when he began to reign, and, consequently, was born in the first year of his father’s reign, A. M. 2990, or the year before. This prince reigned seventeen years at Jerusalem, and died A. M. 3046. After the death of Solomon, Rehoboam came to Shechem, because all Israel was there assembled to make him king, 1 Kings xii. Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who had headed a sedition against Solomon, and had been compelled, toward the close of his reign, to take refuge in Egypt, as soon as he heard that this prince was dead, returned into Judea, and came to the assembly of the people of Shechem. The Israelites would have made terms with Rehoboam; but, being a poor politician, and following the advice of some junior counsellors, he managed his business so imprudently that he lost the whole house of Israel, save the tribes of Judah and Benjamin.

RELIGION. See CHRISTIANITY.

REMONSTRANTS have obtained this name, particularly on the continent, because, in 1610, they presented to the states of Holland a petition, entitled their Remonstrance, in which they stated their grievances, and prayed for relief. They are also called Arminians, because they maintained the doctrines respecting predestination and grace, which were embraced and defended by James Harmenson or Arminius, an eminent Protestant divine, and a native of Holland, who was born in 1560, and died in 1609. He first studied at Leyden, and then at Geneva. While at the university of Geneva, he studied under Beza, by whom he was instructed in the doctrines of Calvin; and having been judged by Martin Lydius, professor of divinity at Franeker, a proper person to refute a work in which the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination had been attacked by some ministers of Delft, he undertook the task. On a strict examination of the reasons on both sides, however, he became a convert to the opinions which he was employed to refute. The result of his inquiries on this, and other subjects connected with it, was, that, thinking the doctrine of Calvin with respect to free will, predestination, and grace, too severe, he expressed his doubts respecting them in the year 1591, and at length adopted the religious system of those who extend the love of God, and the merits of his Son, to all mankind. After his appointment to the theological chair of Leyden, in 1603, he avowed and vindicated the principles which he had embraced; but the prudence and caution with which he published and defended them could not screen him from the resentment of those who adhered to the theological system of Calvin, and in particular from the opposition of Gomar his colleague. After the death of Arminius, the controversy, thus begun, became more general, and threatened to involve the United Provinces in civil discord. However, the Arminian tenets gained ground, and were adopted by several persons of merit and distinction. The Calvinists or Gomarists as they were now called, appealed to a national synod. Accordingly, a synod was at length convened at Dordrecht or Dort, and was composed of ecclesiastical and lay deputies from the United Provinces, and also of ecclesiastical deputies from the reformed churches of England, Switzerland, Bremen, Hesse, and the Palatinate. This synod sat from the first of November, 1618, to the twenty-sixth of April, 1619. The principal advocate in favour of the Arminians was Episcopius, who was at that time professor of divinity at Leyden. The religious principles of the Arminians have insinuated themselves more or less into the established church in Holland, and imbued the theological system of many of those pastors who are appointed to maintain the doctrine and authority of the synod of Dort. The principles of Arminius were early introduced into various other countries, as Great Britain, France, Geneva, and many parts of Switzerland; but their progress is said to have been rather retarded of late, especially in Germany and several parts of Switzerland, by the prevalence of the Leibnitzian and Wolfian philosophy, which is more favourable to Calvinism. The distinguishing tenets of the Remonstrants may be said to consist chiefly in the different light in which they view the subjects of the five points, or in the different explanation which they give to them, and comprised in the five following articles: predestination, universal redemption, the operation of grace, the freedom of the will, and perseverance. They believe that God, having an equal regard for all his creatures, sent his Son to die for the sins not of the elect only, but of the whole world; that no mortal is rendered finally unhappy by an eternal and invincible decree, but that the misery of those who perish arises from themselves; and that, in this present imperfect state, believers, if not vigilant, may, through the force of temptation, and the influence of Satan, fall from grace, and sink into final perdition. See ARMINIANISM.

REMPHAN, כיון Ῥεμφὰ, signifies _an idol_, according to the Septuagint. Amos, v, 26, upbraids the Hebrews with having carried, during their wanderings in the wilderness, the tabernacle of their Moloch and Chiun, their images, the star of their god, which they made to themselves, according to our version of the Bible. St. Stephen, quoting this passage of Amos, says, “Ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan,” Acts vii, 43, which has given occasion to a variety of conjectures. Grotius thinks it to have been some deity, as Rimmon; and Capellus and Hammond take this Remphan to be a king of Egypt, deified by his subjects; a late writer is of opinion, that God here refers to the idolatries to which in succeeding ages the Jews were gradually given up, after having begun to revolt in the wilderness by the sin of the golden calf.

REPENTANCE is sometimes used generally for a change of mind, and an earnest wishing that something were undone that has been done. Esau found no place for repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears; he could not move his father Isaac to repent of what he had done, or to recall the blessing from Jacob and confer it on himself, Heb. xii, 17; Matt. iii, 2; iv, 17. Taken in a religious sense it signifies conviction of sin and sorrow for it. But there is, 1. A partial or worldly repentance, wherein one is grieved for and turns from his sin, merely on account of the hurt it has done, or is likely to do, him: so a malefactor, who still loves his sin, repents of doing it, because it brings him to punishment. 2. An evangelical repentance, which is a godly sorrow wrought in the heart of a sinful person by the word and Spirit of God, whereby, from a sense of his sin, as offensive to God, and defiling and endangering to his own soul, and from an apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, he, with grief and hatred of all his known sins, turns from them to God, as his Saviour and Lord. This is called “repentance toward God,” as therein we turn from sin to him; and “repentance unto life,” as it leads to spiritual life, and is the first step to eternal life, Matt. iii, 2; Acts iii, 19; xi, 18; xx, 12. God himself is said to repent, but this can only be understood of his altering his conduct toward his creatures, either in the bestowing of good or the infliction of evil: which change in the divine conduct is founded on a change in his creatures; and thus, speaking after the manner of men, God is said to repent.

REPETITIONS IN PRAYER. These are forbidden by our Lord, and were well styled “vain,” if they consisted, as among the Mohammedans, in the repetition of words and phrases. Richardson mentions an old man who travelled with him, who was thought to be of peculiar sanctity, and most devout in prayer: “Certainly he did not pray in secret, communing with his heart, but called aloud with all his might, and repeated the words as fast as his tongue could give them utterance. The form and words of his prayer were the same with those of the others; but this good man had made a vow to repeat certain words of the prayer a given number of times, both night and morning. The word rabboni, for example, answering to our word Lord, he would bind himself to repeat a hundred or two hundred times, twice a day; and, accordingly, went on in the hearing of all the party; and, on his knees sometimes with his face directed steadily to heaven, and at other times bowing down to the ground, and calling out rabboni, rabboni, rabboni, rabboni, rabboni, &c, as fast as he could articulate the words after each other, like a school boy going through his task, not like a man who, praying with the heart and the understanding also, continues longer on his knees, in the rapture of devotion, whose soul is a flame of fire, enkindled by his Maker, and fixing upon his God, like Jacob, will not let him go until he bless him. Having settled his accounts with the word rabboni, which the telling of his beads enabled him to know when he had done, he proceeded to dispose of his other vows in a similar manner. _Allah houakbar_, perhaps, came next, ‘God most great;’ and he would go on, as with the other, _Allah houakbar_, _Allah houakbar_, _Allah houakbar_, _Allah houakbar_, &c, repeating them as fast as he could frame his organs to pronounce them.”

REPHAIM. The Rephaim were the ancient giants of the land of Canaan. There were anciently several families of them in this country. It is commonly thought that they were descended from one called Rephah or Rapha; but others imagine that the word Rephaim properly signifies giants, in the ancient language of this people. There were some of the Rephaim beyond Jordan, at Ashteroth Karnaim, in the time of Abraham, when Chedorlaomer made war against them, Gen. xiv, 5. There were also some of them in the country in the days of Moses. Og, king of Bashan, was one of the posterity of the Rephaim, Joshua xii, 4. Also in the time of Joshua there were some of their descendants in the land of Canaan, Joshua xvii, 15. Lastly, we hear of them still in David’s time, in the city of Gath, 1 Chron. xx, 4–6. The giants Goliah, Sippai, Lahmi, and others, were some remains of the Rephaim; their magnitude and strength are known from Scripture. See GIANTS.

REPHIDIM, a station or encampment of the Israelites, Exod. xvii, 1. At this station, adjoining to Mount Horeb, the people again murmured for want of water; and they chid Moses, saying, “Give us water that we may drink.” And “they tempted the Lord, saying, Is the Lord among us or not?” Moses, therefore, to convince them that he was, by a more obvious miracle than at Marah, smote the rock with his rod, by the divine command, and brought water out of it for the people to drink: wherefore, he called the place Meribah, “chiding,” and the rock Massah, “temptation.” On their way to Rephidim, the Amalekites, the original inhabitants of the country, who are noticed in Abraham’s days, Gen. xiv, 7, not having the fear of God before their eyes, nor regarding the judgments recently inflicted on the Egyptians, attacked the rear of the Israelites when they were faint and weary; but were defeated by a chosen party, under the command of Joshua, the faithful lieutenant of Moses, who is first noticed on this occasion, and even then pointed out by the Lord as his successor. This victory was miraculous; for while Moses held up his hand Israel prevailed, but when he let it down Amalek prevailed. So Aaron and Hur (the husband of Miriam, according to Josephus) held up both his hands steadily till sunset, and thereby gave a decided victory to Israel. This unprovoked aggression of the Amalekites drew down upon them from the Lord the sentence of “war from generation to generation,” between them and the Israelites, and of final extermination, which was commanded to be written or registered in a book, for a memorial to Joshua and his successors, the judges and kings of Israel, and was carried into execution by Saul, 1 Sam. xv, 8, by David, 1 Sam. xxx, 17, and finally accomplished by the Simeonites in Hezekiah’s reign, Exod. xvii, 8–13; Deut. xxv, 17; 1 Chron. iv, 43. While the Israelites were encamped at Rephidim, on the western side of Horeb, the mount of God, Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, who lived in that neighbourhood, and was priest and prince of Midian, came to visit him, with his wife Zipporah, and his two sons, Eleazar and Gershom, who had accompanied him part of the way to Egypt, but returned home again; and they rejoiced with him “for all the goodness which the Lord had done for Israel, whom he had delivered out of the hand of the Egyptians;” and upon this occasion, Jethro, as “a priest of the most high God,” of the order of Melchizedek, “offered a burnt-offering and sacrifices of thanksgiving to God, at which Aaron and all the elders of Israel ate bread with Jethro before God,” by a repetition of the eucharistic feast upon a sacrifice which Melchizedek formerly administered to Abraham, Gen. xiv, 18; Exod. xviii, 1–12. Thus was fulfilled the prophetic sign which the Lord had given to Moses when he first appeared to him in the burning bush: “This shall be a token unto thee that I have sent thee: when thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain,” Exod, iii, 12. The speedy accomplishment, therefore, of this sign, at the beginning of their journey, was well calculated to strengthen their faith or reliance on the divine protection throughout. Jethro appears to have been distinguished not only for his piety, but also for his political wisdom. By his advice, which also was approved by the Lord, Moses, to relieve himself from the fatigue of administering justice to the people, the whole day, from morning until evening, instituted inferior judges or magistrates over thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens, as his deputies, who were to relieve him from the burden of judging the smaller causes, but to refer the greater or more difficult to Moses, for his decision.

REPROBATION is equivalent to rejection. Rejection always implies a cause: “Reprobate silver shall men call them, insomuch that the Lord hath rejected them,” Jer. vi, 30; that is, they are base metal, which will not bear the proof. Conditional reprobation, or rejecting men from the divine mercy, because of their impenitence or refusal of salvation, is a Scriptural doctrine; but to the unconditional, absolute reprobation of the rigid Calvinists, the following objections may be urged:--

1. It cannot be reconciled to the love of God. “God is love.” “He is loving to every man, and his tender mercies are over all his works.”

2. Nor to the wisdom of God; for the bringing into being a vast number of intelligent creatures under a necessity of sinning, and of being eternally lost, teaches no moral lesson to the world; and contradicts all those notions of wisdom in the ends and processes of government, which we are taught to look for, not only from natural reason, but from the Scriptures.

3. Nor to the grace of God, which is so often magnified in the Scriptures; for doth it argue any sovereign or high strain, any superabounding richness of grace or mercy in any man, when ten thousand have equally offended him, only to pardon one or two of them? Or in what sense has “the grace of God appeared unto all men,” or even to one-millionth part of them?

4. Nor can this merciless reprobation be reconciled to any of those numerous passages in which almighty God is represented as tenderly compassionate and pitiful to the worst and most unworthy of his creatures, even them who finally perish. “I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth.” “Being grieved at the hardness of their hearts.” “How often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” “The Lord is long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish.” “Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?”

5. It is as manifestly contrary to his justice. Here, indeed, we would not assume to measure this attribute of God by unauthorized human conceptions; but when God himself has appealed to those established notions of justice and equity which have been received among all enlightened persons, in all ages, as the measure and rule of his own, we cannot be charged with this presumption. “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” “Are not my ways equal? saith the Lord.” We may then be bold to affirm that justice and equity in God are what they are taken to be among reasonable men; and if all men every where would condemn it, as most contrary to justice and right, that a sovereign should condemn to death one or more of his subjects for not obeying laws which it is absolutely impossible for them, under any circumstances which they can possibly avail themselves of, to obey, and much more the greater part of his subjects; and to require them, on pain of aggravated punishment, to do something in order to the pardon and remission of their offences, which he knows they cannot do, say to stop the tide or to remove a mountain; it implies a charge as obviously unjust against God, who is “just in the judgments which he executeth,” to suppose him to act precisely in the same manner in regard to those whom he has passed by and rejected, without any avoidable fault of their own; to destroy them by the simple rule of his own sovereignty, or, in other words, to show that he has power to do it. In whatever light the subject be viewed, no fault, in any right construction, can be chargeable upon the persons so punished, or, as we may rather say, destroyed, since punishment supposes a judicial proceeding, which this act shuts out. For either the reprobates are destroyed for a pure reason of sovereignty without any reference to their sinfulness, and thus all criminality is left out of the consideration; or they are destroyed for the sin of Adam, to which they were not consenting; or for personal faults resulting from a corruption of nature which they brought into the world with them, and which God wills not to correct, and which they have no power to correct themselves. Every received notion of justice is thus violated. We grant, indeed, that some proceedings of the Almighty may appear at first irreconcilable with justice, which are not so; as that we should suffer pain and death, and be infected with a morally corrupt nature, in consequence of the transgression of our first progenitors; that children should suffer for their parents’ faults in the ordinary course of providence; and that in general calamities the comparatively innocent should suffer the same evils as the guilty. But none of these are parallel cases. For the “free gift” has come upon all men, “to justification of life,” through “the righteousness” of the second Adam, so that the terms of our probation are but changed. None are doomed to inevitable ruin, or the above words of the Apostle would have no meaning; and pain and death, as to all who avail themselves of the remedy, are made the instruments of a higher life, and of a superabounding of grace through Christ. The same observation may be made as to children who suffer evils for their parents’ faults. This circumstance alters the terms of their probation; but if every condition of probation leaves to men the possibility and the hope of eternal life, and the circumstances of all are balanced and weighed by Him who administers the affairs of individuals on principles, the end of which is to turn all the evils of life into spiritual and higher blessings, there is, obviously, no impeachment of justice in the circumstances of the probation assigned to any person whatever. As to the innocent suffering equally with the guilty in general calamities, the persons so suffering are but comparatively innocent, and their personal transgressions against God deserve a higher punishment than any which this life witnesses; this may also as to them be overruled for merciful purposes, and a future life presents its manifold compensations. But as to the non-elect, the whole case, in this scheme of sovereign reprobation, or sovereign preterition, is supposed to be before us. Their state is fixed, their afflictions in this life will not in any instance be overruled for ends of edification and salvation; they are left under a necessity of sinning in every condition; and a future life presents no compensation, but a fearful looking for of fiery and quenchless indignation. It is surely not possible for the ingenuity of man to reconcile this to any notion of just government which has ever obtained; and by the established notions of justice and equity in human affairs, we are taught by the Scriptures themselves to judge of the divine proceedings in all completely stated and comprehensible cases.

6. Equally impossible is it to reconcile this notion to the sincerity of God in offering salvation by Christ to all who hear the Gospel, of whom this scheme supposes the majority, or at least great numbers to be among, the reprobate. The Gospel, as we have seen, is commanded to be preached to every creature; which publication of good news to every creature is an offer of salvation to every creature, accompanied with earnest invitations to embrace it, and admonitory comminations lest any should neglect and despise it. But does it not involve a serious reflection upon the truth and sincerity of God which men ought to shudder at, to assume, that at the very time the Gospel is thus preached, no part of this good news was ever designed to benefit the majority, or any great part, of those to whom it is addressed? that they to whom this love of God in Christ is proclaimed were never loved by God? that he has decreed that many to whom he offers salvation, and whom he invites to receive it, shall never be saved? and that he will consider their sins aggravated by rejecting that which they never could receive, and which he never designed them to receive? It is no answer to this to say that we also admit that the offers of mercy are made by God to many whom he, by virtue of his prescience, knows will never receive them. We grant this; but it is enough to reply, that in this case there is no insincerity. On the Calvinian scheme the offer of salvation is made to those for whose sins Christ made no atonement; on the other, he made atonement for the sins of all. On the former, the offer is made to those whom God never designed to embrace it; on the latter to none but those whom God seriously and in truth wills that they should avail themselves of it; on one theory, the bar to the salvation of the nonelect lies in the want of a provided sacrifice for sin; on the other, it rests solely in men themselves; one consists, therefore, with a perfect sincerity of offer, the other cannot be maintained without bringing the sincerity of God into question, and fixing a stigma upon his moral truth.

7. Unconditional reprobation cannot be reconciled with that frequent declaration of Scripture, that “God is no respecter of persons.” This phrase, we grant, is not to be interpreted as though the bounties of the Almighty were dispensed in equal measures to his creatures. In the administration of favour, there is place for the exercise of that prerogative which, in a just sense, is called the sovereignty of God; but justice knows but of one rule; it is, in its nature, settled and fixed, and looks not at the _person_, but the _case_. To have respect of persons is a phrase, therefore, in Scripture, which sometimes refers to judicial proceedings, and signifies to judge from partiality and affection, and not upon the merits of the question. It is also used by St. Peter with reference to the acceptance of Cornelius: “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” Here it is clear, that to respect persons, would be to reject or accept them without regard to their moral qualities, and on some national and other prejudice or partiality which forms no moral rule of any kind. But, if the doctrine of absolute election and reprobation be true; if we are to understand that men like Jacob and Esau, in the Calvinistic construction of the passage, while in the womb of their mother, nay, from eternity, are loved and hated, elected or reprobated, before they have done “good or evil,” then it necessarily follows, that there is precisely this kind of respect of persons with God; for his acceptance or rejection of men stands on some ground of aversion or dislike, which cannot be resolved into any moral rule, and has no respect to the merits of the case itself; and if the Scripture affirms that there is no such respect of persons with God, then the doctrine which implies it is contradicted by inspired authority.

8. The doctrine of which we are showing the difficulties, brings with it the repulsive and shocking opinion of the eternal punishment of infants. Some Calvinists have, indeed, to get rid of the difficulty, or rather to put it out of sight, consigned them to annihilation; but of the annihilation of any human being there is no intimation in the word of God. In order, therefore, to avoid the fearful consequence of admitting the punishment of beings innocent as to all actual sin, there is no other way than to suppose all children, dying in infancy, to be an elected portion of mankind, which, however, would be a mere hypothesis brought in to serve a theory without any evidence. That some of those who, as they suppose, are under this sentence of reprobation, die in their infancy, is, probably, what most Calvinists allow; and, if their doctrine be received, cannot be denied; and it follows, therefore, that all such infants are eternally lost. Now, we know that infants are not lost, because our Lord gave it as a reason why little children ought not to be hindered from coming unto him, that “of such is the kingdom of heaven.” On which Calvin himself remarks, “In this word, ‘for of such is the kingdom of heaven,’ Christ comprehends as well little children themselves, as those who in disposition resemble them. _Hac voce, tam parvulos, quam eorum similes, comprehendit._” We are assured of the salvation of infants, also, because “the free gift has come upon all men to,” in order to, “justification of life,” and because children are not capable of rejecting that blessing, and must, therefore, derive benefit from it. The point, also, on which we have just now touched, that “there is no respect of persons with God,” demonstrates it. For, as it will be acknowledged, that some children, dying in infancy, are saved, it must follow, from this principle and axiom in the divine government, that all infants are saved; for the case of all infants, as to innocence or guilt, sin or righteousness, being the same, and God as a judge, being “no respecter of persons,” but regarding only the merits of the case, he cannot make this awful distinction as to them, that one part shall be eternally saved and the other eternally lost. That doctrine, therefore, which implies the perdition of infants, cannot be congruous to the Scriptures of truth, but is utterly abhorrent to them.

Finally, not to multiply these instances of the difficulties which accompany the doctrine of absolute reprobation, or of preterition, (to use the milder term, though the argument is not in the least changed by it,) it destroys the end of punitive justice. That end can only be, to deter men from offence, and to add strength to the law of God. But if the whole body of the reprobate are left to the influence of their fallen nature without remedy, they cannot be deterred from sin by threats of inevitable punishment; nor can they ever submit to the dominion of the law of God: their doom is fixed, and threats and examples can avail nothing.

RESTITUTION, that act of justice by which we restore to our neighbour whatever we have unjustly deprived him of, Exod. xxii, 1; Luke xix, 8. Moralists observe, respecting restitution, 1. That where it can be made in kind, or the injury can be certainly valued, we are to restore the thing or the value. 2. We are bound to restore the thing with the natural increase of it, that is, to satisfy for the loss sustained in the mean time, and the gain hindered. 3. When the thing cannot be restored, and the value of it is not certain, we are to give reasonable satisfaction, according to a liberal estimation. 4. We are at least to give, by way of restitution, what the law would give; for that is generally equal, and in most cases rather favourable than rigorous. 5. A man is not only bound to make restitution for the injury he did, but for all that directly follows upon the injurious act: for the first injury being wilful, we are supposed to will all that which follows upon it.

RESURRECTION. The belief of a general resurrection of the dead, which will come to pass at the end of the world, and will be followed with an immortality either of happiness or misery, is an article of religion in common to Jews and Christians. It is very expressly taught both in the Old and New Testaments, Psalm xvi, 10; Job xix, 25, &c; Ezek. xxxvii, 1, &c; Isaiah xxvi, 19; John v, 28, 29; and to these may be added, Wisdom iii, 1, &c; iv, 15; 2 Macc. vii, 14, 23, 29, &c. At the time when our Saviour appeared in Judea, the resurrection from the dead was received as one of the principal articles of the Jewish religion by the whole body of the nation, the Sadducees excepted, Matt. xxii, 23; Luke xx, 28; Mark xii, 18; John xi, 23, 24; Acts xxiii, 6, 8. Our Saviour arose himself from the dead, to give us, in his own person, a proof, a pledge, and a pattern of our future resurrection. St. Paul, in almost all his epistles, speaks of a general resurrection, refutes those who denied or opposed it, and proves and explains it by several circumstances, Rom. vi, 5; 1 Cor. xv, 12–15; Phil. iii, 10, 11; Heb. xi, 35; 1 Thess. iv, 13–17, &c.

On this subject no point of discussion, of any importance, arises among those who admit the truth of Scripture, except as to the way in which the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is to be understood;--whether a resurrection of the substance of the body be meant, or some minute and indestructible part of it. The latter theory has been adopted for the sake of avoiding certain supposed difficulties. It cannot however fail to strike every impartial reader of the New Testament, that the doctrine of the resurrection is there taught without any nice distinctions. It is always exhibited as a miraculous work; and represents the same body which is laid in the grave as the subject of this change from death to life, by the power of Christ. Thus our Lord was raised in the same body in which he died, and his resurrection is constantly held forth as the model of ours; and the Apostle Paul expressly says, “Who shall change _our vile body_, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body.” The only passage of Scripture which appears to favour the notion of the rising of the immortal body from some indestructible germ, is 1 Cor. xv, 35, &c: “But some men will say, How are the dead raised up, and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die; and that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain,” &c. If, however, it had been the intention of the Apostle, holding this view of the case, to meet objections to the doctrine of the resurrection, grounded upon the difficulties of conceiving how the same body, in the popular sense, could be raised up in substance, we might have expected him to correct this misapprehension by declaring, that this was not the Christian doctrine; but that some small parts of the body only, bearing as little proportion to the whole as the germ of a seed to the plant, would be preserved, and be unfolded into the perfected body at the resurrection. Instead of this, he goes on immediately to remind the objector of the differences which exist between material bodies as they now exist; between the plant and the bare or naked grain; between one plant and another; between the flesh of men, of beasts, of fishes, and of birds; between celestial and terrestrial bodies; and between the lesser and greater celestial luminaries themselves. Still farther he proceeds to state the difference, not between the germ of the body to be raised, and the _body_ given at the resurrection; but between _the body itself_, understood popularly, which dies, and the body which shall be raised. “It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption,” which would not be true of the supposed _incorruptible_ and imperishable germ of this hypothesis; and can only be affirmed of the body itself, considered in substance, and, in its present state, corruptible. Farther: the question put by the objector,--“How are the dead raised up?” does not refer to the _modus agendi_ of the resurrection, or the process or manner in which the thing is to be effected, as the advocates of the germ hypothesis appear to assume. This is manifest from the answer of the Apostle, who goes on immediately to state, not in what _manner_ the resurrection is to be effected, but what shall be the _state_ or _condition_ of the resurrection body; which is no answer at all to the question, if it be taken in that sense.

Thus, in the argument, the Apostle confines himself wholly to the possibility of the resurrection of the body in a refined and glorified state; but omits all reference to the mode in which the thing will be effected, as being out of the line of the objector’s questions, and in itself above human thought, and wholly miraculous. It is, however, clear, that when he speaks of the body, as the subject of this wondrous “change,” he speaks of it popularly, as the same body in substance, whatever changes in its qualities or figure may be impressed upon it. Great _general_ changes it will experience, as from corruption to incorruption, from mortality to immortality; great changes of a _particular_ kind will also take place, as its being freed from deformities and defects, and the accidental varieties produced by climate, aliments, labour, and hereditary diseases. It is also laid down by our Lord, that “in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but be like to the angels of God;” and this also implies a certain change of structure; and we may gather from the declaration of the Apostle, that though “the stomach” is now adapted “to meats, and meats to the stomach,” yet God will “destroy both it and them;” that the animal appetite for food will be removed, and the organ now adapted to that appetite will have no place in the renewed frame. But great as these changes are, the human form will be retained in its perfection, after the model of our Lord’s “glorious body,” and the substance of the matter of which it is composed will not thereby be affected. That the same body which was laid in the grave shall arise out of it, is the manifest doctrine of the Scriptures. The notion of an incorruptible germ, or that of an original and unchangeable _stamen_, out of which a new and glorious body, at the resurrection, is to spring, appears to have been borrowed from the speculations of some of the Jewish rabbins. But if by this hypothesis it was designed to remove the difficulty of conceiving how the scattered parts of one body could be preserved from becoming integral parts of other bodies, it supposes that the constant care of Providence is exerted to maintain the incorruptibility of those individual germs, or stamina, so as to prevent their assimilation with each other. Now, if they have this by original quality, then the same quality may just as easily be supposed to appertain to every particle which composes a human body; so that, though it be used for food, it shall not be capable of assimilation, in any circumstances, with another human body. But if these germs, or stamina, have not this quality by their original nature, they can only be prevented from assimilating with each other by that operation of God which is present to all his works, and which must always be directed to secure the execution of his own ultimate designs. If this view be adopted, then, if the resort must at last be to the superintendence of a Being of infinite power and wisdom, there is no greater difficulty in supposing that his care to secure this object may extend to a million as easily as to a hundred particles of matter. This is, in fact, the true and rational answer to the objection that the same piece of matter may happen to be a part of two or more bodies, as in the instances of men feeding upon animals which have fed upon men, and of men feeding upon one another. The question here is one which simply respects the frustrating a final purpose of the Almighty by an operation of nature. To suppose that he cannot prevent this, is to deny his power; to suppose him inattentive to it, is to suppose him indifferent to his own designs; and to assume that he employs care to prevent it, is to assume nothing greater, nothing in fact so great, as many instances of control, which are always occurring; as, for instance, the regulation of the proportion of the sexes in human births, which cannot be attributed to chance, but must either be referred to superintendence, or to some original law. Another objection to the resurrection of the body has been drawn from the changes of its substance during life; the answer to which is, that, allowing a frequent and total change of the substance of the body (which, however, is but an hypothesis) to take place, it affects not the doctrine of Scripture, which is, that the body which is laid in the grave shall be raised up. But then, we are told, that if our bodies have in fact undergone successive changes during life, the bodies in which we have sinned or performed rewardable actions may not be, in many instances, the same bodies as those which will be actually rewarded or punished. We answer, that rewards and punishments have their relation to the body, not so much as it is the _subject_ but as it is the _instrument_ of reward and punishment. It is the soul only which perceives pain or pleasure, which suffers or enjoys, and is, therefore, the only rewardable _subject_. Were we, therefore, to admit such corporeal mutations as are assumed in this objection, they affect not the case of our accountability. The personal identity or sameness of a rational being, as Mr. Locke has observed, consists in self-consciousness: “By this every one is to himself what he calls _self_, without considering whether that self be continued in the same or divers substances. It was by the same _self_ which reflects on an action done many years ago, that the action was performed.” If there were indeed any weight in this objection, it would affect the proceedings of human criminal courts in all cases of offences committed at some distance of time; but it contradicts the common sense, because it contradicts the common consciousness and experience, of mankind.

Our Lord has assured us, that “the hour is coming in which all that are in their graves shall hear his voice, and come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” Then we shall “all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump,” and “the dead shall be raised incorruptible.” It is probable that the bodies of the righteous and the wicked, though each shall in some respects be the same as before, will each be in other respects not the same, but undergo some change conformable to the character of the individual, and suited to his future state of existence; yet both, as the passage just quoted clearly teaches, are then rendered indestructible. Respecting the good it is said, “When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, we shall appear with him in glory,” “we shall be like him; our body shall be fashioned like his glorious body;” yet, notwithstanding this, “it doth not yet fully appear what we shall be,” Col. iii, 4; 1 John iii, 2; Phil. iii, 21. This has a very obvious reason. Our present manner of knowing depends upon our present constitution, and we know not the exact relation which subsists between this constitution and the manner of being in a future world; we derive our ideas through the medium of the senses; the senses are necessarily conversant with terrestrial objects only; our language is suited to the communication of present ideas; and thus it follows that the objects of the future world may in some respects (whether few or many we cannot say) differ so extremely from terrestrial objects, that language cannot communicate to us any such ideas as would render those matters comprehensible. But language may suggest striking and pleasing analogies; and with such we are presented by the holy Apostle: “All flesh,” says he, “is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, another of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds;” and yet all these are fashioned out of the same kind of substance, mere inert matter, till God gives it life and activity. It is sown an animal body; a body which previously existed with all the organs, faculties, and propensities, requisite to procure, receive, and appropriate nutriment, as well as to perpetuate the species; but it shall be raised a spiritual body, refined from the dregs of matter, freed from the organs and senses required only in its former state, and probably possessing the remaining senses in greater perfection, together with new and more exquisite faculties, fitted for the exalted state of existence and enjoyment to which it is now rising. In the present state the organs and senses appointed to transmit the impressions of objects to the mind, have a manifest relation to the respective objects: the eye and seeing, for example, to light; the ear and hearing, to sound. In the refined and glorious state of existence to which good men are tending, where the objects which solicit attention will be infinitely more numerous, interesting, and delightful, may not the new organs, faculties, and senses, be proportionally refined, acute, susceptible, or penetrating? Human industry and invention have placed us, in a manner, in new worlds; what, then, may not a spiritual body, with sharpened faculties, and the grandest possible objects of contemplation, effect in the celestial regions to which Christians are invited? There the senses will no longer degrade the affections, the imagination no longer corrupt the heart; the magnificent scenery thrown open to view will animate the attention, give a glow and vigour to the sentiments; that roused attention will never tire; those glowing sentiments will never cloy; but the man, now constituted of an indestructible body, as well as of an immortal soul, may visit in eternal succession the streets of the celestial city, may “drink of the pure river of the water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God, and of the Lamb;” and dwell for ever in those abodes of harmony and peace, which, though “eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the imagination of man to conceive,” we are assured “God hath prepared for them that love him,” 1 Cor. ii, 9.

REUBEN, TRIBE OF. This tribe, having much cattle, solicited and obtained from Moses possessions east of the Jordan; by which river it was separated from the main body of Israel: it was, in consequence, exposed to various inroads and oppressions from which the western tribes were free; and it was among the first carried into captivity by Tiglath pileser, 1 Chron. v, 26.

REVELATION, or APOCALYPSIS, is the name given to a canonical book of the New Testament. See APOCALYPSE.

RHODES, an island lying south of the province of Caria, in Lesser Asia, and, among the Asiatic islands, is accounted for dignity next to Cyprus and Lesbos. It is pleasant and healthful, and was anciently celebrated for the skill of its inhabitants in navigation, but most, for its prodigious statue of brass consecrated to the sun, and called the Colossus. This statue was seventy cubits high, and bestrode the mouth of the harbour, so that ships could sail between its legs, and it was accounted one of the seven wonders of the world. St. Paul, on his way to Jerusalem, A. D. 58, went from Miletus to Coos, from Coos to Rhodes, and from thence to Patara, in Lycia, Acts xxi, 1.

RIGHTEOUSNESS, justice, holiness. The righteousness of God is the essential perfection of his nature; sometimes it is put for his justice. The righteousness of Christ denotes, not only his absolute perfection, but, is taken for his perfect obedience unto death, and his suffering the penalty of the law in our stead. The righteousness of the law is that obedience which the law requires. The righteousness of faith is the justification which is received by faith.

RIMMON. See NAAMAN.

RINGS. The antiquity of rings appears from Scripture and from profane authors. Judah left his ring with Tamar, Gen. xxxviii, 18. When Pharaoh committed the government of Egypt to Joseph, he took his ring from his finger and gave it to Joseph, Gen. xli, 42. After the victory of the Israelites over the Midianites, they offered to the Lord the rings, the bracelets, and the golden necklaces, taken from the enemy, Num. xxxi, 50. The Israelitish women wore rings, not only on their fingers, but also in their nostrils and their ears. St. James distinguishes a man of wealth and dignity by the ring of gold on his finger, James ii, 2. At the return of the prodigal son, his father orders him to be dressed in a new suit of clothes, and to have a ring put on his finger, Luke xv, 22. When God threatened Jeconiah with the utmost effects of his anger, he tells him, that though he were the signet or ring on his finger, yet he should be torn off, Jer. xxii, 24. The ring was used chiefly to seal with, and Scripture generally assigns it to princes and great persons; as the king of Egypt, Joseph, Ahaz, Jezebel, King Ahasuerus, his favourite Haman, Mordecai, King Darius, 1 Kings xxi, 8; Esther iii, 10, &c; Dan. vi, 17. The patents and orders of these princes were sealed with their rings or signets, an impression from which was their confirmation. The ring was one mark of sovereign authority. Pharaoh gave his ring to Joseph, as a token of authority. When Alexander the Great gave his ring to Perdiccas, this was understood as nominating him his successor.

RIVER. The Hebrews give the name of “the river,” without any addition, sometimes to the Nile, sometimes to the Euphrates, and sometimes to Jordan. It is the tenor of the discourse that must determine the sense of this vague and uncertain way of speaking. They give also the name of river to brooks and rivulets that are not considerable. The name of river is sometimes given to the sea, Hab. iii, 8; Psalm lxxviii, 16. It is also used as a symbol for plenty, Job xxix, 6; Psalm xxxvi, 8.

ROCK. Palestine, being a mountainous country, had also many rocks, which formed a part of the country’s defence; for in time of danger the people retired to them, and found a refuge against any sudden irruption of the enemy. The Benjamites took shelter in the rock Rimmon, Judges xx, 47. Samson kept garrison in the rock of Etham, Judges xv, 8. David found shelter in the rocks of Maon, Engedi, &c, 1 Sam. xxii, 1; xxiii, 25, 28; xxiv, 2–5. Jerom says that the southern parts of Judea were full of caves under ground, and of caverns in the mountains, to which the people retired in time of danger. The Kenites dwelt in the hollow places of the rocks, Num. xxiv, 21. Even at this day the villages of this country are subterraneous, or in the rocks. Josephus in several places speaks of hollow rocks, where thieves and robbers had their haunts; and travellers still find a great number of them in Palestine, and in the adjoining provinces. Toward Lebanon, the mountains are high, but covered in many places with as much earth as fits them for cultivation. Among the crags of the rocks, the beautiful and far-famed cedar waves its lofty top, and extends its powerful arms, surrounded by the fir and the oak, the fig and the vine. On the road to Jerusalem, the mountains are not so lofty nor so rugged, but become fitter for tillage. They rise again to the south-east of Mount Carmel; are covered with woods, and afford very picturesque views; but advancing toward Judea, they lose their verdure, the valleys become narrow, dry, and stony, and terminate at the Dead Sea in a pile of desolate rocks, precipices, and caverns. These vast excavations, some of which will contain fifteen hundred men, are the grottoes of Engedi, which have been a refuge to the oppressed or the discontented in all ages. Westward of Jordan and the lake Asphaltites, another chain of rocks, still loftier and more rugged, presents a yet more gloomy aspect, and announces the distant entrance of the desert, and the termination of the habitable regions.

The name of rock is also given to God, by way of metaphor, because God is the strength, the refuge, and defence of Israel, as those places were to the people who resided among them, Psalm xviii, 2, 31; xxxi, 2, 3; Deut. xxxii, 15, 18, 30, 31; Psalm lxi, 2, &c.

ROD. This word is used sometimes for the branches of a tree: “And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree,” Gen. xxx, 37; sometimes for a staff or wand: “And thou shalt take this rod in thine hand, wherewith thou shalt do signs. And Moses took the rod of God in his hand,” Exod. iv, 17, 20; or for a shepherd’s crook: “And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod; the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord,” Lev. xxvii, 32; or for a rod, properly so called, which God makes use of to correct men: “If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men,” 2 Sam. vii, 14. “Let him take his rod away from me,” Job ix, 34. The empire of the Messiah is sometimes represented by a rod of iron, to show its power and its might, Psalm ii, 9; Rev. ii, 27; xii, 5; xix, 15. Rod is sometimes put to signify a tribe or a people: “Remember thy congregation which thou hast purchased of old, the rod of thine inheritance which thou hast redeemed,” Psalm lxxiv, 2. “Israel is the rod of his inheritance,” Jer. x, 16. The rod of Aaron is the staff commonly used by the high priest. This is the rod that budded and blossomed like an almond tree, Num. xvii. See AARON.

ROMAN CATHOLICS, or members of the church of Rome, otherwise called papists, from the pope being considered by them as the supreme head of the universal church, the successor of St. Peter, and the fountain of theological truth and ecclesiastical honours. He keeps his court in great state at the palace of the Vatican, and is attended by seventy cardinals as his privy counsellors, in imitation of the seventy disciples of our Lord. The pope’s authority in other kingdoms is merely spiritual, but in Italy he is a temporal sovereign, Louis XVIII. and the allies having, in 1814, restored him to his throne, and to those temporalities of which he was deprived by Buonaparte and the French revolution. On resuming his government, Pope Pius VII. soon restored the order of Jesuits and the inquisition; so that the Roman Catholic religion is now reinstated in its ancient splendour and authority. The principal dogmas of this religion are as follows: 1. That St. Peter was deputed by Christ to be his vicar, and the head of the catholic church; and that the bishops of Rome, being his successors, have the same apostolical authority; for our Saviour declares, in Matt. xvi, 18, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church;” by which rock they understand St. Peter himself, as the name signifies, and not his confession, as the Protestants explain it. And a succession in the church being now supposed necessary under the New Testament, as Aaron had his succession under the old dispensation, which was a figure of the new, this succession can now, they contend, be shown only in the chair of St. Peter at Rome, where it is asserted he presided twenty-five years previous to his death; therefore, the bishops of Rome are his true successors. 2. That the Roman Catholic church is the mother and mistress of all churches, and cannot possibly err in matters of faith; for the church has the promise of the Spirit of God to lead it into all truth, John xvi, 13; “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” Matt. xvi, 18. Christ also, who is himself the truth, has promised to the pastors and teachers of the church to be with them “always, even to the end of the world,” Matt. xxviii, 20. “It is from the testimony and authority of the church, therefore,” say they, “that we receive the Scriptures as the word of God.” 3. That the Scriptures thus received on the authority of the church are not sufficient to our faith without apostolical traditions, which are of equal authority with the Scriptures; for St. Peter assures us, that in St. Paul’s epistles there “are some things hard to be understood, which they who are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction,” 2 Peter iii, 16. We are directed by St. Paul to “stand fast, and hold the traditions which we have been taught, whether by word or by epistle,” 2 Thess. ii, 15. 4. That seven sacraments were instituted by Jesus Christ, namely, baptism, confirmation, eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony; and that they confer grace. To prove that confirmation, or imposition of hands, is a sacrament, they quote Acts viii, 17: “They,” the Apostles, “laid their hands on them,” believers, “and they received the Holy Ghost.” Penance is a sacrament in which the sins we commit after baptism, duly repented of, and confessed to a priest, are forgiven; and which they think was instituted by Christ himself when he breathed upon his Apostles after his resurrection, and said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose sins ye remit, are remitted; and whose sins ye retain, are retained,” John xx, 23. In favour of extreme unction, or anointing the sick with oil, they argue from James i, 14, 15, which is thus rendered in the Vulgate: “Is any sick among you? Let him call for the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil,” &c. The sacrament of holy orders is inferred from 1 Tim. iv, 14: “Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on the hands of the presbytery,” or priesthood, as they render it. That marriage is a sacrament, they think evident from Ephes. v, 32: “This is a great mystery,” representing the mystical union of Christ and his church. “Matrimony,” say they, “is here the sign of a holy thing, and therefore it is a sacrament.” Notwithstanding this, they enjoin celibacy upon the clergy, because they do not think it proper that those who, by their office and function, ought to be wholly devoted to God, should be diverted from those duties by the distractions of a married life, 1 Cor. vii, 32, 33. 5. That in the mass, or public service, there is offered unto God a true and propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and dead; and that in the sacrament of the eucharist, under the forms of bread and wine, are really and substantially present the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is a conversion made of the whole substance of the bread into his body, and of the wine into his blood, which is called transubstantiation; according to our Lord’s words to his disciples, “This is my body,” &c, Matt. xxvi, 26; wherefore it becomes with them an object of adoration. Farther: it is a matter of discipline, not of doctrine, in the Roman church, that the laity receive the eucharist in one kind, that is, in bread only. This sacrifice of the mass was, they think, predicted by the Prophet Malachi, i, 11, who says, “In every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering.” 6. That there is a purgatory; and that souls kept prisoners there do receive help by the suffrages of the faithful. For it is said, in 1 Cor. iii, 15, “If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire;” which they understand of the flames of purgatory. They also believe that souls are released from purgatory by the prayers and alms which are offered for them, principally by the holy sacrifice of the mass. They call purgatory a middle state of souls, into which those enter who depart this life in God’s grace; yet not without some less stains of guilt, which retard them from entering heaven, where nothing unclean can enter. 7. That the saints reigning with Christ (and especially the blessed virgin) are to be honoured and invoked; that they offer prayers unto God for us; and that their relics are to be had in veneration. These honours, however, are not divine, but relative, and redound to the divine glory, Rev. v, 8; viii, 4, &c. 8. That the image of Christ, of the blessed virgin, the mother of God, and of other saints, ought to be retained in churches, and honour and veneration ought to be given unto them. And as the images of cherubims were allowed in the temples, so images should be placed in churches, and had in veneration. 9. That the power of indulgences was left by Christ to the church, and that the use of them is very beneficial to Christian people; according to Matt. xvi, 19: “I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” By indulgences they do not mean leave to commit sin, nor pardon for sins to come; but only releasing, by the power of the keys committed to the church, the debt of temporal punishment which may remain due upon account of our sins, after the sins themselves, as to their guilt and eternal punishment, have been already remitted through repentance and confession, and by virtue of the merit of Christ, and of all the saints. By their indulgences they assert that they apply to their souls the merits of Christ, and of the saints and martyrs through him.

The ceremonies of this church are numerous and splendid, as, 1. They make use of the sign of the cross in all their sacraments, to give us to understand, that they have their whole force and efficacy from the cross. 2. Sprinkling of the holy water by the priest on solemn days is used likewise by every one going in or coming out of church. 3. The ceremony of blessing bells is, by the Catholics, called christening them; because the name of some saint is ascribed to them, by virtue of whose invocation they are presented, in order that they may obtain his favour and protection. 4. They always bow at the name of Jesus, (which is also done as regularly in the church of England,) and they found the practice on Phil. ii, 10: “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow.” 5. They keep a number of lamps and wax candles continually burning before the shrines and images of the saints. 6. They make use of incense, and have lighted candles upon the altar at the celebration of the mass. 7. The practice of washing the poor’s feet, in imitation of our Lord’s washing the feet of his disciples, is solemnized on Holy Thursday by all the princes of the Romish religion in Europe. The church of Rome also professes to keep the fast of Lent with great strictness, and observes a much greater number both of feasts and festivals than the church of England.

The church of Rome assumes the title of Catholic, or universal, as answering to that article in the Apostles’ Creed, “I believe in the holy Catholic church.” The above is perhaps a sufficient account of the Roman Catholic faith; but as the creed of Pope Pius IV. is universally admitted to be the true standard of that faith, it would be decidedly wrong to conclude without inserting it. Mr. Butler says it contains a succinct and explicit summary of the canons of the council of Trent, and was published in the form of a papal bull, in 1564. He adds, “It is received throughout the whole Roman Catholic church; every one who is admitted into that church, publicly reads and professes his assent to it.” This document commences with reciting the Nicene Creed, which, as it is admitted by the Protestant church of England, and inserted in the Common Prayer Book, need not be here repeated. It then proceeds with the twelve following articles, in addition to those of the Apostles’ Creed, which they also reckon twelve: “13. I most firmly admit and embrace apostolical and ecclesiastical traditions, and all other constitutions and observances of the same church. I also admit the sacred Scriptures according to the sense which the holy mother church has held, and does hold, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; nor will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the fathers. 14. I profess also that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the new law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and for the salvation of mankind, (though all are not necessary for every one,) namely, baptism, confirmation, eucharist, penance, extreme unction, order, and matrimony; and that they confer grace; and of these, baptism, confirmation, and order cannot be reiterated without sacrilege. 15. I also receive and admit the ceremonies of the Catholic church, received and approved in the solemn administration of all the above said sacraments. 16. I receive and embrace all and every one of the things which have been defined and declared in the holy council of Trent, concerning original sin and justification. 17. I profess, likewise, that in the mass, is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that in the most holy sacrament of the eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, which conversion the Catholic church calls transubstantiation. 18. I confess, also, that under either kind alone, Christ whole and entire, and a true sacrament, is received. 19. I constantly hold that there is a purgatory, and that the souls detained therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful. 20. Likewise, that the saints reigning together with Christ are to be honoured and invocated; that they offer prayers to God for us, and that their relics are to be venerated. 21. I most firmly assert, that the images of Christ, and of the mother of Christ, ever a virgin, and also of the other saints, are to be had and retained, and that due honour and veneration are to be given to them. 22. I also affirm, that the power of indulgences was left by Christ in the church, and that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian people. 23. I acknowledge the holy Catholic and apostolic Roman church, the mother and mistress of all churches; and I promise and swear true obedience to the bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter, prince of the Apostles, and vicar of Jesus Christ. 24. I also profess, and undoubtedly receive, all other things, delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred canons and general councils, and particularly by the holy council of Trent; and likewise, I also condemn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto; and all heresies whatsoever, condemned and anathematized by the church. This true catholic faith, out of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess, and truly hold, I, _N._, promise, vow, and swear most constantly to hold and profess the same, whole and entire, with God’s assistance, to the end of my life. Amen.”

Such is the avowed and accredited faith of the church of Rome; but it seems a most extraordinary circumstance, that, while this church has so enlarged the creed, it has reduced the number of the commandments, omitting altogether the second, “Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image,” &c, Exod. xx, 3–6; as if the Catholics were conscious it could by no means be reconciled with the twenty-first article of the above recited creed. And then, to prevent alarm, as every body must know there should be ten commandments, the last is divided into two, to make up the number. This is said to have been done, even before the Reformation. It was done in the French National Catechism, published in 1806, and sanctioned by Pope Pius VII., by the archbishop of Paris, and by the Emperor Napoleon. It is remarkable, also, that in Dr. Chalenor’s “Garden of the Soul,” printed in London by Coglan, in 1787, in a form of self-examination for the penitent upon each commandment, there is no reference to the one omitted; nor is there any reference to it in Bossuet’s famous “Exposition of the Doctrines of the Catholic Church,” when treating upon images, and the manner in which they are directed to be honoured. Lastly, in Butler’s Catechism, the eighth edition, printed at Dublin in 1811, and sanctioned by four Roman Catholic archbishops, the commandments stand literally as follows: “1. I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt have no strange gods before me. 2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. 3. Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day. 4. Honour thy father and thy mother. 5. Thou shalt not kill. 6. Thou shalt not commit adultery. 7. Thou shalt not steal. 8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. 9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife. 10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s goods.” Here it may be added, that by omitting the second command, the others are numbered differently from what they are by us. Thus, the third is brought in for the second, the fourth is made the third, &c, till they come to the last which is divided in two, for the purpose above mentioned. The gross and antiscriptural errors, leading to superstition, idolatry, and many other evils, which are contained in the peculiarities of the papistical faith, are abundantly pointed out and refuted by the leading Protestant writers.

ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE. This epistle was written from Corinth, A. D. 58, being the fourth year of the Emperor Nero, just before St. Paul set out for Jerusalem with the contributions which the Christians of Macedonia and Achaia had made for the relief of their poor brethren in Judea, Acts xx, 1; Rom. xv, 25, 26. It was transcribed or written as St. Paul dictated it, by Tertius; and the person who conveyed it to Rome was Phœbe, a deaconess of the church of Cenchrea, which was the eastern port of the city of Corinth, Rom. xvi, 1, 22. It is addressed to the church at Rome, which consisted partly of Jewish and partly of Heathen converts; and throughout the epistle it is evident that the Apostle has regard to both these descriptions of Christians. St. Paul, when he wrote this epistle had not been at Rome, Rom. i, 13; xv, 23; but he had heard an account of the state of the church in that city from Aquila and Priscilla, two Christians who were banished from thence by the edict of Claudius, and with whom he lived during his first visit to Corinth. Whether any other Apostle had at this time preached the Gospel at Rome, cannot now be ascertained. Among those who witnessed the effect of the first effusion of the Holy Ghost are mentioned “strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,” Acts ii, 10; that is, persons of the Jewish religion, who usually resided at Rome, but who had come to Jerusalem to be present at the feast of pentecost. It is highly probable that these men, upon their return home, proclaimed the Gospel of Christ; and we may farther suppose that many Christians who had been converted at other places afterward settled at Rome, and were the cause of others embracing the Gospel. But, by whatever means Christianity had been introduced into Rome, it seems to have flourished there in great purity; for we learn from the beginning of this epistle that the faith of the Roman Christians was at this time much celebrated, Rom. i, 8. To confirm them in that faith, and to guard them against the errors of Judaizing Christians, was the object of this letter, in which St. Paul takes occasion to enlarge upon the nature of the Mosaic institution; to explain the fundamental principles and doctrines of Christianity; and to show that the whole human race, formerly divided into Jews and Gentiles, were now to be admitted into the religion of Jesus, indiscriminately, and free from every other obligation. The Apostle, after expressing his affection to the Roman Christians, and asserting that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to all who believe, takes a comprehensive view of the conduct and condition of men under the different dispensations of Providence; he shows that all mankind, both Jews and Gentiles, were equally “under sin,” and liable to the wrath and punishment of God; that therefore there was a necessity for a universal propitiation and redemption, which were now offered to the whole race of men, without any preference or exception, by the mercy of him who is the God of the Gentiles as well as of the Jews; that faith in Jesus Christ, the universal Redeemer, was the only means of obtaining this salvation, which the deeds of the law were wholly incompetent to procure; that as the sins of the whole world originated from the disobedience of Adam, so the justification from those sins was to be derived from the obedience of Christ; that all distinction between Jew and Gentile was now abolished, and the ceremonial law entirely abrogated; that the unbelieving Jews would be excluded from the benefits of the Gospel, while the believing Gentiles would be partakers of them; and that this rejection of the Jews, and call of the Gentiles, were predicted by the Jewish Prophets Hosea and Isaiah. He then points out the superiority of the Christian over the Jewish religion, and earnestly exhorts the Romans to abandon every species of wickedness, and to practise the duties of righteousness and holiness, which were now enjoined upon higher sanctions, and enforced by more powerful motives. In the latter part of the epistle, St. Paul gives some practical instructions, and recommends some particular virtues; and he concludes with a salutation and a doxology. This epistle is most valuable, on account of the arguments and truths which it contains, relative to the necessity, nature, and universality of the Gospel dispensation.

ROOFS. The letting down of the paralytic through the roof of the house where Jesus was, is satisfactorily explained by the following extract from Shaw’s Travels: “The houses throughout the east are low, having generally a ground floor only, or one upper story, and flat-roofed, the roof being covered with a strong coat of plaster of terrace. They are built round a paved court, into which the entrance from the street is through a gateway or passage room furnished with benches, and sufficiently large to be used for receiving visits or transacting business. The stairs which lead to the roof are never placed on the outside of the house in the street, but usually in the gateway, or passage room to the court, sometimes at the entrance within the court. This court is now called, in Arabic, _el woost_, or ‘the middle of the house,’ literally answering to τὸ μέσον of St. Luke, v, 19. It is customary to fix cords from the parapet walls, Deut. xxii, 8, of the flat roofs across this court, and upon them to expand a veil or covering, as a shelter from the heat. In this area, probably, our Saviour taught. The paralytic was brought on to the roof by making a way through the crowd to the stairs in the gateway, or by the terraces of the adjoining houses. They rolled back the veil, and let the sick man down over the parapet of the roof into the area or court of the house, before Jesus.” The windows of the eastern houses being chiefly within, facing the court, in order to see what was going on without in the streets of the city, the only way was to run up to the flat roof. Hence the frequent expression in Scripture, when allusion is made to sudden tumults and calamities, to get up to “the house top.” See HOUSES.

ROSE, הבצלת, Cant., ii, 1; Isaiah xxxv, 1. The rose, so much and so often sung by the poets of Persia, Arabia, Greece, and Rome, is, indeed, the pride of the garden for elegance of form, for glow of colour, and fragrance of smell. Tournefort mentions fifty-three kinds, of which the Damascus rose, and the rose of Sharon, are the finest. The beauty of these flowers is too well known to be insisted on; and they are at this day much admired in the east, where they are extremely fragrant. In what esteem the rose was among the Greeks, may be learned from the fifth and fifty-third odes of Anacreon. Among the ancients it occupied a conspicuous place in every chaplet; it was a principal ornament in every festive meeting, and at every solemn sacrifice; and the comparisons in Ecclesiasticus xxiv, 14, and l, 8, show that the Jews were likewise much delighted with it. The rose bud, or opening rose, seems in particular a favourite ornament. The Jewish sensualists, in Wisdom ii, 8, are introduced saying, “Let us fill ourselves with costly wine and ointments; and let no flower of the spring pass by us. Let us crown ourselves with rose buds before they are withered.”

ROSH. The Hebrew speaks of a people called Rosh, Ezek. xxxviii, 2, 3. “The orientals hold,” says D’Herbelot, “that Japheth had a son called Rous, not mentioned by Moses, who peopled Russia, that is, Muscovy.” We question not but Rosh, or Ros, signifies Russia, or the people that dwell on the Araxes, called Rosch by the inhabitants; which was the habitation of the Scythians. It deserves notice, that the LXX. render the passage in Ezekiel, Γὼγ, ἄρχοντα Ῥὼς, Μεσὸχ, καὶ Θοβὲλ, _Gog, the chief of Ros, Mesoch, and Thobel_; and Jerom, not absolutely to reject this name, inserts both renderings: _Gog, terram Magog, principem capitis_ (_sive_ Ros) _Mosoch, et Thubal_. Symmachus and Theodotion also perceived Ros to be in this place the name of a people; and this is now the prevailing judgment of interpreters. Bochart, about A. D. 1640, contended that Russia was the nation meant by the term Ros; and this opinion is supported by the testimony of various Greek writers, who describe “the Ros as a Scythian nation, bordering on the northern Taurus.” Mosok, or Mesech, appears to be the same as the Moskwa, or Moscow, of the moderns; and we know, that not only is this the name of the city, but also of the river on which it stands. See Gog.

RUBY, a beautiful gem, whose colour is red, with an admixture of purple, and is, in its most perfect state, a gem of extreme value. In hardness it is equal to the sapphire, and second only to the diamond. It is mentioned in Job xxviii, 18, and Prov. viii, 11, &c.

RUE, ϖήγανον, Luke xi, 42, a small shrubby plant, common in gardens. It has a strong, unpleasant smell, and a bitterish, penetrating taste.

RUSH, גמא, Exodus ii, 3; Job viii, 11; Isaiah xviii, 2; xxxv, 7; a plant growing in the water at the sides of rivers, and in marshy grounds.

RUSSIAN CHURCH. The Russians, like other nations, were originally Pagans, and worshipped fire, which they considered as the cause of thunder, under the name of _Perun_, and the earth under the name _Volata_; at the same time having some notions of a future state of rewards and punishments. Christianity was first professed by the Princess Olga, who was baptized at Constantinople. She recommended it to her grandson Vladimir, on whose baptism, in 988, it was adopted by the nation generally; and from that time the Greek church has been the established religion throughout Russia, and Greek literature greatly encouraged. During the middle ages, however, the doctrine of transubstantiation, and some other popish peculiarities, were covertly introduced; and, by the irruption of the Mongol Tartars, in the fifteenth century, a stop was put to learning and civilization for full two centuries; but, on the accession of the present dynasty in 1613, civilization and Christianity were restored, and schools established for the education of the clergy. The Russian clergy are divided into regular and secular; the former are all monks, and the latter are the parochial clergy. The superior clergy are called archires; but the title of metropolitan, or bishop, is personal, and not properly attached to the see, as in the western church. Next after the archires rank the black clergy, including the chiefs of monasteries and convents, and after them the monks. The secular priests are called the white clergy, including the protoires, or proto-popes, priests, and deacons, together with the readers and sacristans. These amounted, in 1805, throughout the empire, to ninety-eight thousand seven hundred and twenty-six. The white clergy must be married before they can be ordained, but must not marry a second time; they are at liberty then to enter among the black clergy, and a way is thus opened for their accession to the higher orders. The whole empire is divided into thirty-six diocesses, or eparchies, in which are four hundred and eighty-three cathedrals, and twenty-six thousand, five hundred and ninety-eight churches. The churches are divided into three parts. 1. The altar, where stands the holy table, crucifix, &c, which is separated from the body of the church by a large screen, on which are painted our Saviour, the virgin, the Apostles, and other saints. Upon a platform before this are placed the readers and singers, and here the preacher generally stands behind a movable desk. 2. The nave, or body of the church, which may be called the inner court. 3. The trapeza, or outer court. The two last are designed for the congregation, but neither have any seats. The walls of the church are highly embellished with Scripture paintings, ornamented with gold, silver, and precious stones, but no images.

The church service is contained in twenty-four volumes, folio, in the Slavonian language, which is not well understood by the common people. Parts of the Scriptures are read in the service; but few, even of the ecclesiastics, possess a complete Bible. The patriarch of Russia was formerly almost equal in authority with the czar himself; but Peter the Great, on the death of the patriarch in 1700, abolished his office, and appointed an exarch. In 1721 he abolished this office also, and appointed a “holy legislative synod” for the government of the church, at the head of which is always placed a layman of rank and eminence. The monastic life was once so prevalent in this country, that there were four hundred and seventy-nine convents for men, and seventy-four for women, in which there were about seventy thousand monks and nuns, &c; but this kind of life was so much discouraged by Peter the Great and the Empress Catherine, that the religious are now reduced to about five thousand monks and seventeen hundred nuns. Great part of their revenues has also been alienated, and appropriated to the support of hospitals and houses for the poor.

RUTH. The book of Ruth is so called from the name of the person, a native of Moab, whose history it contains. It may be considered as a supplement to the book of Judges, to which it was joined in the Hebrew canon, and the latter part of which it greatly resembles, being a detached story belonging to the same period. Ruth had a son called Obed, who was the grandfather of David, which circumstance probably occasioned her history to be written, as the genealogy of David, from Pharez, the son of Judah, from whom the Messiah was to spring, is here given; and some commentators have thought, that the descent of our Saviour from Ruth, a Gentile woman, was an intimation of the comprehensive nature of the Christian dispensation. We are no where informed when Ruth lived; but as King David was her great-grandson, we may place her history about B. C. 1250. This book was certainly written after the birth of David, and probably by the Prophet Samuel, though some have attributed it to Hezekiah, and others to Ezra. The story related in this book is extremely interesting; the widowed distress of Naomi, her affectionate concern for her daughters, the reluctant departure of Orpah, the dutiful attachment of Ruth, and the sorrowful return to Bethlehem, are very beautifully told. The simplicity of manners, likewise, which is shown in Ruth’s industry and attention to Naomi; the elegant charity of Boaz; and his acknowledgment of his kindred with Ruth, afford a pleasing contrast to the turbulent scenes described in the book of the Judges. The respect, likewise, which the Israelites paid to the law of Moses, and their observance of ancient customs, are represented in a very lively and animated manner, Ruth iv. It is a pleasing digression from the general thread of the sacred history.

SABAOTH, or rather Zabaoth, a Hebrew word, signifying _hosts_ or _armies_, יהוה צבאות, _Jehovah Sabaoth, The Lord of Hosts_. By this phrase we may understand the host of heaven, or the angels and ministers of the Lord; or the stars and planets, which, as an army ranged in battle array, perform the will of God; or, lastly, the people of the Lord, both of the old and new covenant, which is truly a great army, of which God is the Lord and commander.

SABBATH. The obligation of a sabbatical institution upon Christians, as well as the extent of it, have been the subjects of much controversy. Christian churches themselves have differed; and the theologians of the same church. Much has been written upon the subject on each side, and much research and learning employed, sometimes to darken a very plain subject. The question respects the will of God as to this particular point,--Whether one day in seven is to be wholly devoted to religion, exclusive of worldly business and worldly pleasures. Now, there are but two ways in which the will of God can be collected from his word; either by some explicit injunction upon all, or by incidental circumstances. Let us then allow, for a moment, that we have no such explicit injunction; yet we have certainly none to the contrary: let us allow that we have only for our guidance, in inferring the will of God in this particular, certain circumstances declarative of his will; yet this important conclusion is inevitable, that all such indicative circumstances are in favour of a sabbatical institution, and that there is not one which exhibits any thing contrary to it. The seventh day was hallowed at the close of the creation; its sanctity was afterward marked by the withholding of the manna on that day, and the provision of a double supply on the sixth, and that previous to the giving of the law from Sinai: it was then made a part of that great epitome of religious and moral duty, which God wrote with his own finger on tables of stone; it was a part of the public political law of the only people to whom almighty God ever made himself a political Head and Ruler; its observance is connected throughout the prophetic age with the highest promises, its violations with the severest maledictions; it was among the Jews in our Lord’s time a day of solemn religious assembling, and was so observed by him; when changed to the first day of the week, it was the day on which the first Christians assembled; it was called, by way of eminence, “the Lord’s day;” and we have inspired authority to say, that both under the Old and New Testament dispensations, it is used as an expressive type of the heavenly and eternal rest. Now, against all these circumstances so strongly declarative of the will of God, as to the observance of a sabbatical institution, what circumstance or passage of Scripture can be opposed, as bearing upon it a contrary indication? Certainly, not one; for those passages in St. Paul, in which he speaks of Jewish Sabbaths, with their Levitical rites, and of a distinction of days, the observance of which marked a weak or a criminal adherence to the abolished ceremonial dispensation; touch not the Sabbath as a branch of the moral law, or as it was changed, by the authority of the Apostles, to the first day of the week. If, then, we were left to determine the point by inference, the conclusion must be irresistibly in favour of the institution.

It may also be observed, that those who will so strenuously insist upon the absence of an express command as to the Sabbath in the writings of the evangelists and Apostles, as explicit as that of the decalogue, assume, that the will of God is only obligatory when manifested in some one mode, which they judge to be most fit. But this is a dangerous hypothesis; for, however the will of God may be manifested, if it is with such clearness as to exclude all reasonable doubt, it is equally obligatory as when it assumes the formality of legal promulgation. Thus the Bible is not all in the form of express and authoritative command; it teaches by examples, by proverbs, by songs, by incidental allusions and occurrences; and yet is, throughout, a manifestation of the will of God as to morals and religion in their various branches, and, if disregarded, it will be so at every man’s peril. But strong as this ground is, we quit it for a still stronger. It is wholly a mistake, that the Sabbath, because not reënacted with the formality of the decalogue, is not explicitly enjoined upon Christians, and that the testimony of Scripture to such an injunction is not unequivocal and irrefragible. The Sabbath was appointed at the creation of the world, and sanctified, or set apart for holy purposes, “for man,” for all men, and therefore for Christians; since there was never any repeal of the original institution. To this we add, that if the moral law be the law of Christians, then is the Sabbath as explicitly enjoined upon them as upon the Jews. But that the moral law is our law, as well as the law of the Jews, all but Antinomians must acknowledge; and few, we suppose, will be inclined to run into the fearful mazes of that error, in order to support lax notions as to the obligation of the Sabbath; into which, however, they must be plunged, if they deny the law of the decalogue to be binding. That it is so bound upon us, a few passages of Scripture will prove as well as many. Our Lord declares, that he “came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfil.” Take it, that by “the law,” he meant both the moral and the ceremonial; ceremonial law could only be fulfilled in him, by realizing its types; and moral law, by upholding its authority. For “the prophets,” they admit of a similar distinction; they either enjoin morality, or utter prophecies of Christ; the latter of which were fulfilled in the sense of accomplishment, the former by being sanctioned and enforced. That the observance of the Sabbath is a part of the moral law, is clear from its being found in the decalogue, the doctrine of which our Lord sums up in the moral duties of loving God and our neighbour; and for this reason the injunctions of the prophets, on the subject of the Sabbath, are to be regarded as a part of their moral teaching. Some divines have, it is true, called the observance of the Sabbath a positive, and not a moral precept. If it were so, its obligation is precisely the same, in all cases where God himself has not relaxed it; and if a positive precept only, it has surely a special eminence given to it, by being placed in the list of the ten commandments, and being capable, with them, of an epitome which resolves them into the love of God and our neighbour. The truth seems to be, that it is a mixed precept, and not wholly positive, but intimately, perhaps essentially connected with several moral principles of homage to God, and mercy to men; with the obligation of religious _worship_, of _public_ religious worship, and of _undistracted_ public worship: and this will account for its collocation in the decalogue with the highest duties of religion, and the leading rules of personal and social morality. The passage from our Lord’s sermon on the mount, with its context, is a sufficiently explicit enforcement of the moral law, generally, upon his followers; but when he says, “The Sabbath was made for man,” he clearly refers to its original institution, as a universal law, and not to its obligation upon the Jews only, in consequence of the enactments of the law of Moses. It “was made for man,” not as he may be a Jew, or a Christian; but as man, a creature bound to love, worship, and obey his God and Maker, and on his trial for eternity.

Another explicit proof that the law of the ten commandments, and, consequently, the law of the Sabbath, is obligatory upon Christians, is found in the answer of the Apostle to an objection to the doctrine of justification by faith: “Do we then make void the law through faith?” Rom. iii, 31; which is equivalent to asking, Does Christianity teach that the law is no longer obligatory on Christians, because it teaches that no man can be justified by it? To this he answers, in the most solemn form of expression, “God forbid; yea, we establish the law.” Now, the sense in which the Apostle uses the term, “the law,” in this argument, is indubitably marked in Rom. vii, 7: “I had not known sin but by the law; for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet:” which, being a plain reference to the tenth command of the decalogue, as plainly shows that the decalogue is “the law” of which he speaks. This, then, is the law which is established by the Gospel; and this can mean nothing else but the establishment and confirmation of its authority, as the rule of all inward and outward holiness. Whoever, therefore, denies the obligation of the Sabbath on Christians, denies the obligation of the whole decalogue; and there is no real medium between the acknowledgment of the divine authority of this sacred institution, as a universal law, and that gross corruption of Christianity, generally designated Antinomianism.

Nor is there any force in the dilemma into which the anti-sabbatarians would push us, when they argue, that, if the case be so, then are we bound to the same circumstantial exactitude of obedience with regard to this command, as to the other precepts of the decalogue; and, therefore, that we are bound to observe the seventh day, reckoning from Saturday, as the Sabbath day. But, as the command is partly positive, and partly moral, it may have circumstances which are capable of being altered in perfect accordance with the moral principles on which it rests, and the moral ends which it proposes. Such circumstances are not indeed to be judged of on our own authority. We must either have such general principles for our guidance as have been revealed by God, and cannot therefore be questioned, or some special authority from which there can be no just appeal. Now, though there is not on record any divine command issued to the Apostles, to change the Sabbath from the day on which it was held by the Jews, to the first day of the week; yet, when we see that this was done in the apostolic age, and that St. Paul speaks of the Jewish Sabbaths as not being obligatory upon Christians, while he yet contends that the whole moral law is obligatory upon them; the fair inference is, that this change of the day was made by divine direction. It is indeed more than inference that the change was made under the sanction of inspired men; and those men, the appointed rulers in the church of Christ; whose business it was to “set all things in order,” which pertained to its worship and moral government. We may therefore rest well enough satisfied with this,--that as a Sabbath is obligatory upon us, we act under apostolic authority for observing it on the first day of the week, and thus commemorate at once the creation and the redemption of the world.

Thus, even if it were conceded, that the change of the day was made by the agreement of the Apostles, without express directions from Christ, which is not probable, it is certain that it was not done without that general authority which was confided to them by Christ; but it would not follow even from this change, that they did in reality make any alteration in the law of the Sabbath, either as it stood at the time of its original institution at the close of the creation, or in the decalogue of Moses. The same portion of time which constituted the seventh day from the creation could not be observed in all parts of the earth; and it is not probable, therefore, that the original law expresses more, than that a seventh day, or one day in seven, the seventh day after six days of labour, should be thus appropriated, from whatever point the enumeration might set out, or the hebdomadal cycle begin. For if more had been intended, then it would have been necessary to establish a rule for the reckoning of days themselves, which has been different in different nations; some reckoning from evening to evening, as the Jews now do, others from midnight to midnight, &c. So that those persons in this country and in America, who hold their Sabbath on Saturday, under the notion of exactly conforming to the Old Testament, and yet calculate the days from midnight to midnight, have no assurance at all that they do not desecrate a part of the original Sabbath, which might begin, as the Jewish Sabbath now, on Friday evening, and, on the contrary, hallow a portion of a common day, by extending the Sabbath beyond Saturday evening. Even if this were ascertained, the differences of latitude and longitude would throw the whole into disorder; and it is not probable that a universal law should have been fettered with that circumstantial exactness, which would have rendered difficult, and sometimes doubtful, astronomical calculations necessary in order to its being obeyed according to the intention of the lawgiver. Accordingly we find, says Mr. Holden, that in the original institution it is stated in general terms, that God blessed and sanctified the seventh day, which must undoubtedly imply the sanctity of every seventh day; but not that it is to be subsequently reckoned from the first demiurgic day. Had this been included in the command of the Almighty, something, it is probable, would have been added declaratory of the intention; whereas expressions the most undefined are employed; not a syllable is uttered concerning the order and number of the days; and it cannot reasonably be disputed that the command is truly obeyed by the separation of every seventh day, from common to sacred purposes, at whatever given time the cycle may commence. The difference in the mode of expression here, from that which the sacred historian has used in the first chapter, is very remarkable. At the conclusion of each division of the work of creation, he says, “The evening and the morning were the first day,” and so on; but at the termination of the whole, he merely calls it the seventh day; a diversity of phrase, which, as it would be inconsistent with every idea of inspiration to suppose it undesigned, must have been intended to denote a day, leaving it to each people as to what manner it is to be reckoned. The term obviously imports the period of the earth’s rotation round its axis, while it is left undetermined, whether it shall be counted from evening or morning, from noon or midnight. The terms of the law are, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” With respect to time, it is here mentioned in the same indefinite manner as at its primeval institution, nothing more being expressly required than to observe a day of sacred rest after every six days of labour. The seventh day is to be kept holy; but not a word is said as to what epoch the commencement of the series is to be referred; nor could the Hebrews have determined from the decalogue what day of the week was to be kept as their Sabbath. The precept is not, Remember the seventh day of the week, to keep _it_ holy, but, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy;” and in the following explication of these expressions, it is not said that the seventh day of the week is the Sabbath, but without restriction, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God;” not the seventh according to any particular method of computing the septenary cycle, but, in reference to the six before mentioned, every seventh day in rotation after six of labour.

Thus that part of the Jewish law, the decalogue, which, on the authority of the New Testament, we have shown to be obligatory upon Christians, leaves the computation of the hebdomadal cycle undetermined; and, after six days of labour, enjoins the seventh as the Sabbath, to which the Christian practice as exactly conforms as the Jewish. It is not, however, left to every individual to determine which day should be his Sabbath, though he should fulfil the law so far as to abstract the seventh part of his time from labour. It was ordained for worship, for _public_ worship; and it is therefore necessary that the Sabbath should be uniformly observed by a whole community at the same time. The divine Legislator of the Jews interposed for this end, by special direction, as to his people. The first Sabbath kept in the wilderness was calculated from the first day in which the manna fell; and with no apparent reference to the creation of the world. By apostolic authority, it is now fixed to be held on the first day of the week; and thus one of the great ends for which it was established, that it should be a day of “holy convocation,” is secured.

Traces of the original appointment of the Sabbath, and of its observance prior to the giving forth of the law of Moses, have been found by the learned in the tradition which universally prevailed of the sacredness of the number seven, and the fixing of the first period of time to the revolution of seven days. The measuring of time by a day and night is pointed out to the common sense of mankind by the diurnal course of the sun. Lunar months and solar years are equally obvious to all rational creatures; so that the reason why time has been computed by days, months, and years, is readily given; but how the division of time into weeks of seven days, and this from the beginning, came to obtain universally among mankind, no man can account for, without having respect to some impressions on the minds of men from the constitution and law of nature, with the tradition of a sabbatical rest from the foundation of the world. Yet plain intimations of this weekly revolution of time are to be found in the earliest Greek poets: Hesiod, Homer, Linus, as well as among the nations of the Chaldeans, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans. It deserves consideration, too, on this subject, that Noah, in sending forth the dove out of the ark, observed the septenary revolution of days, Gen. viii, 10, 12; and at a subsequent period, in the days of the Patriarch Jacob, a week is spoken of as a well known period of time, Gen. xxix, 27; Judges xiv, 12, 15, 17. These considerations are surely sufficient to evince the futility of the arguments which are sometimes plausibly urged for the first institution of the Sabbath under the law; and the design of which, in most cases is, to set aside the moral obligation of appropriating one day in seven to the purposes of the public worship of God, and the observation of divine ordinances. But the truth is, that the seventh day was set apart from the beginning as a day of rest; and it was also strictly enjoined upon the Israelites in their law, both on the ground of its original institution, Exod. xx, 8–11, and also to commemorate their deliverance from the bondage of Egypt, Deut. v, 15.

“A Sabbath day’s journey” was reckoned to be two thousand cubits, or one mile, Acts i, 12. The sabbatical year was celebrated among the Jews every seventh year when the land was left without culture, Exod. xxii, 10. God appointed the observation of the sabbatical year, to preserve the remembrance of the creation of the world, to enforce the acknowledgment of his sovereign authority over all things, and in particular over the land of Canaan, which he had given to the Israelites, by delivering up the fruits to the poor and the stranger. It was a sort of tribute, or small rent, by which they held the possession. Beside, he intended to inculcate humanity upon his people, by commanding that they should resign to the slaves, the poor, and the strangers, and to the brutes, the produce of their fields, of their vineyards, and of their gardens. In the sabbatical year all debts were remitted, and the slaves were liberated, Exodus xxi, 2; Deut. xv, 2.

SABEANS, or “men of stature,” Isa. xlv, 14. These men were probably the Sabeans of Arabia Felix, or of Asia. They submitted to Cyrus. The Sabeans of Arabia were descended from Saba; but as there are several of this name, who were all heads of peoples, or of tribes, we must distinguish several kinds of Sabeans. 1. Those Sabeans who seized the flocks of Job, i, 15, were, probably, a people of Arabia Deserta, about Bozra; or, perhaps, a flying troop of Sabeans which infested that country. 2. Sabeans, descendants from Sheba, son of Cush, Gen. x, 7, are probably of Arabia Felix: they were famous for spices; the poets gave them the epithet of soft and effeminate, and say they were governed by women:

_Medis, levibusque Sabæis Imperat hic sexus._

[This sex governs the Medes, and the gentle Sabeans.]

Several are of opinion, that from them came the queen of Sheba, 1 Kings x, 1, 2; and that of these Sabeans the psalmist speaks, Psalm lxxii, 10, “The kings of Arabia and Sheba shall give gifts;” and Jeremiah, vi, 20: “What are the perfumes of Sheba to me?” and Isaiah, lx, 6: “All who come from Sheba shall offer gold and perfumes.” 3. Sabeans, sons of Shebah, son of Reumah, Gen. x, 7, probably dwelt in Arabia Felix. Probably it is of these Ezekiel speaks, xxvii, 22, who came with their merchandise to the fairs of Tyre: and Joel, iii, 8: “I will deliver up your children to the tribe of Judah, who shall sell them to the Sabeans, a very distant nation.” 4. Sabeans, descendants from Joktan, may very well be those mentioned by Ezekiel, xxvii, 23: “Saba, Assur, and Chelmad, thy dealers.” They are thought to have inhabited beyond the Euphrates; whence they are connected with Asshur and Chilmad, Gen. x, 28; 1 Chron. i, 22. 5. Sabeans are also placed in Africa, in the isle of Meroë. Josephus brings the queen of Sheba from thence, and pretends that it had the name of Shebah, or Saba, before that of Meroë.

SABELLIANS were so called from Sabellius, a presbyter, or, according to others, a bishop, of Upper Egypt, who was the founder of the sect. As, from their doctrine, it follows that God the Father suffered, they were hence called by their adversaries, Patripassians; and, as their idea of the trinity was by some called a modal trinity, they have likewise been called Modalists. Sabellius having been a disciple of Noëtus, Noëtians is another name by which his followers have sometimes been known; and as, from their fears of infringing on the fundamental doctrine of all true religion, the unity of God, they neglected all distinctions of persons, and taught the notion of one God with three names, they may hence be also considered as a species of Unitarians. Sabellius flourished about the middle of the third century, and his doctrine seems to have had many followers for a short time. Its growth, however, was soon checked by the opposition made to it by Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, and the sentence of condemnation pronounced upon its author by Pope Dionysius, in a council held at Rome, A. D. 263. Sabellius taught that there is but one person in the Godhead; and, in confirmation of this doctrine, he made use of this comparison: As man, though composed of body and soul, is but one person, so God, though he is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is but one person. Hence the Sabellians reduced the three persons in the trinity to three characters or relations, and maintained that the Word and Holy Spirit are only virtues, emanations, or functions, of the Deity; that he who is in heaven is the Father of all things; that he descended into the virgin, became a child, and was born of her as a son; and that, having accomplished the mystery of our redemption, he effused himself upon the Apostles in tongues of fire, and was then denominated the Holy Ghost. This they explain by resembling God to the sun, the illuminative virtue or quality of which was the word, and its quickening virtue the Holy Spirit. The word, according to their doctrine, was darted, like a divine ray, to accomplish the work of redemption; and having reäscended to heaven, the influences of the Father were communicated, after a like manner, to the Apostles. They also attempted to illustrate this mystery, by one light kindled by another; by the fountain and stream, and by the stock and branch. With respect to the sentiments of Sabellius himself, the accounts are various. According to some, he taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, were one subsistence, and one person, with three names; and that, in the Old Testament, the Deity delivered the law as the Father; in the New Testament dwelt among men as the Son; and descended on the Apostles as the Holy Spirit. According to Mosheim, his sentiments differed from those of Noëtus, in this, that the latter was of opinion, that the person of the Father had assumed the human nature of Christ; whereas Sabellius maintained, that a certain energy only proceeded from the supreme Parent, or a certain portion of the divine nature was united to the Son of God, the man Jesus; and he considered, in the same manner, the Holy Ghost as a portion of the everlasting Father.

Between the system of Sabellianism and what is termed the indwelling scheme, there appears to be a considerable resemblance, if it be not precisely the same, differently explained. The indwelling scheme is chiefly founded on that passage in the New Testament, where the Apostle speaking of Christ says, “In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” Dr. Watts, toward the close of his life, adopted this opinion, and wrote several pieces in its defence. His sentiments on the trinity appear to have been, that the Godhead, the Deity itself, personally distinguished as the Father, was united to the man Christ Jesus; in consequence of which union or indwelling of the Godhead, he became properly God. Mr. Palmer observes, that Dr. Watts conceived this union to have subsisted before the Saviour’s appearance in the flesh, and that the human soul of Christ existed with the Father from before the foundation of the world: on which ground he maintains the real descent of Christ from heaven to earth, and the whole scene of his humiliation, which he thought incompatible with the common opinion concerning him.

SACKCLOTH, a sort of mourning worn at the death of a friend or relation. In great calamities, in penitence, in trouble also, they wore sackcloth about their bodies: “Gird yourselves with sackcloth, and mourn for Abner,” 2 Sam. iii, 31. “Let us gird ourselves with sackcloth; and let us go and implore the clemency of the king of Israel,” 1 Kings xx, 31. Ahab rent his clothes, put on a shirt of haircloth next to his skin, fasted, and lay upon sackcloth, 1 Kings xxi, 27. When Mordecai was informed of the destruction threatened to his nation, he put on sackcloth, and covered his head with ashes, Esther iv. On the contrary, in time of joy, or on hearing good news, those who were clad in sackcloth tore it from their bodies, and cast it from them, Psalm xxx, 11. The prophets were often clothed in sackcloth, and generally in coarse clothing. The Lord bids Isaiah to put off the sackcloth from about his body, and to go naked, that is, without his upper garment, Isaiah xx, 2. Zechariah says that false prophets shall no longer prophesy in sackcloth, to deceive the simple, Zech. xiii, 4.

SACRAMENT. There is no word in the Bible which corresponds to the word sacrament. It is a Latin word; and, agreeably to its derivation, it was applied by the early writers of the western church to any ceremony of our holy religion, especially if it were figurative or mystical. But a more confined signification of this word by degrees prevailed, and in that stricter sense it has been always used by the divines of modern times. Sacraments, says Dr. Hill, are conceived in the church of Rome to consist of matter, deriving, from the action of the priest in pronouncing certain words, a divine virtue, by which grace is conveyed to the soul of every person who receives them. It is supposed to be necessary that the priest, in pronouncing the words, has the intention of giving to the matter that divine virtue; otherwise it remains in its original state. On the part of those who receive the sacrament, it is required that they be free from any of those sins, called in the church of Rome mortal; but it is not required of them to exercise any good disposition, to possess faith, or to resolve that they shall amend their lives; for such is conceived to be the physical virtue of a sacrament administered by a priest with a good intention, that, unless when it is opposed by the obstacle of a mortal sin, the very act of receiving it is sufficient. This act was called, in the language of the schools, _opus operatum_, the work done independently of any disposition of mind attending the deed; and the superiority of the sacraments of the New Testament over the sacraments of the Old was thus expressed, that the sacraments of the Old Testament were effectual _ex opere operantis_, from the piety and faith of the persons to whom they were administered; while the sacraments of the New Testament convey grace, _ex opere operato_, from their own intrinsic virtue, and an immediate physical influence upon the mind of him who receives them. This notion represents the sacraments as a mere charm, the use of which, being totally disjoined from every mental exercise, cannot be regarded as a reasonable service. It gives men the hope of receiving, by the use of a charm, the full participation of the grace of God, although they continue to indulge that very large class of sins, to which the accommodating morality of the church of Rome extends the name of venial; and yet it makes this high privilege entirely dependent upon the intention of another, who, although he performs all the outward acts which belong to the sacrament, may, if he chooses, withhold the communication of that physical virtue, without which the sacrament is of none avail.

The Socinian doctrine concerning the nature of the sacraments is founded upon a sense of the absurdity and danger of the popish doctrine, and a solicitude to avoid any approach to it, and runs into the opposite extreme. It is conceived that the sacraments are not essentially distinct from any other rites or ceremonies; that, as they consist of a symbolical action, in which something external and material is employed to represent what is spiritual and invisible, they may by this address to the senses be of use in reviving the remembrance of past events, and in cherishing pious sentiments; but that their effect is purely moral, and that they contribute, by that moral effect, to the improvement of the individual in the same manner with reading the Scriptures, and many other exercises of religion. It is admitted, indeed, by the Socinians, that the sacraments are of farther advantage to the whole society of Christians, as being the solemn badges by which the disciples of Jesus are discriminated from other men, and the appointed method of declaring that faith in Christ, by the public profession of which Christians minister to the improvement of one another. But in these two points, the moral effect upon the individual, and the advantage to society, is contained all that a Socinian holds concerning the general nature of the sacraments. This doctrine, like all other parts of the Socinian system, represents religion in the simple view of being a lesson of righteousness, and loses sight of that character of the Gospel, which is meant to be implied in calling it a covenant of grace. The greater part of Protestants, therefore, following an expression of the Apostle, Rom. iv, 11, when he is speaking of circumcision, consider the sacraments as not only signs, but also seals, of the covenant of grace. Those who apply this phrase to the sacraments of the New Testament, admit every part of the Socinian doctrine concerning the nature of sacraments, and are accustomed to employ that doctrine to correct those popish errors upon this subject which are not yet eradicated from the minds of many of the people. But although they admit that the Socinian doctrine is true as far as it goes, they consider it as incomplete. For, while they hold that the sacraments yield no benefit to those upon whom the signs employed in them do not produce the proper moral effect, they regard these signs as intended to represent an inward invisible grace, which proceeds from him by whom they are appointed, and as pledges that that grace will be conveyed to all in whom the moral effect is produced. The sacraments, therefore, in their opinion, constitute federal acts, in which the persons who receive them with proper dispositions, solemnly engage to fulfil their part of the covenant, and God confirms his promise to them in a sensible manner; not as if the promise of God were of itself insufficient to render any event certain, but because this manner of exhibiting the blessings promised gives a stronger impression of the truth of the promise, and conveys to the mind an assurance that it will be fulfilled. According to this account of the sacraments, the express institution of God is essentially requisite to constitute their nature; and in this respect sacraments are distinguished from what may be called the ceremonies of religion. Ceremonies are in their nature arbitrary; and different means may be employed by different persons with success, according to their constitution, their education, and their circumstances, to cherish the sentiments of devotion, and to confirm good purposes. But no rite which is not ordained by God can be conceived to be a seal of his promise, or the pledge of any event that depends upon his good pleasure. Hence, that any rite may come up to our idea of a sacrament, we require in it, not merely a vague and general resemblance between the external matter which is the visible substance of the rite, and the thing thereby signified, but also words of institution, and a promise by which the two are connected together; and hence we reject five of the seven sacraments that are numbered in the church of Rome, because in some of the five we do not find any matter without which there is not that sign which enters into our definition of a sacrament; and in others we do not find any promise connecting the matter used with the grace said to be thereby signified, although upon this connection the essence of a sacrament depends.

SACRIFICE, properly so called, is the solemn infliction of death on a living creature, generally by the effusion of its blood, in a way of religious worship; and the presenting of this act to God, as a supplication for the pardon of sin, and a supposed means of compensation for the insult and injury thereby offered to his majesty and government. Sacrifices have, in all ages, and by almost every nation, been regarded as necessary to placate the divine anger, and render the Deity propitious. Though the Gentiles had lost the knowledge of the true God, they still retained such a dread of him, that they sometimes sacrificed their own offspring for the purpose of averting his anger. Unhappy and bewildered mortals, seeking relief from their guilty fears, hoped to atone for past crimes by committing others still more awful; they gave their first-born for their transgression, the fruit of their body for the sin of their soul. The Scriptures sufficiently indicate that sacrifices were instituted by divine appointment, immediately after the entrance of sin, to prefigure the sacrifice of Christ. Accordingly, we find Abel, Noah, Abraham, Job, and others, offering sacrifices in the faith of the Messiah; and the divine acceptance of their sacrifices is particularly recorded. But, in religious institutions, the Most High has ever been jealous of his prerogative. He alone prescribes his own worship; and he regards as vain and presumptuous every pretence of honouring him which he has not commanded. The sacrifice of blood and death could not have been offered to him without impiety, nor would he have accepted it, had not his high authority pointed the way by an explicit prescription.

Under the law, sacrifices of various kinds were appointed for the children of Israel; the paschal lamb, Exod. xii, 3; the holocaust, or whole burnt-offering, Lev. vii, 8; the sin-offering, or sacrifice of expiation, Lev. iv, 3, 4; and the peace-offering, or sacrifice of thanksgiving, Lev. vii, 11, 12; all of which emblematically set forth the sacrifice of Christ, being the instituted types and shadows of it, Heb. ix, 9–15; x, 1. Accordingly, Christ abolished the whole of them when he offered his own sacrifice. “Above, when he said, Sacrifice, and offering, and burnt-offerings, and offering for sin, thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein, which are offered by the law; then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Christ once for all,” Heb. x, 8–10; 1 Cor. v, 7. In illustrating this fundamental doctrine of Christianity, the Apostle Paul, in his Epistle to the Hebrews, sets forth the excellency of the sacrifice of our great High Priest above those of the law in various particulars. The legal sacrifices were only brute animals, such as bullocks, heifers, goats, lambs, &c; but the sacrifice of Christ was himself, a person of infinite dignity and worth, Heb. ix, 12, 13; i, 3; ix, 14, 26; x, 10. The former, though they cleansed from ceremonial uncleanness, could not possibly expiate sin, or purify the conscience from the guilt of it; and so it is said that God was not well pleased in them, Heb. x, 4, 5, 8, 11. But Christ, by the sacrifice of himself, hath effectually, and for ever, put away sin, having made an adequate atonement unto God for it, and by means of faith in it he also purges the conscience from dead works to serve the living God, Heb. ix, 10–26; Ephes. v, 2. The legal sacrifices were statedly offered, year after year, by which their insufficiency was indicated, and an intimation given that God was still calling sins to his remembrance, Heb. x, 3; but the last required no repetition, because it fully and at once answered all the ends of sacrifice, on which account God hath declared that he will remember the sins and iniquities of his people no more.

The term sacrifice is often used in a secondary or metaphorical sense, and applied to the good works of believers, and to the duties of prayer and praise, as in the following passages: “But to do good, and to communicate, forget not; for with such sacrifices God is well pleased,” Heb. xiii, 16. “Having received of Epaphroditus the things which ye sent, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God,” Phil. iv, 18. “Ye are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ,” 1 Peter ii, 5. “By him, therefore, let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually; that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his name,” Heb. xiii, 15. “I beseech you, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service,” Rom. xii, 1. “There is a peculiar reason,” says Dr. Owen, “for assigning this appellation to moral duties; for in every sacrifice there was a presentation of something unto God. The worshipper was not to offer that which cost him nothing; part of his substance was to be transferred from himself unto God. So it is in these duties; they cannot be properly observed without the alienation of something that was our own,--our time, ease, property, &c, and a dedication of it to the Lord. Hence they have the general nature of sacrifices.” The ceremonies used in offering the Jewish sacrifices require to be noticed as illustrative of many texts of Scripture, and some points of important doctrine. See ATONEMENT, OFFERINGS, EXPIATION, PROPITIATION, RECONCILIATION, and REDEMPTION.

SADDUCEES, a sect among the Jews. It is said that the principles of the Sadducees were derived from Antigonus Sochæus, president of the sanhedrim, about B. C. 250, who, rejecting the traditionary doctrines of the scribes, taught that man ought to serve God out of pure love, and not from hope of reward, or fear of punishment; and that they derived their name from Sadoc, one of his followers, who, mistaking or perverting this doctrine, maintained that there was no future state of rewards and punishments. Whatever foundation there may be for this account of the origin of the sect, it is certain, that in the time of our Saviour the Sadducees denied the resurrection of the dead, Acts xxiii, 8, and the existence of angels and spirits, or souls of departed men; though, as Mr. Hume observes, it is not easy to comprehend how they could at the same time admit the authority of the law of Moses. They carried their ideas of human freedom so far as to assert that men were absolutely masters of their own actions, and at full liberty to do either good or evil. Josephus even says that they denied the essential difference between good and evil; and, though they believed that God created and preserved the world, they seem to have denied his particular providence. These tenets, which resemble the Epicurean philosophy, led, as might be expected, to great profligacy of life; and we find the licentious wickedness of the Sadducees frequently condemned in the New Testament; yet they professed themselves obliged to observe the Mosaic law, because of the temporal rewards and punishments annexed to such observance; and hence they were always severe in their punishment of any crimes which tended to disturb the public tranquillity. The Sadducees rejected all tradition, and some authors have contended that they admitted only the books of Moses; but there seems no ground for that opinion, either in the Scriptures or in any ancient writer. Even Josephus, who was himself a Pharisee, and took every opportunity of reproaching the Sadducees, does not mention that they rejected any part of the Scriptures; he only says that “the Pharisees have delivered to the people many institutions as received from the fathers, which are not written in the law of Moses. For this reason the Sadducees reject these things, asserting that those things are binding which are written, but that the things received by tradition from the fathers are not to be observed.” Beside, it is generally believed that the Sadducees expected the Messiah with great impatience, which seems to imply their belief in the prophecies, though they misinterpreted their meaning. Confining all their hopes to this present world, enjoying its riches, and devoting themselves to its pleasures, they might well be particularly anxious that their lot of life should be cast in the splendid reign of this expected temporal king, with the hope of sharing in his conquests and glory; but this expectation was so contrary to the lowly appearance of our Saviour, that they joined their inveterate enemies, the Pharisees, in persecuting him and his religion. Josephus says, that the Sadducees were able to draw over to them the rich only, the people not following them; and he elsewhere mentions that this sect spread chiefly among the young. The Sadducees were far less numerous than the Pharisees, but they were in general persons of greater opulence and dignity. The council before whom our Saviour and St. Paul were carried consisted partly of Pharisees and partly of Sadducees.

SALAMIS, once a famous city in the isle of Cyprus, opposite to Seleucia, on the Syrian coast; and as it was the first place where the Gospel was preached, it was in the primitive times made the see of the primate of the whole island. It was destroyed by the Saracens, and from the ruins was built Famagusta, which was taken by the Turks in 1570. Here St. Paul preached, A. D. 44, Acts xiii, 5.

SALMON, son of Nahshon: he married Rahab, by whom he had Boaz, 1 Chron. ii, 11, 51, 54; Ruth iv, 20, 21; Matt. i, 4. He is named the father of Bethlehem, because his descendants peopled Bethlehem.

SALOME, the wife of Zebedee, and mother of St. James the greater, and St. John the evangelist, Matthew xxvii, 56; and one of those holy women who used to attend upon our Saviour in his journeyings, and to minister to him. She was the person who requested of Jesus Christ, that her two sons, James and John, might sit on his right and left hand when he should enter upon his kingdom, having then but the same obscure views as the rest of the disciples; but she gave proof of her faith when she followed Christ to Calvary, and did not forsake him even at the cross, Mark xv, 40; Matt. xxvii, 55, 56. She was also one of the women that brought perfumes to embalm him, and who came, for this purpose, to the sepulchre “early in the morning,” Mark xvi, 1, 2. At the tomb they saw two angels, who informed them that Jesus was risen. Returning to Jerusalem, Jesus appeared to them on the way, and said to them, “Be not afraid: go, tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.”

SALT. God appointed that salt should be used in all the sacrifices that were offered to him, Leviticus ii, 13. Salt is esteemed the symbol of wisdom and grace, Colossians iv, 6; Mark ix, 50; also of perpetuity and incorruption, Numbers xviii, 19; 2 Chronicles xiii, 5. The orientals were accustomed also to ratify their federal engagements by salt. This substance was, among the ancients, the emblem of friendship and fidelity, and therefore used in all their sacrifices and covenants. It was a sacred pledge of hospitality which they never ventured to violate. Numerous instances occur of travellers in Arabia, after being plundered and stripped by the wandering tribes of the desert, claiming the protection of some civilized Arab, who, after receiving them into his tent, and giving them salt, instantly relieves their distress, and never forsakes them till he has placed them in safety. An agreement, thus ratified, is called, in Scripture, “a covenant of salt.” The obligation which this symbol imposes on the mind of an oriental, is well illustrated by the Baron du Tott in the following anecdote: One who was desirous of his acquaintance promised in a short time to return. The baron had already attended him half way down the staircase, when stopping, and turning briskly to one of his domestics, “Bring me directly,” said he, “some bread and salt.” What he requested was brought; when, taking a little salt between his fingers, and putting it with a mysterious air on a bit of bread, he ate it with a devout gravity, assuring du Tott he might now rely on him.

Although salt, in small quantities, may contribute to the communicating and fertilizing of some kinds of stubborn soil, yet, according to the observations of Pliny, “all places in which salt is found are barren and produce nothing.” The effect of salt, where it abounds, on vegetation, is described by burning, in Deut. xxix, 23, “The whole land thereof is brimstone, and salt of burning.” Thus Volney, speaking of the borders of the Asphaltic lake, or Dead Sea, says, “The true cause of the absence of vegetables and animals is the acrid saltness of its waters, which is infinitely greater than that of the sea. The land surrounding the lake, being equally impregnated with that saltness, refuses to produce plants; the air itself, which is by evaporation loaded with it, and which moreover receives vapours of sulphur and bitumen, cannot suit vegetation; whence that dead appearance which reigns around the lake.” So a salt land, Jer. xvii, 6, is the same as the “parched places of the wilderness,” and is descriptive of barrenness, as saltness also is, Job xxxix, 6; Psalm cvii, 34; Ezek. xlvii, 11; Zech. ii, 9. Hence the ancient custom of sowing an enemy’s city, when taken,with salt, in token of perpetual desolation, Judges iv, 45; and thus in after times the city of Milan was burned, razed, sown with salt, and ploughed by the exasperated emperor, Frederic Barbarossa. The salt used by the ancients was what we call rock or fossil salt; and also that left by the evaporation of salt lakes. Both these kinds were impure, being mixed with earth, sand, &c, and lost their strength by deliquescence. Maundrell, describing the valley of salt, says, “On the side toward Gibul there is a small precipice, occasioned by the continual taking away of the salt; and in this you may see how the veins of it lie. I broke a piece of it, of which that part that was exposed to the sun, rain, and air, though it had the sparks and particles of salt, yet it had perfectly lost its savour; the inner part, which was connected with the rock, retained its savour, as I found by proof.” Christ reminds his disciples, Matt. v, 13, “Ye are the salt of the earth; but if the salt have lost its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.” This is spoken of the mineral salt as mentioned by Maundrell, a great deal of which was made use of in offerings at the temple; such of it as had become insipid was thrown out to repair the road. The existence of such a salt, and its application to such a use, Schoetgenius has largely proved in his “_Horæ Hebraicæ_.” The salt unfit for the land, Luke xvi, 34, Le Clerc conjectures to be that made of wood ashes, which easily loses its savour, and becomes no longer serviceable.

_Effœtos cinerem immundum jactare per agros._ VIRGIL. Georg. i, 81.

“But blush not fattening dung to cast around, Or sordid ashes o’er th’ exhausted ground.” WARTON.

SALUTATIONS at meeting are not less common in the east than in the countries of Europe, but are generally confined to those of their own nation or religious party. When the Arabs salute each other, it is generally in these terms: _Salum aleikum_, “Peace be with you;” laying, as they utter the words, the right hand on the heart. The answer is, _Aleikum essalum_, “With you be peace;” to which aged people are inclined to add, “and the mercy and blessing of God.” The Mohammedans of Egypt and Syria never salute a Christian in these terms: they content themselves with saying to them, “Good day to you;” or, “Friend, how do you do?” Niebuhr’s statement is confirmed by Mr. Bruce, who says that some Arabs, to whom he gave the _salam_, or salutation of peace, either made no reply, or expressed their astonishment at his impudence in using such freedom. Thus it appears that the orientals have two kinds of salutations; one for strangers, and the other for their own countrymen, or persons of their own religious profession. The Jews in the days of our Lord seem to have generally observed the same custom; they would not address the usual compliment of, “Peace be with you,” to either Heathens or publicans; the publicans of the Jewish nation would use it to their countrymen who were publicans, but not to Heathens, though the more rigid Jews refused to do it either to publicans or Heathens. Our Lord required his disciples to lay aside the moroseness of Jews, and cherish a benevolent disposition toward all around them: “If ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do not even the publicans so?” They were bound by the same authority to embrace their brethren in Christ with a special affection, yet they were to look upon every man as a brother, to feel a sincere and cordial interest in his welfare, and at meeting to express their benevolence, in language corresponding with the feelings of their hearts. This precept is not inconsistent with the charge which the Prophet Elisha gave to his servant Gehazi, not to salute any man he met, nor return his salutation; for he wished him to make all the haste in his power to restore the child of the Shunamite, who had laid him under so many obligations. The manners of the country rendered Elisha’s precautions particularly proper and necessary, as the salutations of the east often take up a long time. For a similar reason our Lord himself commanded his disciples on one occasion to salute no man by the way: it is not to be supposed that he would require his followers to violate or neglect an innocent custom, still less one of his own precepts; he only directed them to make the best use of their time in executing his work. This precaution was rendered necessary by the length of time which their tedious forms of salutation required. They begin their salutations at a considerable distance, by bringing the hand down to the knees, and then carrying it to the stomach. They express their devotedness to a person by holding down the hand, as they do their affection by raising it afterward to the heart. When they come close together, they take each other by the hand in token of friendship. The country people at meeting clap each other’s hands very smartly twenty or thirty times together, without saying any thing more than, “How do ye do? I wish you good health.” After this first compliment, many other friendly questions about the health of the family, mentioning each of the children distinctly, whose names they know. To avoid this useless waste of time, our Lord commanded them to avoid the customary salutations of those whom they might happen to meet by the way. All the forms of salutation now observed appear to have been in general use in the days of our Lord; for he represents a servant as falling down at the feet of his master, when he had a favour to ask; and an inferior servant, as paying the same compliment to the first, who belonged, it would seem, to a higher class; “The servant, therefore, fell down and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. And his fellow servant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all,” Matt. xviii, 26, 29. When Jairus solicited the Saviour to go and heal his daughter, he fell down at his feet: the Apostle Peter, on another occasion, seems to have fallen down at his knees, in the same manner as the modern Arabs fall down at the knees of a superior. The woman who was afflicted with an issue of blood touched the hem of his garment, and the Syro-Phenician woman fell down at his feet. In Persia, the salutation among intimate friends is made by inclining the neck over each other’s neck, and then inclining cheek to cheek; which Mr. Morier thinks is most likely the falling upon the neck and kissing, so frequently mentioned in Scripture, Gen. xxxiii, 4; xlv, 14; Luke xv, 20.

SALVATION imports, in general, some great deliverance from any evil or danger. Thus, the conducting the Israelites through the Red Sea, and delivering them out of the hands of the Egyptians, is called a great salvation. But salvation by way of eminence, is applied to that wonderful deliverance which our blessed Saviour procured for mankind, by saving them from the punishment of their sins; and in the New Testament is the same as our redemption by Christ. This is that salvation referred to by St. Paul: “How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?” The salvation which Christ purchased, and the Gospel tenders to every creature, comprehends the greatest blessings which God can bestow; a deliverance from the most dreadful evils that mankind can suffer. It contains all that can make the nature of man perfect or his life happy, and secures him from whatever can render his condition miserable. The blessings of it are inexpressible, and beyond imagination. “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.” For, to be saved as Christ saves, is to have all our innumerable sins and transgressions forgiven and blotted out; all those heavy loads of guilt which oppressed our souls perfectly removed from our minds. It is to be reconciled to God, and restored to his favour, so that he will be no longer angry, terrible, and retributive, but a most kind, compassionate, and tender Father. It is to be at peace with him and with our consciences; to have a title to his peculiar love, care, and protection, all our days; to be rescued from the bondage and dominion of sin, and the tyranny of the devil. It is to be translated from the power of darkness, into the kingdom of Christ; so that sin shall reign no longer in our mortal bodies, but we shall be enabled to serve God in newness of life. It is to be placed in a state of true freedom and liberty, to be no longer under the control of blind passions, and hurried on by our impetuous lusts to do what our reason condemns. It is to have a new principle of life infused into our souls; to have the Holy Spirit resident in our hearts, whose comfortable influence must ever cheer and refresh us, and by whose counsels we may be always advised, directed, and governed. It is to be transformed into the image of God; and to be made like him in wisdom, righteousness, and all other perfections of which man’s nature is capable.

Finally, to be saved as Christ came to save mankind, is to be translated, after this life is ended, into a state of eternal felicity, never more to die or suffer, never more to know pain and sickness, grief and sorrow, labour and weariness, disquiet, or vexation, but to live in perfect peace, freedom, and liberty, and to enjoy the greatest good after the most perfect manner for ever. It is to have our bodies raised again, and reünited to our souls; so that they shall be no longer gross, earthly, corruptible bodies, but spiritual, heavenly, immortal ones, fashioned like unto Christ’s glorious body, in which he now sits at the right hand of God. It is to live in the city of the great King, the heavenly Jerusalem, where the glory of the Lord fills the place with perpetual light and bliss. It is to spend eternity in the most noble and hallowed employments, in viewing and contemplating the wonderful works of God, admiring the wisdom of his providence, adoring his infinite love to the sons of men, reflecting on our own inexpressible happiness, and singing everlasting hymns of praise, joy, and triumph to God and our Lord Jesus Christ for vouchsafing all these blessings. It is to dwell for ever in a place, where no objects of pity or compassion, of anger or envy, of hatred or distrust, are to be found; but where all will increase the happiness of each other, by mutual love and kindness. It is to converse with the most perfect society, to be restored to the fellowship of our friends and relations who have died in the faith of Christ, and to be with Jesus Christ, to behold his glory, to live for ever in seeing and enjoying the great God, in “whose presence is fulness of joy, and at whose right hand are pleasures for evermore.” This is the salvation that Christ has purchased for us; and which his Gospel offers to all mankind.

SAMARIA, one of the three divisions of the Holy Land, having Galilee on the north, Judea on the south, the river Jordan on the east, and the Mediterranean Sea on the west. It took its name from its capital city, Samaria; and formed, together with Galilee and some cantons on the east of Jordan, during the reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah, the kingdom of the former. The general aspect and produce of the country are nearly the same as those of Judea. But Mr. Buckingham observes, that “while in Judea the hills are mostly as bare as the imagination can paint them, and a few of the narrow valleys only are fertile, in Samaria, the very summits of the eminences are as well clothed as the sides of them. These, with the luxuriant valleys which they enclose, present scenes of unbroken verdure in almost every point of view, which are delightfully variegated by the picturesque forms of the hills and vales themselves, enriched by the occasional sight of wood and water, in clusters of olive and other trees, and rills and torrents running among them.”

2. SAMARIA, the capital city of the kingdom of the ten tribes that revolted from the house of David. It was built by Omri, king of Israel, who began to reign A. M. 3079, and who died 3086. He bought the hill Samaria of Shemer for two talents of silver, or for the sum of 684l. 7_s._ 6_d._ It took the name of Samaria from Shemer, the owner of the hill, 1 Kings xvi, 24. Some think, however, that there were before this some beginnings of a city in that place, because, antecedent to the reign of Omri, there is mention made of Samaria, 1 Kings xiii, 32, A. M. 3030. But others take this for a prolepsis, or an anticipation, in the discourse of the man of God. However this may be, it is certain that Samaria was no considerable place, and did not become the capital of the kingdom, till after the reign of Omri. Before him, the kings of Israel dwelt at Shechem or at Tirzah. Samaria was advantageously situated upon an agreeable and fruitful hill, twelve miles from Dothaim, twelve from Merrom, and four from Atharath. Josephus says it was a day’s journey from Jerusalem. The kings of Samaria omitted nothing to make this city the strongest, the finest, and the richest that was possible. Ahab built there a palace of ivory, 1 Kings xxii, 39; that is, in which there were many ivory ornaments; and, according to Amos, iii, 15; iv, 1, 2, it became the seat of luxury and effeminacy. Benhadad, king of Syria, built public places, called “streets,” in Samaria, 1 Kings xx, 34; probably bazaars for trade, and quarters where his people dwelt to pursue commerce. His son Benhadad besieged this place under the reign of Ahab, 1 Kings xx, A. M. 3103. It was besieged by Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, in the ninth year of the reign of Hoshea, king of Israel, 2 Kings xvii, 6, &c, which was the fourth of Hezekiah, king of Judah. It was taken three years after, A. M. 3283. The Prophet Hosea, x, 4, 8, 9, speaks of the cruelties exercised by Shalmaneser against the besieged; and Micah, i, 6, says that the city was reduced to a heap of stones. The Cuthites that were sent by Esar-haddon to inhabit the country of Samaria did not think it worth their while to repair the ruined city: they dwelt at Shechem, which they made the capital city of their state. They were in this condition when Alexander the Great came into Phenicia and Judea. However, the Cuthites had rebuilt some of the houses of Samaria, even from the time of the return of the Jews from the captivity, since the inhabitants of Samaria are spoken of, Ezra iv, 17; Neh. iv, 2. And the Samaritans, being jealous of the Jews, on account of the favours that Alexander the Great had conferred on them, revolted from him, while he was in Egypt, and burned Andromachus alive, whom he had left governor of Syria. Alexander soon marched against them, took Samaria, and appointed Macedonians to inhabit it, giving the country round it to the Jews; and to encourage them in the cultivation, he exempted them from tribute. The kings of Egypt and Syria, who succeeded Alexander, deprived them of the property of this country. But Alexander Balas, king of Syria, restored to Jonathan Maccabæus the cities of Lydda, Ephrem, and Ramatha, which he cut off from the country of Samaria, 1 Macc. x, 30, 38; xi, 28, 34. Lastly, the Jews reëntered into the full possession of this whole country under John Hircanus, the Asmonean, who took Samaria, and, according to Josephus, made the river run through its ruins. It continued in this state till A. M. 3947, when Aulus Gabinius, the proconsul of Syria, rebuilt it, and gave it the name of Gabiniana. Yet it remained very inconsiderable till Herod the Great restored it to its ancient splendour.

The sacred authors of the New Testament speak but little of Samaria; and when they do mention it, the country is rather to be understood than the city, Luke xvii, 11; John iv, 4, 5. After the death of Stephen, Acts viii, 1, 2, 3, when the disciples were dispersed through the cities of Judea and Samaria, Philip made several converts in this city. There it was that Simon Magus resided, and thither Peter and John went to communicate the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Travellers give the following account of its present state:--Sebaste is the name which Herod gave to the name of the ancient Samaria, the imperial city of the ten tribes, in honour of Augustus (Sebastos) Cæsar, when he rebuilt and fortified it, converting the greater part of it into a citadel, and erecting here a noble temple. “The situation,” says Dr. Richardson, “is extremely beautiful, and strong by nature; more so, I think, than Jerusalem. It stands on a fine, large, insulated hill, compassed all around by a broad deep valley; and when fortified, as it is stated to have been by Herod, one would have imagined that, in the ancient system of warfare, nothing but famine could have reduced such a place. The valley is surrounded by four hills, one on each side, which are cultivated in terraces up to the top, sown with grain, and planted with fig and olive trees, as is also the valley. The hill of Samaria likewise rises in terraces to a height equal to any of the adjoining mountains. The present village is small and poor, and, after passing the valley, the ascent to it is very steep. Viewed from the station of our tents, it is extremely interesting, both from its natural situation, and from the picturesque remains of a ruined convent, of good Gothic architecture. Having passed the village, toward the middle of the first terrace, there is a number of columns still standing. I counted twelve in one row, beside several that stood apart, the brotherless remains of other rows. The situation is extremely delightful, and my guide informed me, that they belonged to the serai, or palace. On the next terrace there are no remains of solid building, but heaps of stone and lime and rubbish mixed with the soil in great profusion. Ascending to the third or highest terrace, the traces of former building were not so numerous, but we enjoyed a delightful view of the surrounding country. The eye passed over the deep valley that encompasses the hill of Sebaste, and rested on the mountains beyond, that retreated as they rose with a gentle slope, and met the view in every direction, like a book laid out for perusal on a reading desk. This was the seat of the capital of the short-lived and wicked kingdom of Israel; and on the face of these mountains the eye surveys the scene of many bloody conflicts and many memorable events. Here those holy men of God, Elijah and Elisha, spoke their tremendous warnings in the ears of their incorrigible rulers, and wrought their miracles in the sight of all the people. From this lofty eminence we descended to the south side of the hill, where we saw the remains of a stately colonnade that stretches along this beautiful exposure from east to west. Sixty columns are still standing in one row. The shafts are plain; and fragments of Ionic volutes, that lie scattered about, testify the order to which they belonged. These are probably the relics of some of the magnificent structures with which Herod the Great adorned Samaria. None of the walls remain.” Mr. Buckingham mentions a current tradition, that the avenue of columns formed a part of Herod’s palace. According to his account, there were eighty-three of these columns erect in 1816, beside others prostrate; all without capitals. Josephus states, that, about the middle of the city, Herod built “a sacred place, of a furlong and a half in circuit, and adorned it with all sorts of decorations; and therein erected a temple, illustrious for both its largeness and beauty.” It is probable that these columns belonged to it. On the eastern side of the same summit are the remains, Mr. Buckingham states, of another building, “of which eight large and eight small columns are still standing, with many others fallen near them. These also are without capitals, and are of a smaller size and of an inferior stone to the others.” “In the walls of the humble dwellings forming the modern village, portions of sculptured blocks of stone are perceived, and even fragments of granite pillars have been worked into the masonry.”

SAMARITANS, an ancient sect among the Jews, still subsisting in some parts of the Levant, under the same name. Its origin was in the time of Rehoboam, under whose reign a division was made of the people of Israel into two distinct kingdoms. One of these kingdoms, called Judah, consisted of such as adhered to Rehoboam and the house of David; the other retained the ancient name of Israelites, under the command of Jeroboam. The capital of the state of these latter was Samaria; and hence it was that they were denominated Samaritans. Some affirm that Salmanazar, king of Assyria, having conquered Samaria, led the whole people captive into the remotest parts of his empire, and filled their places with colonies of Babylonians, Cutheans, and other idolaters. These finding themselves daily destroyed by wild beasts, it is said, desired an Israelitish priest to instruct them in the ancient laws and customs of the land they inhabited. This was granted them; and they thenceforth ceased to be incommoded with any beasts. However, with the law of Moses, they still retained somewhat of their ancient idolatry. The rabbins say, they adored the figure of a dove on Mount Gerizim. As the revolted tribes had no more of the Scriptures than the five books of Moses, so the priest could bring no others with him beside those books written in the old Phenician letters.

Upon the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, and the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple, the religion of the Samaritans received another alteration on the following occasion: one of the sons of Jehoiada, the high priest, whom Josephus calls Manasseh, married the daughter of Sanballat the Horonite; but the law of God having forbidden the intermarriages of the Israelites with any other nation, Nehemiah set himself to reform this corruption, which had spread into many Jewish families, and obliged all that had taken strange wives immediately to part with them, Neh. xiii, 23–30. Manasseh, unwilling to surrender his wife, fled to Samaria; and many others in the same circumstances, and with similar disposition, went and settled under the protection of Sanballat, governor of Samaria. Manasseh brought with him some other apostate priests, with many other Jews, who disliked the regulations made by Nehemiah at Jerusalem; and now the Samaritans, having obtained a high priest, and other priests of the descendants from Aaron, were soon brought off from the worship of the false gods, and became as much enemies to idolatry as the best of the Jews. However, Manasseh gave them no other Scriptures beside the Pentateuch, lest, if they had the other Scriptures, they should then find that Jerusalem was the only place where they should offer their sacrifices. From that time the worship of the Samaritans came much nearer to that of the Jews, and they afterward obtained leave of Alexander the Great to build a temple on Mount Gerizim, near the city of Samaria, in imitation of the temple at Jerusalem, where they practised the same forms of worship. To this mountain and temple the Samaritan woman of Sychar refers in her discourse with our Saviour, John iv, 20. The Samaritans soon after revolted from Alexander, who drove them out of Samaria, introduced Macedonians in their room, and gave the province of Samaria to the Jews. This circumstance contributed in no small degree to increase the hatred and animosity between those two people. When any Israelite deserved punishment on account of the violation of some important point of the law, he presently took refuge in Samaria or Shechem, and embraced the worship at the temple of Gerizim. When the affairs of the Jews were prosperous, the Samaritans did not fail to call themselves Hebrews, and of the race of Abraham. But when the Jews suffered persecution, the Samaritans disowned them, and alleged that they were Phenicians originally, or descended from Joseph, or Manasseh his son. This was their practice in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. It is certain, the modern Samaritans are far from idolatry; some of the most learned among the Jewish doctors own, that they observe the law of Moses more rigidly than the Jews themselves. They have a Hebrew copy of the Pentateuch, differing in some respects from that of the Jews; and written in different characters, commonly called Samaritan characters; which Origen, Jerom, and other fathers and critics, ancient and modern, take to be the primitive character of the ancient Hebrews, though others maintain the contrary. The point of preference, as to purity, antiquity, &c, of the two Pentateuchs, is also much disputed by modern critics.

The Samaritans are now few in number; though it is not very long since they pretended to have priests descended directly from the family of Aaron. They were chiefly found at Gaza, Neapolis or Shechem, (the ancient Sichem or Naplouse,) Damascus, Cairo, &c. They had a temple, or chapel, on Mount Gerizim, where they performed their sacrifices. They have also synagogues in other parts of Palestine, and also in Egypt. Joseph Scaliger, being curious to know their usages, wrote to the Samaritans of Egypt, and to the high priest of the whole sect, who resided at Neapolis. They returned two answers, dated in the year 998 of the Hegira of Mohammed. These answers never came to the hands of Scaliger. They are now in the library at Paris, and have been translated into Latin by Father Morin, priest of the oratory; and printed in the collection of letters of that father in England, 1662, under the title of “_Antiquitates Ecclesiæ Orientalis_.” M. Simon has inserted a French translation in the first edition of “_Ceremonies et Coutumes des Juifs_,” in the manner of a supplement to Leo de Modena. In the first of these answers, written in the name of the assembly of Israel, in Egypt, they declare that they celebrate the passover every year, on the fourteenth day of the first month, on Mount Gerizim, and that he who then did the office of high priest was called Eleazar, a descendant of Phinehas, son of Aaron. In the second answer, which is in the name of the high priest Eleazar, and the synagogue of Shechem, they declare, that they keep the Sabbath in all the rigour with which it is enjoined in the book of Exodus; none among them stirring out of doors, but to the synagogue. They add, that they begin the feast of the passover with the sacrifice appointed for that purpose in Exodus; that they sacrifice no where else but on Mount Gerizim; that they observe the feasts of harvest, the expiation, the tabernacles, &c. They add farther, that they never defer circumcision beyond the eighth day; never marry their nieces, as the Jews do; have but one wife; and, in fine, do nothing but what is commanded in the law: whereas the Jews frequently abandon the law to follow the inventions of their rabbins. At the time when they wrote to Scaliger, they reckoned one hundred and twenty-two high priests; affirmed that the Jews had no high priests of the race of Phinehas; and that the Jews belied them in calling them Cutheans; for that they are descended from the tribe of Joseph by Ephraim.

SAMSON, son of Manoah, of the tribe of Dan, Judges xiii, 2, &c. We are no where acquainted with the name of his mother. He was born, A. M. 2849, and was a Nazarite from his infancy, by the divine command. He was brought up in a place called the camp of Dan, between Zorah and Estaol, Judges xiii, 25. His extraordinary achievements are particularly recorded in Judges xiv-xvi. “Faith” is attributed to him by St. Paul, though whether he retained it to the end of his life may be doubted. He is not inaptly called by an old writer, “a rough believer.”

SAMUEL, the son of Elkanah and of Hannah, of the tribe of Levi, and family of Kohath, was born, A. M. 2848. He was an eminent inspired prophet, historian, and the seventeenth and last Judge of Israel; and died in the ninety-eighth year of his age, two years before Saul, A. M. 2947, 1 Sam. xxv. To Samuel are ascribed the book of Judges, that of Ruth, and the first book of Samuel. There is, indeed, great probability that he composed the first twenty-four chapters of the first book of Samuel; since they contain nothing but what he might have written, and such transactions as he was chiefly concerned in. However, in these chapters there are some small additions, which seem to have been inserted after his death. Samuel began the order of the prophets, which was never discontinued till the death of Zechariah and Malachi, Acts iii, 24. From early youth to hoary years, the character of Samuel is one on which the mind rests with veneration and delight.

SANBALLAT, the governor of the Cuthites or Samaritans, and an enemy to the Jews. He was a native of Horon, a city beyond Jordan, in the country of the Moabites, Neh. ii, 10, 19; iv, vi.

SANCTIFICATION, that work of God’s grace by which we are renewed after the image of God, set apart for his service, and enabled to die unto sin and live unto righteousness. Sanctification is either of nature, whereby we are renewed after the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, Eph. iv, 24; Col. iii, 19, or of practice, whereby we die unto sin, have its power destroyed in us, cease from the love and practice of it, hate it as abominable, and live unto righteousness, loving and studying good works, Tit. ii, 11, 12. Sanctification comprehends all the graces of knowledge, faith, repentance, love, humility, zeal, patience, &c, and the exercise of them in our conduct toward God or man, Gal. v, 22–24; 1 Peter i, 15, 16; Matt. v, vi, vii. Sanctification in this world must be complete; the whole nature must be sanctified, all sin must be utterly abolished, or the soul can never be admitted into the glorious presence of God, Heb. xii, 14; 1 Peter i, 15; Rev. xxi, 27; yet the saints, while here, are in a state of spiritual warfare with Satan and his temptations, with the world and its influence, 2 Cor. ii, 11; Gal. v, 17, 24; Rom. vii, 23; 1 John ii, 15, 16.

SANCTIFY. In the Old Testament, to sanctify often denotes to separate from a common to a holy purpose; to set apart or consecrate to God as his special property, and for his service. Our Lord also uses this term, when he says, “For their sakes I sanctify myself,” John xvii, 19; that is, I separate and dedicate myself to be a sacrifice to God for them, “that they also may be sanctified through the truth;” that is, that they may be cleansed from the guilt of sin. Under the law of Moses, there was a church purity, or ceremonial sanctification, which might be obtained by the observance of external rites and ordinances, while persons were destitute of internal purity or holiness. Every defiled person was made “common,” and excluded from the privilege of a right to draw nigh to God in his solemn worship; but in his purification he was again separated to him, and restored to his sacred right. Hence St. Paul speaks of “the blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, as sanctifying unto the purifying of the flesh,” Heb. ix, 13. These things were in reality of no moral worth or value; they were merely typical institutions, intended to represent the blessings of the new and better covenant, those “good things that were to come;” and therefore God is frequently spoken of in the prophets as despising them, namely, in any other view than that for which his wisdom had ordained them, Isaiah i, 11–15; Psalm 1, 8, 9; li, 16. But that dispensation is now at an end; under the New Testament, the state of things is changed, for now “neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.” The thing signified, namely, internal purity and holiness, is no less necessary to a right to the privileges of the Gospel, than the observance of those external rites was unto the privileges of the law.

SANCTUARY. See TEMPLE.

SANDALS, at first, were only soles tied to the feet with strings or thongs; afterward they were covered; and at last they called even shoes sandals. When Judith went to the camp of Holofernes, she put sandals on her feet; and her sandals ravished his eyes, Judith x, 4; xvi, 9. They were a magnificent kind of buskins proper only to ladies of condition, and such as dressed themselves for admiration. But there were sandals also belonging to men, and of mean value. We read, “If the man like not to take his brother’s wife, then let his brother’s wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband’s brother will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother; then shall his brother’s wife come unto him, in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face; and shall say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother’s house. And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him who hath had his shoe loosed,” Deuteronomy xxv, 7. A late writer observes that the word rendered “shoe,” usually means “sandal,” that is, a mere sole fastened on the foot in a very simple manner; and that the primary and radical meaning of the word rendered _face_, is surface, the superficies of any thing. Hence he would submit, that the passage may be to the following purpose: The brother’s wife shall loose the sandal from off the foot of her husband’s brother; and shall spit upon its face or surface, (that is, of the shoe,) and shall say, &c. This ceremony is coincident with certain customs among the Turks. We are told that in a complaint against her own husband, for withholding himself from her intimacy, the wife when before the judge takes off her own shoe, and spits upon it; but in case of complaint against her husband’s brother, she takes off his shoe and spits upon it.

The business of untying and carrying the sandals being that of a servant, the expressions of the Baptist, “whose shoes I am not worthy to bear,” “whose shoe latchet I am not worthy to unloose,” was an acknowledgment of his great inferiority to Christ, and that Christ was his Lord. To pull off the sandals on entering a sacred place, or the house of a person of distinction, was the usual mark of respect. They were taken care of by the attendant servant. At the doors of an Indian pagoda, there are as many sandals and slippers hung up, as there are hats in our places of worship.

SANHEDRIM, SANHEDRIN, or SYNEDRIUM, among the ancient Jews, the supreme council, or court of judicature, of that republic; in which were despatched all the great affairs both of religion and policy. The word is derived from the Greek συνέδριον, a council, assembly, or company of people sitting together; from σὺν, _together_, and hήδρα, _a seat_. Many of the learned agree, that it was instituted by Moses, Numbers xi; and consisted at first of seventy elders, who judged finally of all causes and affairs; and that they subsisted, without intermission, from Moses to Ezra, Deut. xxvii, 1; xxxi, 9; Josh. xxiv, 1, 31; Judg. ii, 7; 2 Chron. xix, 8; Ezek. viii, 11. Others will have it, that the council of seventy elders, established by Moses, was temporary, and did not hold after his death; adding, that we find no sign of any such perpetual and infallible tribunal throughout the whole Old Testament; and that the sanhedrim was first set up in the time when the Maccabees, or Asmoneans, took upon themselves the administration of the government under the title of high priests, and afterward of kings, that is, after the persecution of Antiochus. This is by far the most probable opinion. The Jews, however, contend strenuously for the antiquity of their great sanhedrim: M. Simon strengthens and defends their proofs, and M. Le Clerc attacks them. Whatever may be the origin and establishment of the sanhedrim, it is certain that it was subsisting in the time of our Saviour, since it is spoken of in the Gospels, Matt. v, 21; Mark xiii, 9; xiv, 55; xv, 1; and since Jesus Christ himself was arraigned and condemned by it; that it was held at Jerusalem; and that the decision of all the most important affairs among the Jews belonged to it. The president of this assembly was called _nasi_, or prince; his deputy was called _abbeth-din_, father of the house of judgment; and the sub-deputy was called _chacan_, the wise: the rest were denominated _tzekanim_, elders or senators. The room in which they sat was a rotunda, half of which was built without the temple, and half within; that is, one semicircle of the room was within the compass of the temple; and as it was never allowed to sit down in the temple, they tell us this part was for those who stood up; the other half, or semicircle, extended without the holy place, and here the judges sat. The nasi, or prince, sat on a throne at the end of the hall, having his deputy at his right hand, and his sub-deputy at his left; the other senators were ranged in order on each side.

The sanhedrim subsisted until the destruction of Jerusalem, but its authority was almost reduced to nothing, from the time in which the Jewish nation became subject to the Roman empire. The rabbins pretend, that the sanhedrim has always subsisted in their nation from the time of Moses to the destruction of the temple by the Romans; and they maintain that it consisted of seventy counsellors, six out of each tribe, and Moses as president; and thus the number was seventy-one: but six senators out of each tribe make the number seventy-two, which, with the president, constitute a council of seventy-three persons, and therefore it has been the opinion of some authors that this was the number of the members of the sanhedrim. As to the personal qualifications of the judges of this court, it was required that they should be of untainted birth; and they were often of the race of the priests or Levites, or of the number of inferior judges, or of the lesser sanhedrim, which consisted of twenty-three judges. They were to be skilful in the written and traditional law; and they were obliged to study magic, divination, fortune telling, physic, astrology, arithmetic, and languages. It was also required, that none of them should be eunuchs, usurers, decrepid or deformed, or gamesters; and that they should be of mature age, rich, and of good countenance and body. Thus say the rabbins.

The authority of the sanhedrim was very extensive. This council decided causes brought before it by appeal from inferior courts. The king, high priest, and prophets were subject to its jurisdiction. The general officers of the nation were brought before the sanhedrim. How far their right of judging in capital cases extended, and how long it continued, have been subjects of controversy. Among the rabbins it has been a generally received opinion, that about forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem, their nation had been deprived of the power of life and death. And most authors assert, that this privilege was taken from them ever since Judea was made a province of the Roman empire, that is, after the banishment of Archelaus. Others, however, maintain that the Jews had still the power of life and death; but that this privilege was restricted to crimes committed against their law, and depended upon the governor’s will and pleasure. In the time of Moses, this council was held at the door of the tabernacle of the testimony. As soon as the people were in possession of the land of promise, the sanhedrim followed the tabernacle, and it continued at Jerusalem, whither it was removed, till the captivity. During the captivity it was kept at Babylon. After the return from Babylon, it remained at Jerusalem, as it is said, to the time of the sicarii or assassins; afterward it was removed to Jamnia, thence to Jericho, to Uzzah, to Sepharvaim, to Bethsamia, to Sephoris, and last of all to Tiberias, where it continued till its utter extinction. Such is the account which the Jews give of their sanhedrim. But, as stated above, much of this is disputed. Petau fixes the beginning of the sanhedrim to the period when Gabinius was governor of Judea, by whom were erected tribunals in the five cities of Judea, namely, Jerusalem, Gadara, Amathus, Jericho, and Sephoris. Grotius agrees in the date of its commencement with the rabbins, but he fixes its termination at the beginning of Herod’s reign. Basnage places it under Judas Maccabæus and his brother Jonathan. Upon the whole, it may be observed, that the origin of the sanhedrim has not been satisfactorily ascertained; and that the council of the seventy elders, established by Moses, was not what the Hebrews understood by the name of sanhedrim.

Before the death of our Saviour, two very famous rabbins had been presidents of the sanhedrim, namely Hillel and Schammai, who entertained very different opinions on several subjects, and particularly that of divorce. This gave occasion to the question which the Pharisees put to Jesus Christ upon that head, Matt. xix, 3. (See _Divorce_.) Hillel had Menahem for his associate in the presidency of the sanhedrim. But the latter afterward deserted that honourable post, and joined himself with a great number of his disciples, to the party of Herod Antipas, who promoted the levying of taxes for the use of the Roman emperors with all his might. These were probably the Herodians mentioned in the Gospel, Matt. xxii, 16. To Hillel succeeded Simeon his son, who by some is supposed to have been the person who took Jesus Christ in his arms, Luke ii, 28, and publicly acknowledged him to be the Messiah. If this be the case, the Jewish sanhedrim had for president a person that was entirely disposed to embrace Christianity. Gamaliel, the son and successor of Simeon, seems to have been also of a candid disposition and character. There were several inferior sanhedrims in Palestine, all depending on the great sanhedrim at Jerusalem. The inferior sanhedrim consisted each of twenty-three persons; and there was one in each city and town. Some say, that to have a right to hold a sanhedrim, it was requisite there should be one hundred and twenty inhabitants in the place. Where the inhabitants came short of the number of one hundred and twenty, they only established three judges. In the great as well as the inferior sanhedrim were two scribes; the one to write down the suffrages of those who were for condemnation, the other to take down the suffrages of those who were for absolution.

SAPPHIRE, ספיר, Exod. xxiv, 10; xxviii, 18; Job xxviii, 6, 16; Cantic. v, 14; Isa. liv, 11; Ezek. i, 26; x, 1; xxviii, 13, σάϖφειρος, Rev. xxi, 19, only. That this is the sapphire, there can be no doubt. The Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the general run of commentators, ancient and modern, agree in this. The sapphire is a pellucid gem. In its finest state it is extremely beautiful and valuable, and second only to the diamond in lustre, hardness, and value. Its proper colour is pure blue; in the choicest specimens it is of the deepest azure; and in others varies into paleness, in shades of all degrees between that and a pure crystal brightness, without the least tinge of colour, but with a lustre much superior to the crystal. The oriental sapphire is the most beautiful and valuable. It is transparent, of a fine sky colour, sometimes variegated with veins of a white sparry substance, and distinct separate spots of a gold colour. Whence it is that the prophets describe the throne of God like unto sapphire, Ezek. i, 26; x, 1. Isaiah, liv, 11, 12, prophesying the future grandeur of Jerusalem, says,

“Behold, I lay thy stones in cement of vermilion, And thy foundations with sapphires: And I will make thy battlements of rubies, And thy gates of carbuncles; And the whole circuit of thy walls shall be of precious stones.”

“These seem,” says Bishop Lowth, “to be general images to express beauty, magnificence, purity, strength, and solidity, agreeably to the ideas of the eastern nations; and to have never been intended to be strictly scrutinized, or minutely and particularly explained, as if they had each of them some precise moral or spiritual meaning.” Tobit, xiii, 16, 17, in his prophecy of the final restoration of Israel, describes the New Jerusalem in the same oriental manner: “For Jerusalem shall be built up with sapphires, and emeralds, and precious stones; thy walls, and towers, and battlements, with pure gold. And the streets of Jerusalem shall be paved with the beryl and carbuncle, and with stones of Ophir,” Rev. xxi, 18–21.

SARAH, the wife of Abraham, and his sister, as he himself informs us, by the same father, but not the same mother, Gen. xx, 12. See ABRAHAM.

SARDIS, a city of Asia Minor, and formerly the capital of Crœsus, king of the Lydians. The church of Sardis was one of the seven churches of Asia, to which the writer of the Apocalypse was directed to send an epistle, Rev. iii, 1–3.

SARDIUS, אדם, so called from its redness, Exod. xxviii, 17; xxxix, 10; Ezek. xxviii, 13; σάρδιος, Rev. xxi, 20; a precious stone of a blood-red colour. It took its Greek name from Sardis, where the best of them were found.

SARDONYX, σαρδόνυξ, Rev. xxi, 20. A precious stone which seems to have its name from its resemblance partly to the sardius and partly to the onyx. It is generally tinged with black and blood colour, which are distinguished from each other by circles or rows, so distinct that they appear to be the effect of art.

SATAN signifies an adversary or enemy, and is commonly applied in the Scriptures to the devil, or the chief of the fallen angels. By collecting the passages where Satan, or the devil, is mentioned, it may be concluded, that he fell from heaven with his company; that God cast him down from thence for the punishment of his pride; that by his envy and malice, sin, death, and all other evils came into the world; that, by the permission of God he exercises a sort of government in the world over subordinate apostate angels like himself; that God makes use of him to prove good men, and chastise bad ones; that he is a lying spirit in the mouth of false prophets and seducers; that it is he, or his agents, that torment or possess men, and inspire them with evil designs, as when he suggested to David, the numbering of the people, to Judas to betray his Lord and Master, and to Ananias and Sapphira to conceal the price of their field; that he is full of rage like a roaring lion, and of subtlety like a serpent, to tempt, to betray, to destroy, and to involve us in guilt and wickedness; that his power and malice are restrained within certain limits, and controlled by the will of God; in a word, that he is an enemy to God and man, and uses his utmost endeavours to rob God of his glory, and men of their souls. See DEVIL and DEMONIACS.

SAUL, the son of Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin, the first king of the Israelites, 1 Sam. ix, 1, 2, &c. Saul’s fruitless journey when seeking his father’s asses; (See _Ass_;) his meeting the Prophet Samuel; the particulars foretold to him, with his being anointed as king, about A. M. 2909; his prophesying along with the young prophets; his appointment by the lot; his modesty in hiding himself; his first victory over the Ammonites; his rash sacrifice in the absence of Samuel; his equally rash curse; his victories over the Philistines and Amalekites; his sparing of King Agag with the judgment denounced against him for it; his jealousy and persecution of David; his barbarous massacre of the priests and people of Nob; his repeated confessions of his injustice to David, &c, are recorded in 1 Sam. ix-xxxi. He reigned forty years, but exhibited to posterity a melancholy example of a monarch, elevated to the summit of worldly grandeur, who, having cast off the fear of God, gradually became the slave of jealousy, duplicity, treachery, and the most malignant and diabolical tempers. His behaviour toward David shows him to have been destitute of every generous and noble sentiment that can dignify human nature; and it is not an easy task to speak with any moderation of the atrocity and baseness which uniformly mark it. His character is that of a wicked man, “waxing worse and worse;” but while we are shocked at its deformity, it should be our study to profit by it, which we can only do by using it as a beacon to warn us, “lest we also be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.”

SCARLET, תולעת, Gen. xxxviii, 28; Exod. xxv, 4. This tincture or colour expressed by a word which signifies worm colour, was produced from a worm or insect which grew in a coccus, or excrescence of a shrub of the ilex kind, which Pliny calls “coccus scolecius,” the wormy berry, and Dioscorides terms “a small dry twig, to which the grains adhere like lentiles:” but these grains, as a great author observes on Solinus, “are within full of little worms or maggots, whose juice is remarkable for dying scarlet, and making that famous colour which we admire, and with which the ancients were enraptured.” We retain the name in the cochineal, from the opuntia of America; but we improperly call a mineral colour “vermilion,” which is derived from _vermiculus_, a little worm. The shrub on which the cochineal insect is found is sometimes called the “kermez oak,” from _kermez_, the Arabic word both for the worm and the colour; whence “carmasinus,” the French “cramoisi,” and the English “crimson.”

SCEPTRE, a word derived from the Greek, properly signifies, a rod of command, a staff of authority, which is supposed to be in the hands of kings, governors of a province, or of the chief of a people, Gen. xlix, 10; Numb. xxiv, 17; Isa. xiv, 5. The sceptre is put for the rod of correction, and for the sovereign authority that punishes and humbles, Psalm ii, 9; Prov. xxii, 15. The term sceptre is frequently used for a tribe, probably because the prince of each tribe carried a sceptre, or a wand of command, to show his dignity.

SCEVA, a Jew, and chief of the priests, Acts xix, 14, 15, 16. He was probably a person of authority in the synagogue at Ephesus, and had seven sons.

SCHISM, from σχίσμα, a rent or fissure. In its general meaning, it signifies division or separation; and in particular, on account of religion. Schism, is properly a division among those who stand in one connection or fellowship; but when the difference is carried so far that the parties concerned entirely break off all communion and intercourse one with another, and form distinct connections for obtaining the general ends of that religious fellowship which they once cultivated; it is undeniable there is something different from the schism spoken of in the New Testament. This is a separation from the body. Dr. Campbell shows that the word schism in Scripture does not usually signify an open separation, but that men may be guilty of schism by such an alienation of affection from their brethren as violates the internal union in the hearts of Christians, though there be no error in doctrine, nor separation from communion.

SCORPION, עקרב, Deut. viii, 15; 1 Kings xii, 11, 14; 2 Chron. x, 11, 14; Ezek. ii, 6, σκορϖίος, Luke x, 19; xi, 12; Rev. ix, 3; Ecclus. xxvi, 7; xxxix, 30. Parkhurst derives the name from עק, to _press_, _squeeze_, and רב, _much_, _greatly_, or קרב, _near_, _close_. Calmet remarks, that “it fixes so violently on such persons as it seizes upon, that it cannot be plucked off without difficulty;” and Martinius declares: _Habent scorpii forfices seu furcas tanquam brachia, quibus retinent quod apprehendunt, postquam caudæ aculeo punxerunt_: “Scorpions have pincers or nippers, with which they keep hold of what they seize after they have wounded it with their sting.”

The scorpion, _el-akerb_, is generally two inches in length, and resembles so much the lobster in form, that the latter is called by the Arabs _akerb d’elbahar_, the “sea scorpion.” It has several joints or divisions in its tail, which are supposed to be indicative of its age; thus, if it have five, it is considered to be five years old. The poison of this animal is in its tail, at the end of which is a small, curved, sharp-pointed sting, similar to the prickle of a buckthorn tree; the curve being downward, it turns its tail upward when it strikes a blow. The scorpion delights in stony places and in old ruins. Some are of a yellow colour, others brown, and some black. The yellow possess the strongest poison, but the venom of each affects the part wounded, with frigidity, which takes place soon after the sting has been inflicted. Dioscorides thus describes the effect produced: “Where the scorpion has stung, the place becomes inflamed and hardened; it reddens by tension, and is painful by intervals, being now chilly, now burning. The pain soon rises high, and rages, sometimes more, sometimes less. A sweating succeeds, attended by a shivering and trembling; the extremities of the body become cold; the groin swells; the hair stands on end; the visage becomes pale; and the skin feels, throughout it, the sensation of perpetual prickling, as if by needles.” This description strikingly illustrates Revelation ix, 3–5, 10, in its mention of “the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.”

Some writers consider the scorpion as a species of serpent, because the poison of it is equally powerful: so the sacred writers commonly join the scorpion and serpent together in their descriptions. Thus Moses, in his farewell address to Israel, Deut. viii, 15, reminds them, that God “led them through the great and terrible wilderness, wherein were fiery serpents and scorpions.” We find them again united in the commission of our Lord to his disciples, Luke x, 19, “I give you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy;” and in his directions concerning the duty of prayer, Luke xi, 11, 12, “If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?”

The scorpion is contrasted with an _egg_, on account of the oval shape of its body. The body of the scorpion, says Lamy, is very like an egg, as its head can scarcely be distinguished; especially if it be a scorpion of the white kind, which is the first species mentioned by Ælian, Avicenna, and others. Bochart has produced testimonies to prove that the scorpions in Judea were about the bigness of an egg. So the similitude is preserved between the thing asked and given. The Greeks have a proverb, ἀντὶ ϖέρκης σκορπίον, _instead of a perch_, or fish, _a scorpion_.

SCOURGE or WHIP. This punishment was very common among the Jews, Deut. xxv, 1–3. There were two ways of giving the lash; one with thongs, or whips, made of ropes’ ends, or straps of leather; the other with rods, or twigs. St. Paul informs us, that at five different times he received thirty-nine stripes from the Jews, 2 Cor. xi, 24, namely, in their synagogues, and before their courts of judgment. For, according to the law, punishment by stripes was restricted to forty at one beating, Deut. xxv, 3. But the whip, with which these stripes were given, consisting of three separate cords, and each stroke being accounted as three stripes, thirteen strokes made thirty-nine stripes, beyond which they never went. He adds, that he had been thrice beaten with rods, namely, by the Roman lictors, or beadles, at the command of the superior magistrates.

SCRIBES. The scribes are mentioned very early in the sacred history, and many authors suppose that they were of two descriptions, the one ecclesiastical, the other civil. It is said, “Out of Zebulon come they that handle the pen of the writer,” Judges v, 14; and the rabbins state, that the scribes were chiefly of the tribe of Simeon; but it is thought that only those of the tribe of Levi were allowed to transcribe the Holy Scriptures. These scribes are very frequently called wise men, and counsellors; and those of them who were remarkable for writing well were held in great esteem. In the reign of David, Seraiah, 2 Sam. viii, 17, in the reign of Hezekiah, Shebna, 2 Kings xviii, 18, and in the reign of Josiah, Shaphan, 2 Kings xxii, 3, are called scribes, and are ranked with the chief officers of the kingdom; and Elishama the scribe, Jer. xxxvi, 12, in the reign of Jehoiakim, is mentioned among the princes. We read also of the “principal scribe of the host,” or army, Jer. lii, 25; and it is probable that there were scribes in other departments of the state. Previous to the Babylonian captivity, the word scribe seems to have been applied to any person who was concerned in writing, in the same manner as the word secretary is with us. The civil scribes are not mentioned in the New Testament.

It appears that the office of the ecclesiastical scribes, if this distinction be allowed, was originally confined to writing copies of the law, as their name imports; but the knowledge, thus necessarily acquired, soon led them to become instructers of the people in the written law, which, it is believed, they publicly read. Baruch was an amanuensis or scribe to Jeremiah; and Ezra is called “a ready scribe in the law of Moses, having prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments,” Ezra vii, 6, 10; but there is no mention of the scribes being formed into a distinct body of men till after the cessation of prophecy. When, however, there were no inspired teachers in Israel, no divine oracle in the temple, the scribes presumed to interpret, expound, and comment upon the law and the prophets in the schools and in the synagogues. Hence arose those numberless glosses, and interpretations, and opinions, which so much perplexed and perverted the text instead of explaining it; and hence arose that unauthorized maxim, which was the principal source of all the Jewish sects, that the oral or traditionary law was of Divine origin, as well as the written law of Moses. Ezra had examined the various traditions concerning the ancient and approved usages of the Jewish church, which had been in practice before the captivity, and were remembered by the chief and most aged of the elders of the people; and he had given to some of these traditionary customs and opinions the sanction of his authority. The scribes, therefore, who lived after the time of Simon the Just, in order to give weight to their various interpretations of the law, at first pretended that they also were founded upon tradition, and added them to the opinions which Ezra had established as authentic; and in process of time it came to be asserted, that when Moses was forty days on Mount Sinai, he received from God two laws, the one in writing, the other oral; that this oral law was communicated by Moses to Aaron and Joshua, and that it passed unimpaired and uncorrupted from generation to generation, by the tradition of the elders, or great national council, established in the time of Moses; and that this oral law was to be considered as supplemental and explanatory of the written law, which was represented as being in many places obscure, scanty, and defective. In some cases they were led to expound the law by the traditions, in direct opposition to its true intent and meaning; and it may be supposed that the intercourse of the Jews with the Greeks, after the death of Alexander, contributed much to increase those vain subtleties with which they had perplexed and burdened the doctrines of religion. During our Saviour’s ministry, the scribes were those who made the law of Moses their particular study, and who were employed in instructing the people. Their reputed skill in the Scriptures induced Herod, Matt. ii, 4, to consult them concerning the time at which the Messiah was to be born. And our Saviour speaks of them as sitting in Moses’s seat, Matt. xxiii, 2, which implies that they taught the law; and he foretold that he should be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, Matt. xvi, 21, and that they should put him to death, which shows that they were men of great power and authority among the Jews. Scribes, doctors of law, and lawyers, were only different names for the same class of persons. Those who in Luke v, are called Pharisees and doctors of the law, are soon afterward called Pharisees and scribes; and he who, in Matt. xxii, 35, is called a lawyer, is, in Mark xii, 28, called one of the scribes. They had scholars under their care, whom they taught the knowledge of the law, and who, in their schools, sat on low stools just beneath their seats; which explains St. Paul’s expression that he was “brought up at the feet of Gamaliel,” Acts xxii, 3. We find that our Saviour’s manner of teaching was contrasted with that of those vain disputers; for it is said, when he had ended his sermon upon the mount, “the people were astonished at his doctrine; for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes,” Matt. vii, 29. By the time of our Saviour, the scribes had, indeed, in a manner, laid aside the written law, having no farther regard to that than as it agreed with their traditionary expositions of it; and thus, by their additions, corruptions, and misinterpretations, they had made “the word of God of none effect through their traditions,” Matt. xv, 6. It may be observed, that this in a great measure accounts for the extreme blindness of the Jews with respect to their Messiah, whom they had been taught by these commentators upon the prophecies to expect as a temporal prince. Thus, when our Saviour asserts his divine nature, and appeals to “Moses and the prophets who spake of him, the people sought to slay him,” John v; and he expresses no surprise at their intention. But when he converses with Nicodemus, John iii, who appears to have been convinced by his miracles that he was “a teacher sent from God,” when he “came to Jesus by night,” anxious to obtain farther information concerning his nature and his doctrine, our Lord, after intimating the necessity of laying aside all prejudices against the spiritual nature of his kingdom, asks, “Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these things?” that is, knowest not that Moses and the prophets describe the Messiah as the Son of God? and he then proceeds to explain in very clear language the dignity of his person and office, and the purpose for which he came into the world, referring to the predictions of the ancient Scriptures. And Stephen, Acts vii, just before his death, addresses the multitude by an appeal to the law and the prophets, and reprobates in the most severe terms the teachers who misled the people. Our Lord, when speaking of “them of old time,” classed the “prophets, and wise men, and scribes,” together, Matt. xxiii, 34; but of the later scribes he uniformly speaks with censure and indignation, and usually joins them with the Pharisees, to which sect they in general belonged. St. Paul asks, 1 Cor. i, 20, “Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world?” with evident contempt for such as, “professing themselves wise above what was written, became fools.”

SCRIPTURE, a term most commonly used to denote the writings of the Old and New Testament, which are sometimes called The Scriptures, sometimes the sacred or holy writings, and sometimes canonical scripture. See BIBLE.

SEA. The Hebrews gave the name of sea to all great collections of water, to great lakes or pools. Thus the sea of Galilee, or of Tiberias, or of Cinnereth, is no other than the lake of Tiberias, or Gennesareth, in Galilee. The Dead Sea, the sea of the Wilderness, the sea of the East, the sea of Sodom, the sea of Salt, or the Salt Sea, the sea of Asphaltites, or of bitumen, is no other than the lake of Sodom. The Arabians and orientals in general frequently gave the name of sea to great rivers, as the Nile, the Euphrates, the Tigris, and others, which, by their magnitude, and by the extent of their overflowings, seemed as little seas, or great lakes. In Isa. xi, 15, these words particularly apply to the Nile at the Delta.

SEAL. The ancient Hebrews wore their seals or signets, in rings on their fingers, or in bracelets on their arms, as is now the custom in the east. Haman sealed the decree of King Ahasuerus against the Jews with the king’s seal, Esther iii, 12. The priests of Bel desired the king to seal the door of their temple with his own seal. The spouse in the Canticles, viii, 6, wishes that his spouse would wear him as a signet on her arm. Pliny observes, that the use of seals or signets was rare at the time of the Trojan war, and that they were under the necessity of closing their letters with several knots. But among the Hebrews they are much more ancient. Judah left his seal as a pledge with Tamar, Gen. xxxviii, 25. Moses says, Deut. xxxii, 34, that God keeps sealed up in his treasuries, under his own seal, the instruments of his vengeance. Job says, ix, 7, that he keeps the stars as under his seal, and allows them to appear when he thinks proper. He says also, “My transgression is sealed up in a bag,” Job xiv, 7. When they intended to seal up a letter, or a book, they wrapped it round with flax, or thread, then applied the wax to it, and afterward the seal. The Lord commanded Isaiah to tie up or wrap up the book in which his prophecies were written, and to seal them till the time he should bid him publish them, Isaiah viii, 16, 17. He gives the same command to Daniel, xii, 4. The book that was shown to St. John the evangelist, Rev. v, 1; vi, 1, 2, &c, was sealed with seven seals. It was a rare thing to affix such a number of seals; but this insinuated the great importance and secrecy of the matter. In civil contracts they generally made two originals: one continued open, and was kept by him for whose interest the contract was made; the other was sealed and deposited in some public office.

SECEDERS, a numerous body of Presbyterians in Scotland, who, in the last century, seceded from the Scotch establishment. They did not, as they have uniformly declared, secede from the principles of the church of Scotland, as they are represented in her confession of faith, catechisms, longer and shorter, directory for worship, and form of Presbyterian government; but only from her present judicatories, that, they suppose, have departed from her true principles. A sermon preached by Mr. Ebenezer Erskine, of Stirling, at the opening of the synod of Perth and Sterling, in 1732, gave rise to this party. In this discourse, founded on Psalm cxviii, 22, “The stone which the builders refused,” &c, he boldly testified against what he supposed corruptions in the national church; for which freedom the synod voted him censurable, and ordered him to be rebuked at their bar. He, and three other ministers, protested against this sentence, and appealed to the next assembly. The assembly, which met in May, 1733, approved of the proceedings of the synod, and ordered Mr. Erskine to be rebuked at their bar. He refused to submit to the rebuke; whence he and his brethren were, by the sentence of the assembly, suspended from the ministry. Against this, he and his friends protested; and, being joined by many others, both ministers and elders, declaring their secession from the national church, they did, in 1736, constitute themselves into an ecclesiastical court, which they called the Associate Presbytery, and published a defence of their proceedings. They admit that the people have a right to choose their own pastors; that the Scriptures are the supreme judge by which all controversies must be determined; and that Jesus Christ is the only Head of his church, and the only King in Zion.

In 1745, the seceding ministers were become so numerous, that they were erected into three different presbyteries, under one synod. In 1747, through a difference in civil matters, they were divided into Burghers and Anti-Burghers. Of these two classes, the latter were the most rigid in their sentiments, and associated, therefore, the least with any other body of Christians. But this difference has been lately healed, and no longer subsists, either in Scotland or America.

SECHEM, SICHEM, SYCHEM, or SHECHEM, called also Sychar in the New Testament, afterward Neapolis, and in the present day Nablous, Naplous, Napolose, and Naplosa, (for it is thus variously written,) a city of Samaria, near the parcel of ground which Jacob bought of Hamor, the father of Shechem, and gave to his son Joseph. Here Joseph’s bones were brought out of Egypt to be interred; and on the same piece of ground was the well called Jacob’s well, at which our Saviour sat down when he had the memorable conversation with the woman of Samaria, John iv, which caused her, and many other inhabitants of Sechem, or Sychar, as it is there called, to receive him as the Messiah. On contemplating this place and its vicinity, Dr. E. D. Clarke says, “The traveller directing his footsteps toward its ancient sepulchres, as everlasting as the rocks in which they are hewn, is permitted, upon the authority of sacred and indisputable record, to contemplate the spot where the remains of Joseph, of Eleazer, and of Joshua, were severally deposited. If any thing connected with the memory of past ages be calculated to awaken local enthusiasm, the land around this city is preëminently entitled to consideration. The sacred story of events transacted in the field of Sichem, from our earliest years, is remembered with delight; but with the territory before our eyes where those events took place, and in the view of objects existing as they were described above three thousand years ago, the grateful impression kindles into ecstacy. Along the valley, we beheld ‘a company of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead,’ as in the days of Reuben and Judah, ‘with their camels bearing spicery, and balm, and myrrh,’ who would gladly have purchased another Joseph of his brethren, and conveyed him as a slave to some Potiphar in Egypt. Upon the hills around flocks and herds were feeding, as of old; nor in the simple garb of the shepherds of Samaria was there any thing repugnant to the notions we may entertain of the appearance presented by the sons of Jacob.” The celebrated well called Jacob’s well, but which, with the inhabitants of Sechem, is known by the name of _Bir Samaria_, or the “Well of Samaria,” is situated about half an hour’s walk east of the town.

SEEING. To see, in Scripture, is often used to express the sense of vision, knowledge of spiritual things, and even the supernatural knowledge of hidden things, of prophecy, of visions, of ecstacies. Whence it is that formerly those were called seers who afterward were termed, _nabi_, or prophets; and that prophecies were called visions. Moreover, to see, is used for expressing all kinds of sensations. It is said in Exodus, xx, 18, that the Israelites saw voices, thunder, lightning, the sounding of the trumpet, and the whole mountain of Sinai covered with clouds, or smoke. And St. Austin observes, that the verb, to see, is applied to all the five natural senses; to see, to hear, to smell, to taste, to touch. “To see goodness,” is to enjoy it. “To see the goodness of the Lord,” Psalm xxvii, 13; that is, to enjoy the mercy or blessing which God hath promised. “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God;” that is, they shall have the perfect and immediate fruition of the glorious presence of God in heaven; or they shall understand the mysteries of salvation; they shall perceive the loving kindness of God toward them in this life, and shall at length perfectly enjoy him in heaven.

SEIR, the Horite, whose dwelling was to the east and south of the Dead Sea, in the mountains of Seir, Genesis xiv, 6; xxxvi, 20; Deuteronomy ii, 12; where at first reigned the descendants of Seir the Horite, of whom Moses gives us a list in Genesis xxxvi, 20, 21–30; 1 Chron. 38, 39, &c. The posterity of Esau afterward were in possession of the mountains of Seir, and Esau himself dwelt there when Jacob returned from Mesopotamia, Gen. xxxiii, 3; xxxiii, 14; xxxvi, 8, 9.

SEIR, MOUNT, a mountainous tract, extending from the southern extremity of the Dead Sea, to the gulf of Acaba, or Ezion-Geber. The whole of this tract was probably before called Mount Hor, and was inhabited by the Horites, the descendants, as it is thought, of Hor, who is no otherwise known, and whose name is now only retained in that part of the plain where Aaron died. These people were driven out from their country by the Edomites, or the children of Esau, who dwelt there in their stead, and were in possession of this region when the Israelites passed by in their passage from Egypt to the land of Canaan. The country had, however, been previously overrun, and no doubt very much depopulated, by the invasion of Chedorlaomer, king of Elam. At what time the name of Hor was changed to that of Seir cannot be ascertained. Mount Seir rises abruptly on its western side from the valleys of El Ghor and El Araba; presenting an impregnable front to the strong country of the Edomite mountaineers, which compelled the Israelites, who were unable (if permitted by their leader) to force a passage through this mountain barrier, to skirt its western base, along the great valley of the Ghor and Araba, and so to “compass the land of Edom by the way of the Red Sea,” that is, to descend to its southern extremity at Ezion-Geber, as they could not penetrate it higher up. To the southward of this place Burckhardt observed an opening in the mountains, where he supposed the Israelites to have passed. This passage brought them into the high plains on the east of Mount Seir, which are so much higher than the valley on the west, that the mountainous territory of the Edomites was every where more accessible: a circumstance which perhaps contributed to make them more afraid of the Israelites on this border, whom they had set at defiance on the opposite one. The mean elevation of this chain cannot be estimated at less than four thousand feet. In the summer it produces most of the European fruits, namely, apricots, figs, pomegranates, olives, apples, and peaches; while in winter deep snows occasionally fall, with frosts, to the middle of March. The inhabitants, like those of most mountainous regions, are very healthy. Burckhardt says, that there was no part of Syria in which he saw so few invalids: a circumstance which did not escape the observation of the ancients, who denominated it, _Palæstina tertia sive salutaris_. [Palestine the third or the healthy.]

SELAH. This expression is found in the Psalms seventy-four times, and thrice in the Prophet Habakkuk. The interpreters Symmachus and Theodotion generally translate _selah_ by _diapsalma_, which signifies “a rest” or “pause” in singing. Jerom and Aquila translate it “for ever.” Some moderns pretend that _selah_ has no signification, and that it is only a note of the ancient music, whose use is no longer known; and, indeed, _selah_ may be taken away from all the places where it is found without interrupting the sense of the psalm. Calmet says it intimates the end, or a pause, and that is its proper signification; but as it is not always found at the conclusion of the sense, or of the psalm or song, so it is highly probable the ancient musicians put _selah_ in the margin of their psalters, to show where a musical pause was to be made, or where the tune ended.

SELEUCIA, a city of Syria, situated upon the Mediterranean, near the place where the Orontes discharges itself into the sea. St. Paul and Barnabas were at this place when they embarked for Cyprus, Acts xiii, 4. The same city is mentioned in 1 Mac. xi, 8.

SENNACHERIB, king of Assyria, son and successor of Shalmaneser. He began his reign A. M. 3290, and reigned only four years. Hezekiah, king of Judah, having refused to pay him tribute, though he afterward submitted, he invaded Judea with a great army, took several forts, and after repeated, insolent, and blasphemous messages, besieged Jerusalem; but his army being suddenly smitten with a pestilence, which cut off a hundred and eighty-five thousand in a single night, he returned to Nineveh, where he was murdered in the temple of Nisroch by his sons Adrammelech and Sharezer, and was succeeded by his other son, Esar-haddon, 2 Kings xix, 7, 13, 37.

SEPHARVAIM, a country of Assyria, 2 Kings xvii, 24, 31. This province cannot now be exactly delineated in respect to its situation. The Scripture speaks of the king of the city of Sepharvaim, which probably was the capital of the people of this name, 2 Kings xix, 13; Isaiah xxxvii, 13.

SEPTUAGINT. Among the Greek versions of the Old Testament, says Mr. Horne, the Alexandrian or Septuagint is the most ancient and valuable, and was held in so much esteem both by the Jews as well as by the first Christians, as to be constantly read in the synagogues and churches. Hence it is uniformly cited by the early fathers, whether Greek or Latin; and from this version all the translations into other languages which were anciently approved by the Christian church were executed, with the exception of the Syriac; as the Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Gothic, and old Italic or the Latin version in use before the time of Jerom; and to this day the Septuagint is exclusively read in the Greek and most other oriental churches. This version has derived its name either from the Jewish account of seventy-two persons having been employed to make it, or from its having received the approbation of the sanhedrim or great council of the Jews, which consisted of seventy, or, more correctly, of seventy-two persons. Much uncertainty, however, has prevailed concerning the real history of this ancient version; and while some have strenuously advocated its miraculous and Divine origin, other eminent philologists have laboured to prove that it must have been executed by several persons and at different times. According to one account, Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, caused this translation to be made for the use of the library which he had founded at Alexandria, at the request and with the advice of the celebrated Demetrius Phalereus, his principal librarian. For this purpose, it is reported, that he sent Aristeas and Andreas, two distinguished officers of his court, to Jerusalem, on an embassy to Eleazar, then high priest of the Jews, to request of the latter a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures, and that there might also be sent to him seventy-two persons, six chosen out of each of the twelve tribes, who were equally well skilled in the Hebrew and Greek languages. These learned men were accordingly shut up in the island of Pharos; where, having agreed in a translation of each period after a mutual conference, Demetrius wrote down their version as they dictated it to him; and thus, in the space of seventy-two days, the whole was accomplished. This relation is derived from a letter ascribed to Aristeas himself, the authenticity of which has been greatly disputed. If, as there is every reason to believe is the case, this piece is a forgery, it was made at a very early period; for it was in existence in the time of Josephus, who has made use of it in his Jewish Antiquities. The veracity of Aristeas’s narrative was not questioned until the seventeenth or eighteenth century, at which time, indeed, Biblical criticism was, comparatively, in its infancy, Vives, Scaliger, Van Dale, Dr. Prideaux, and, above all, Dr. Hody, were the principal writers in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries who attacked the genuineness of the pretended narrative of Aristeas; and though it was ably vindicated by Bishop Walton, Isaac Vossius, Whiston, Brett, and other modern writers, the majority of the learned of our own time are fully agreed in considering it as fictitious. Philo, the Jew, who also notices the Septuagint version, was ignorant of most of the circumstances narrated by Aristeas; but he relates others which appear not less extraordinary. According to him, Ptolemy Philadelphus sent to Palestine for some learned Jews, whose number he does not specify; and these, going over to the island of Pharos, there executed so many distinct versions, all of which so exactly and uniformly agreed in sense, phrases, and words, as proved them to have been not common interpreters, but men prophetically inspired and divinely directed, who had every word dictated to them by the Spirit of God throughout the entire translation. He adds, that an annual festival was celebrated by the Alexandrian Jews in the isle of Pharos, where the version was made, until his time, to preserve the memory of it, and to thank God for so great a benefit.

It is not a little remarkable that the Samaritans have traditions in favour of their version of the Pentateuch, equally extravagant with these preserved by the Jews. In the Samaritan chronicle of Abul Phatach, which was compiled in the fourteenth century from ancient and modern authors, both Hebrew and Arabic, there is a story to the following effect: that Ptolemy Philadelphus, in the tenth year of his reign, directed his attention to the difference subsisting between the Samaritans and Jews concerning the law, the former receiving only the Pentateuch, and rejecting every other work ascribed to the prophets by the Jews. In order to determine this difference, he commanded the two nations to send deputies to Alexandria. The Jews entrusted this mission to Osar, the Samaritans to Aaron, to whom several other associates were added. Separate apartments in a particular quarter of Alexandria were assigned to each of these strangers, who were prohibited from having any personal intercourse, and each of them had a Greek scribe to write his version. Thus were the law and other Scriptures translated by the Samaritans; whose version being most carefully examined, the king was convinced that their text was more complete than that of the Jews. Such is the narrative of Abul Phatach, divested, however, of numerous marvellous circumstances with which it has been decorated by the Samaritans, who are not surpassed, even by the Jews, in their partiality for idle legends.

A fact, buried under such a mass of fables as the translation of the Septuagint has been by the historians who have pretended to record it, necessarily loses all its historical character, which, indeed, we are fully justified in disregarding altogether. Although there is no doubt but that some truth is concealed under this load of fables, yet it is by no means an easy task to discern the truth from what is false: the following, however, is the result of our researches concerning this celebrated version:--

It is probable that the seventy interpreters, as they are called, executed their version of the Pentateuch during the joint reigns of Ptolemy Lagus and his son Philadelphus. The pseudo Aristeas, Josephus, Philo, and many other writers whom it were tedious to enumerate, relate that this version was made during the reign of Ptolemy II., or Philadelphus; Joseph Ben Gorion, however, among the rabbins, Theodoret, and many other Christian writers, refer its date to the time of Ptolemy Lagus. Now, these two traditions can be reconciled only by supposing the version to have been performed during the two years when Ptolemy Philadelphus shared the throne with his father; which date coincides with the third and fourth years of the hundred and twenty-third Olympiad, that is, about B. C. 286 and 285. Farther, this version was neither made by the command of Ptolemy, nor at the request nor under the superintendence of Demetrius Phalereus; but was voluntarily undertaken by the Jews for the use of their countrymen. It is well known, that, at the period above noticed, there was a great number of Jews settled in Egypt, particularly at Alexandria: these, being most strictly observant of the religious institutions and usages of their forefathers, had their sanhedrim or grand council composed of seventy or seventy-two members, and very numerous synagogues, in which the law was read to them on every Sabbath; and as the bulk of the common people were no longer acquainted with Biblical Hebrew, the Greek language alone being used in their ordinary intercourse, it became necessary to translate the Pentateuch into Greek for their use. This is a far more probable account of the origin of the Alexandrian version than the traditions above stated. If this translation had been made by public authority, it would unquestionably have been performed under the direction of the sanhedrim, who would have examined and perhaps corrected it, if it had been the work of a single individual, previously to giving it the stamp of their approbation, and introducing it into their synagogues. In either case the translation would probably be denominated the Septuagint, because the sanhedrim was composed of seventy or seventy-two members. It is even possible that the sanhedrim, in order to ascertain the fidelity of the work, might have sent to Palestine for some learned men, of whose assistance and advice they would have availed themselves in examining the version. This fact, if it could be proved, for it is offered as a mere conjecture, would account for the story of the king of Egypt’s sending an embassy to Jerusalem: there is, however, one circumstance which proves that, in executing this translation, the synagogues were originally in contemplation, namely, that all the ancient writers unanimously concur in saying that the Pentateuch was first translated. The five books of Moses, indeed, were the only books read in the synagogues until the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria; who having forbidden that practice in Palestine, the Jews evaded his commands by substituting for the Pentateuch the reading of the prophetic books. When, afterward, the Jews were delivered from the tyranny of the kings of Syria, they read the law and the prophets alternately in the synagogues; and the same custom was adopted by the Hellenistic or Græcising Jews.

But, whatever was the real number of the authors of the version, their introduction of Coptic words, such as οἴφι ἄχι ρεμφὰν, &c, as well as their rendering of ideas purely Hebrew altogether in the Egyptian manner, clearly prove that they were natives of Egypt. Thus, they express the creation of the world, not by the proper Greek word κτίσις, but by γένεσις, a term employed by the philosophers of Alexandria to express the origin of the universe. The Hebrew word _thummim_, Exodus xxviii, 30, which signifies “perfections,” they render ἀλήθεια, _truth_. The difference of style also indicates the version to have been the work not of one but of several translators, and to have been executed at different times. The best qualified and most able among them was the translator of the Pentateuch, who was evidently master of both Greek and Hebrew: he has religiously followed the Hebrew text, and has in various instances introduced the most suitable and best chosen expressions. From the very close resemblance subsisting between the text of the Greek version and the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch, Louis De Dieu, Selden, Whiston, Hassencamp, and Bauer, are of opinion that the author of the Alexandrian version made it from the Samaritan Pentateuch. And in proportion as these two correspond, the Greek differs from the Hebrew. This opinion is farther supported by the declarations of Origen and Jerom, that the translator found the venerable name of Jehovah, not in the letters in common use, but in very ancient characters; and also by the fact that those consonants in the Septuagint are frequently confounded together, the shapes of which are similar in the Samaritan, but not in the Hebrew, alphabet. This hypothesis, however ingenious and plausible, is by no means determinate; and what militates most against it is, the inveterate enmity subsisting between the Jews and Samaritans, added to the constant and unvarying testimony of antiquity, that the Greek version of the Pentateuch was executed by Jews. There is no other way by which to reconcile these conflicting opinions than by supposing either that the manuscript used by the Egyptian Jews approximated toward the letters and text of the Samaritan Pentateuch, or that the translators of the Septuagint made use of manuscripts written in ancient characters. Next to the Pentateuch, for ability and fidelity of execution, ranks the translation of the book of Proverbs, the author of which was well skilled in the two languages: Michaëlis is of opinion that, of all the books of the Septuagint, the style of the Proverbs is the best, the translator having clothed the most ingenious thoughts in as neat and elegant language as was ever used by a Pythagorean sage, to express his philosophical maxims.

The Septuagint version, though originally made for the use of the Egyptian Jews, gradually acquired the highest authority among the Jews of Palestine, who were acquainted with the Greek language, and subsequently also among Christians: it appears, indeed, that the legend above confuted, of the translators having been divinely inspired, was invented in order that the LXX. might be held in the greater estimation. Philo, the Jew, a native of Egypt, has evidently followed it in his allegorical expositions of the Mosaic law; and though Dr. Hody was of opinion that Josephus, who was a native of Palestine, corroborated his work on Jewish antiquities from the Hebrew text, yet Salmasius, Bochart, Bauer, and others, have shown that he has adhered to the Septuagint throughout that work. How extensively this version was in use among the Jews, appears from the solemn sanction given to it by the inspired writers of the New Testament, who have in very many passages quoted the Greek version of the Old Testament. Their example was followed by the earlier fathers and doctors of the church, who, with the exception of Origen and Jerom, were unacquainted with Hebrew: notwithstanding their zeal for the word of God, they did not exert themselves to learn the original language of the sacred writings, but acquiesced in the Greek representation of them, judging it, no doubt, to be fully sufficient for all the purposes of their pious labours. The Greek Scriptures were the only Scriptures known to or valued by the Greeks. This was the text commented on by Chrysostom and Theodoret: it was this which furnished topics to Athanasius, Nazianzen, and Basil. From this fountain the stream was derived to the Latin church, first by the Italic or Vulgate translation of the Scriptures, which was made from the Septuagint, and not from the Hebrew; and, secondly, by the study of the Greek fathers. It was by this borrowed light that the Latin fathers illumined the western hemisphere; and, when the age of Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, and Gregory, successively passed away, this was the light put into the hands of the next dynasty of theologists, the schoolmen, who carried on the work of theological disquisition by the aid of this luminary, and none other. So that, either in Greek or in Latin, it was still the Septuagint Scriptures that were read, explained, and quoted as authority, for a period of fifteen hundred years.

SEPTUAGINT CHRONOLOGY is that which is formed from the dates and periods of time mentioned in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament. It reckons one thousand five hundred years more from the creation to Abraham than the Hebrew Bible. Dr. Kennicott, in the dissertation prefixed to his Hebrew Bible, has shown it to be very probable, that the chronology of the Hebrew Scriptures, since the period just mentioned, was corrupted by the Jews between A. D. 175 and 200; and that the chronology of the Septuagint is more agreeable to truth. It is a fact, that, during the second and third centuries, the Hebrew Scriptures were almost entirely in the hands of the Jews, while the Septuagint was confined to the Christians. The Jews had, therefore, a very favourable opportunity for this corruption. The following is the reason which is given by the oriental writers: It being a very ancient tradition that Messiah was to come in the sixth chiliad, because he was to come in the last days, founded on a mystical application of the six days of the creation, the contrivance was to shorten the age of the world from about 5500 to 3760; and thence to prove that Jesus could not be the Messiah. Dr. Kennicott adds, that some Hebrew copies, having the larger chronology, were extant till the time of Eusebius, and some till the year 700.

SEPULCHRES. The descriptions of the eastern sepulchres, by travellers, serve to explain several passages of Scripture. Shaw says, “If we except a few persons who are buried within the precincts of some sanctuary, the rest are carried out at a small distance from their cities and villages, where a great extent of ground is allotted for that purpose. Each family has a particular portion of it, walled in like a garden, where the bones of their ancestors have remained undisturbed for many generations: for in these inclosures the graves are all distinct and separate, having each of them a stone placed upright, both at the head and feet, inscribed with the name of the person who lieth there interred, while the intermediate space is either planted with flowers, bordered round with stone, or paved all over with tiles. The graves of the principal citizens are farther distinguished by some square chambers or cupolas that are built over them, Mark v, 3. Now, as all these different sorts of tombs and sepulchres, with the very walls likewise of the inclosures, are constantly kept clean, white-washed, and beautified, they continue to this day to be an excellent comment upon that expression of our Saviour, where he mentions the garnishing of the sepulchres, Matt. xxiii, 29; and again, verse 27, where he compares the scribes, Pharisees, and hypocrites, to whited sepulchres.” With respect to the demoniacs who are said by St. Matthew to come out of the tombs, Light observes, “I trod the ground celebrated for the miracle of the unclean spirit, driven by our Saviour among the swine. The tombs still exist in the form of caverns, on the sides of the hills that rise from the shore of the lake; and from their wild appearance may well be considered the habitation of men exceeding fierce, possessed by a devil; they extend at a distance for more than a mile from the present town.” In the account we have of the resurrection of Lazarus, when Mary went suddenly out to meet Jesus, the Jews supposed that she was gone to the grave, “to weep there.” The following extract from Buckingham illustrates this: “Not far from the spot at which we halted to enjoy this enchanting view, was an extensive cemetry, at which we noticed the custom so prevalent among eastern nations of visiting the tombs of their deceased friends. These were formed with great care, and finished with extraordinary neatness: and at the foot of each grave was enclosed a small earthen vessel, in which was planted a sprig of myrtle, regularly watered every day by the mourning friend who visited it. Throughout the whole of this extensive place of burial we did not observe a single grave to which this token of respect and sorrow was not attached; and, scattered among the tombs, in different quarters of the cemetry, we saw from twenty to thirty parties of females, sitting near the honoured remains of some recently lost and deeply regretted relative or friend, and either watering their myrtle plants, or strewing flowers over the green turf that closed upon their heads.” See BURIAL.

SERPENT. In Egypt and other oriental countries, a serpent was the common symbol of a powerful monarch; it was embroidered on the robes of princes, and blazoned on their diadem, to signify their absolute power and invincible might, and that, as the wound inflicted by the basilisk is incurable, so the fatal effects of their displeasure were neither to be avoided nor endured. These are the allusions involved in the address of the prophet, to the irreconcilable enemies of his nation: “Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken; for out of the serpent’s roots shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent,” Isaiah xiv, 29. Uzziah, the king of Judah, had subdued the Philistines; but taking advantage of the weak reign of Ahaz, they again invaded the kingdom of Judea, and reduced some cities in the southern part of the country under their dominion. On the death of Ahaz, Isaiah delivers this prophecy, threatening them with a more severe chastisement from the hand of Hezekiah, the grandson of Uzziah, by whose victorious arms they had been reduced to sue for peace; which he accomplished, when “he smote the Philistines, even unto Gaza and the borders thereof,” 2 Kings xviii, 8. Uzziah, therefore, must be meant by the rod that smote them, and by the serpent from whom should spring the fiery flying serpent, that is, Hezekiah, a much more terrible enemy than even Uzziah had been. But the symbol of regal power which the oriental kings preferred to all others, was the basilisk. This fact is attested by its Arabian name _melecha_, from the Hebrew verb _malach_, “to reign;” from its Greek name ϐασιλίσκος, and its Latin name _regulus_: all of which, it is asserted, referred to the conspicuous place it occupied among the regal ornaments of the east. The basilisk is of a reddish colour, and its head is decorated with a crest in the form of a crown; it is not entirely prostrate, like other serpents, but moves along with its head and half the body erect; the other parts sweep the ground behind,

And wind its spacious back in rolling spires.

All the other species of serpents are said to acknowledge the superiority of the real or the fabled basilisk, by flying from its presence, and hiding themselves in the dust. It is also supposed to live longer than any other serpent; the ancient Heathens therefore pronounced it immortal, and placed it in the number of their deities; and because it had the dangerous power, in general belief, of killing with its pestiferous breath the strongest animals, it seemed to then invested with the power of life and death. It became, therefore, the favourite symbol of kings; and was employed by the prophet, to symbolize the great and good Hezekiah, with strict propriety.

2. The cerastes, or horned snake. The only allusion to this species of serpent in the sacred volume occurs in the valedictory predictions of Jacob, where he describes the character and actions of Dan and his posterity: “Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder, שפיפון, in the path, that biteth the horse’s heels, so that his rider shall fall backward,” Gen. xlix, 17. It is indisputably clear, that the patriarch intended some kind of serpent; for the circumstances will not apply to a freebooter watching for his prey. It only remains to investigate the species to which it belongs. The principal care of the Jewish writers is to ascertain the etymology of the name, about which their sentiments are much divided. The Arabian authors quoted by Bochart inform us, that the _sephiphon_ is a most pernicious reptile, and very dangerous to man. It is of a sandy colour, variegated with black and white spots. The particulars in the character of Dan, however, agree better with the cerastes, or horned snake, than with any other species of serpent. It lies in wait for passengers in the sand, or in the rut of the wheels on the highway. From its lurking place it treacherously bites the horse’s heels, so that the rider falls backward, in consequence of the animal’s hinder legs becoming almost immediately torpid by the dreadful activity of the poison. The cerastes is equally formidable to man and the lower animals; and the more dangerous, because it is not easy to distinguish him from the sand in which he lies; and he never spares the helpless traveller who unwarily comes within his reach. Like the cerastes, Dan was to excel in cunning and artifice, to prevail against his enemies rather by his policy in the cabinet than by his valour in the field.

3. The seraph, or fiery flying serpent, to a Biblical student, is one of the most interesting creatures that has yet been mentioned. It bears the name of an order among the hosts of heaven, whom Isaiah beheld in vision, placed above the throne of Jehovah in the temple; the brazen figure of this serpent is supposed to be a type of our blessed Redeemer, who was for our salvation lifted up upon the cross, as the serpent was elevated in the camp of Israel, for the preservation of that people. It is the only species of serpent which the almighty Creator has provided with wings, by means of which, instead of creeping or leaping, it rises from the ground, and leaning upon the extremity of its tail, moves with great velocity. It is a native of Egypt, and the deserts of Arabia; and receives its name from the Hebrew verb _seraph_, which signifies to burn, in allusion to the violent inflammation which its poison produces, or rather to its fiery colour, which the brazen serpent was intended to represent. Bochart is of opinion, that the seraph is the same as the hydrus, or, as Cicero calls it, the serpent of the waters. For, in the book of Isaiah, the land of Egypt is called the region from whence come the viper and flying seraph, or burning serpent. Ælian says, they come from the deserts of Libya and Arabia, to inhabit the streams of the Nile; and that they have the form of the hydrus.

The existence of winged serpents is attested by many writers of modern times. A kind of snakes were discovered among the Pyrenees, from whose sides proceeded cartilages in the form of wings; and Scaliger mentions a peasant who killed a serpent of the same species which attacked him, and presented it to the king of France. Le Blanc, as quoted by Bochart, says, at the head of lake Chiamay are extensive woods and vast marshes, which it is very dangerous to approach, because they are infested with very large serpents, which, raised from the ground on wings resembling those of bats, and leaning on the extremity of their tails, move with great rapidity. They exist, it is reported, about these places in so great numbers, that they have almost laid waste the neighbouring province. And, in the same work, Le Blanc affirms that he had seen some of them of immense size, which, when hungry, rushed impetuously on sheep and other tame animals. But the original term מעופף does not always signify flying with wings; it often expresses vibration, swinging backward and forward, a tremulous motion, a fluttering; and this is precisely the motion of a serpent, when he springs from one tree to another. Niebuhr mentions a sort of serpent at Bassorah, which they call _heie thiare_. “They commonly keep upon the date trees; and as it would be laborious for them to come down from a very high tree, in order to ascend another, they twist themselves by the tail to a branch of the former, which, making a spring by the motion they give it, throws them to the branches of the second. Hence it is that the modern Arabs call them flying serpents, _heie thiare_. Admiral Anson also speaks of the flying serpents that he met with at the island of Quibo, but which were without wings.” From this account it may be inferred, that the flying serpent mentioned in the prophet was of that species of serpents which, from their swift darting motion, the Greeks call _aconitias_, and the Romans, _jaculus_. The original phrase will bear another interpretation, which, perhaps, approaches still nearer the truth. The verb עופ sometimes means to sparkle, to emit coruscations of light. In this sense, the noun תעפה frequently occurs in the sacred volume; thus Zophar says: “The coruscation, תעפה, shall be as the morning.” The word in the verse under consideration may therefore refer to the ruddy colour of that serpent, and express the sparkling of the blazing sunbeams upon its scales, which are extremely brilliant.

4. The dragon. In Hebrew, the word תנין signifies either a dragon or a whale. As the name of a serpent, it frequently denotes one of any species; as when the rod of Moses is said to have been turned into a serpent, לתנין. But, in its more strict and appropriate application, it is the proper name of the dragon, which differs from the serpent chiefly in its size. “Three kinds of dragons were formerly distinguished in India. 1. Those of the hills and mountains. 2. Those of the valleys and caves. 3. Those of the fens and marshes. The first is the largest, and covered with scales resplendent as burnished gold. They have a kind of beard hanging from their lower jaw, their aspect is frightful, their cry loud and shrill, their crest bright yellow, and they have a protuberance on their heads, as the colour of a burning coal. Those of the flat country are of a silver colour, and frequent rivers, to which the former never come. Those of the marshes are black, slow, and have no crest. Their bite is not venomous, though the creatures be dreadful.” This description agrees in every particular with the boa, which is justly considered as the proper dragon. But so great is the inconsistency of the human mind, that the creature which is now an object of universal dislike was, in early times, honoured with religious worship by every nation of the earth. Rites were devised and temples built to its honour; and priests were appointed to conduct the ceremonies. These miserable idolaters appeared before the altars of their contemptible deity in gorgeous vestments, their heads adorned with serpents, or with the figures of serpents embroidered on their tiaras, when the creatures themselves were not to be had; and in their frantic exclamations cried out, in evident allusion to the triumph which the old serpent obtained over our first mother, Eva, Eva. So completely was Satan permitted to insult our fallen race, that the serpent, his chosen agent in accomplishing our ruin, was actually raised to the first place among the deities of the Heathen world, and reverenced by the most solemn acts of worship. The figure of the serpent adorned the portals of the proudest temples in the east.

The serpent was a very common symbol of the sun; and he is represented biting his tail, and with his body formed into a circle, in order to indicate the ordinary course of this luminary; and under this form it was an emblem of time and eternity. The serpent was also the symbol of medicine, and of the gods which presided over it, as of Apollo and Æsculapius. In most of the ancient rites we find some allusion to the serpent, under the several titles of Ob, Ops, Python, &c. This idolatry is alluded to by Moses, Lev. xx, 27. The woman of Endor, who had a familiar spirit, is called Oub, or Ob, and it is interpreted Pythonissa: the place where she resided, says the learned Mr. Bryant, seems to have been named from the worship then instituted; for Endor is compounded of En-ador, and signifies _fons pithonis_, the “fountain of light,” the oracle of the god Ador; which oracle was probably founded by the Canaanites, and had never been totally suppressed. His pillar was also called Abbadir, or Abadir, compounded of _ab_ and _adir_, and meaning the serpent deity Addir, the same as Adorus. In the orgies of Bacchus, the persons who partook of the ceremony, used to carry serpents in their hands, and with horrid screams call upon Eva! Eva! Eva being, according to the writer just mentioned, the same as epha, or opha, which the Greeks rendered _ophis_, and by it denoted a serpent, and containing no allusion to Eve, as above conjectured. These ceremonies, and this symbolic worship, began among the magi, who were the sons of Chus; and by them they were propagated in various parts. Wherever the Ammonians founded any places of worship, and introduced their rites, there was generally some story of a serpent. There was a legend about a serpent at Colchis, at Thebes, and at Delphi; and likewise in other places. The Greeks called Apollo himself Python, which is the same as Oupis, Opis, or Oub. In Egypt there was a serpent named Thermuthis, which was looked upon as very sacred; and the natives are said to have made use of it as a royal tiara, with which they ornamented the statues of Isis. The kings of Egypt wore high bonnets, terminating in a round ball, and surrounded with figures of asps; and the priests likewise had the representation of serpents upon their bonnets. Abadon, or Abaddon, mentioned in the Revelation, ix, 11, is supposed by Mr. Bryant to have been the name of the Ophite god, with whose worship the world had been so long infected. This worship began among the people of Chaldea, who built the city of Ophis upon the Tigris, and were greatly addicted to divination, and to the worship of the serpent. From Chaldea the worship passed into Egypt, where the serpent deity was called Canoph, Can-eph, and C’neph; it also had the name of Ob, or Oub, and was the same as the Basiliscus, or royal serpent, the same as the Thermuthis, and made use of by way of ornament to the statues of their gods. The chief deity of Egypt is said to have been Vulcan, who was styled Opas; he was the same as Osiris, the sun, and hence was often called Ob-el, or Pytho, _sol_; and there were pillars sacred to him, with curious hieroglyphical inscriptions bearing the same name, whence among the Greeks, who copied from the Egyptians, every thing gradually tapering to a point was styled _obelos_, or _obeliscus_. As the worship of the serpent began among the sons of Chus, Mr. Bryant conjectures that from thence they were denominated Ethiopians and Aithiopians, from Ath-ope, or Ath-opes, the god whom they worshipped, and not from their complexion: the Ethiopes brought these rites into Greece, and called the island where they first established them, Ellopia, _Solis Serpentis insula_, the same with Eubœa, or Oubaia, that is, the Serpent Island. The same learned writer discovers traces of the serpent worship among the Hyperboreans, at Rhodes, named Ophiusa, in Phrygia, and upon the Hellespont, in the island Cyprus, in Crete, among the Athenians, in the name of Cecrops, among the natives of Thebes in Bœotia, among the Lacedæmonians, in Italy, in Syria, &c, and in the names of many places, as well as the people where the Ophites settled. One of the most early heresies introduced into the Christian church was that of the Ophitæ, who introduced serpents emblematically among their rites. This is seen in many of the medals, the relics of Gnosticism which are still preserved.

The form assumed by the tempter when he seduced our first parents, has been handed down in the traditions of most ancient nations; and, though animals of the serpent tribe were very generally worshipped by the Pagans, as symbols of the Agathodemon; they were likewise viewed as types or figures of the evil principle. 1. One of the most remarkable accounts of the primeval tempter under the shape of a serpent occurs in the Zend-Avesta of the ancient Persians. 2. To the dracontian Ahriman of the Persians, the malignant serpent caliya of Hindoo theology appears to be very closely allied. He is represented, at least, as the decided enemy of the mediatorial god; whom he persecutes with the utmost virulence, though he is finally vanquished by his celestial adversary. 3. The serpent typhon of the Egyptians, who is sometimes identified with the ocean, because the deluge was esteemed the work of the evil principle; and the serpent python of the Greeks, who is evidently the same as the monster typhon; appear to have similarly originated, in the first instance, from some remembrance of the form which Satan assumed when in paradise. Perhaps also the notion, that python was oracular,--a notion which caused the so frequent use of serpents in the rites of divination, may have sprung from a recollection of the vocal responses which the tempter gave to Eve under the borrowed figure of that reptile. 4. We may still ascribe to the same source that rebellious serpent whose treason seems to have been so well remembered among the inhabitants of Syria. Pherecydes, a native of that country, bestows upon him the Greek name of _ophioneus_, or the “serpent god;” which, in fact, is a mere translation of the Syriac or Chaldaic _nachash_. He represents him as being the prince of those evil spirits who contended with the supreme god Cronus, and who in consequence were ejected from heaven. Their happiness being thus justly forfeited, they were henceforth plunged in the depths of Tartarus, hateful and mutually hating each other. From Syria and the east the legend passed into Greece, mingled, however, with allusions to the deluge. 5. The same evil being, in the same form, appears again in the mythology of the Goths or Scythians. We are told by the ancient Scalds, that the bad principle, whom they denominate _loke_, unites great personal beauty with a malignant and inconstant nature: and he is described as surpassing all creatures in the depth of his cunning and the artfulness of his perfidy. Here the pristine glory and majesty of Satan, before the lineaments of celestial beauty were defaced by his rebellious apostasy, seem not obscurely to be alluded to; while the craft and malevolence, which mark his character as a fallen angel, are depicted with sufficient accuracy.

The most remarkable corroboration, however, of the Mosaic history is to be found in those fables which involve the mythological serpent, and in the worship which was so generally offered to him throughout the world. The worship of the serpent may be traced in almost every religion through ancient Asia, Europe, Africa, America. But how an object of abhorrence could have been exalted into an object of veneration, must be referred to the subtlety of the arch enemy himself, whose constant endeavour has been rather to corrupt than obliterate the true faith, that, in the perpetual conflict between truth and error, the mind of man might be more surely confounded and debased. Among other devices, that of elevating himself into an object of adoration, has ever been the most cherished. It was that which he proposed to our Lord: “All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.” We cannot, therefore, wonder that the same being who had the presumption to make this proposal to the Son of God, should have had the address to insinuate himself into the worship of the children of men. In this he was unhappily but too well seconded by the natural tendency of human corruption. The unenlightened Heathen, in obedience to the voice of nature, acknowledged his dependence upon a superior being. His reason assured him that there must be a God; his conscience assured him that God was good; but he felt and acknowledged the prevalence of evil, and attributed it, naturally to an evil agent. But as the evil spirit, to his unillumined mind, seemed as omnipotent as the good agent, he worshipped both; the one, that he might propitiate his kindness; the other that he might avert his displeasure. The great point of devil worship being gained, namely, the acknowledgment of the evil spirit as God, the transition to idolatry became easy. The mind, once darkened by the admission of an allegiance divided between God and Satan, became gradually more feeble and superstitious, until at length sensible objects were called in to aid the weakness of degraded intellect; and from their first form as symbols, passed rapidly through the successive stages of apotheosis, until they were elevated into gods. Of these the most remarkable was the serpent; upon the basis of tradition, regarded, first as the symbol of the malignant being; subsequently considered talismanic and oracular; and lastly, venerated and worshipped as divine.

SERPENT, BRAZEN. This was a figure of a serpent, called above the _seraph_, which Moses caused to be put on the top of a pole, Num. xxi, 9, that all those bitten by the serpent, who should look upon this image, might be healed. Our Saviour, in the Gospel of St. John, iii, 14, declares, that “as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up,” alluding to his own death which, through faith, was to give life to the world. The brazen serpent was preserved among the Israelites down to the time of Hezekiah; who, being informed that the people paid a superstitious worship to it, had it broken in pieces, and by way of contempt gave it the name of Nehushtan, that is to say, a brazen bauble or trifle, 2 Kings xviii, 4. See TYPE.

SERVANT. This word generally signifies a slave. For formerly among the Hebrews, and the neighbouring nations, the greater part of servants were slaves, that is to say, they belonged absolutely to their masters, who had a right to dispose of their persons, their bodies, goods, and even of their lives, in some cases. The Hebrews had two sorts of servants or slaves, Leviticus xxv, 44, 45, &c. Some were strangers, either bought, or taken in the wars. The others were Hebrew slaves, who, being poor, sold themselves, or were sold to pay their debts; or were delivered up for slaves by their parents, in cases of necessity. This sort of Hebrew slaves continued in slavery but to the year of jubilee; then they might return to liberty again, and their masters could not retain them against their wills. If they would continue voluntarily with their masters, they were brought before the judges; there they made a declaration, that for this time they disclaimed the privilege of the law, had their ears bored with an awl, by applying them to the door-posts of their master, Exod. xxi, 2, 5–7, &c; and after that they had no longer any power of recovering their liberty, except at the next year of jubilee. Servant is also taken for a man that dedicates himself to the service of another, by the choice of his own will and inclination. Thus Joshua was the servant of Moses, Elisha of Elijah, Gehazi of Elisha; St. Peter, St. Andrew, St. Philip, and the rest, were servants of Jesus Christ.

SETH, son of Adam and of Eve, was born A. M. 130, Gen. v, 3, 6, 10, 11. Seth, at the age of one hundred and five years, begat Enos, A. M. 235. He lived after this eight hundred and seven years, in all nine hundred and twelve years, and died A. M. 1042. Seth was the chief of “the children of God,” as the Scripture calls them, Gen. vi, 2; that is, those who before the flood preserved true religion and piety in the world, while the descendants of Cain gave themselves up to wickedness. The invention of letters and writing is by the rabbins ascribed to this patriarch.

SEVEN. The number seven is consecrated, in the holy books and in the religion of the Jews, by a great number of events and mysterious circumstances. God created the world in the space of seven days, and consecrated the seventh day to repose. This rest of the seventh day, according to St. Paul, Heb. iv, 4, intimates eternal rest. And not only the seventh day is honoured among the Jews, by the repose of the Sabbath, but every seventh year is also consecrated to the rest of the earth, by the name of a sabbatical year; as also the seven times seventh year, or forty-ninth year, is the year of jubilee. In the prophetic style, a week often stands for seven years, Dan. ix, 24–26. Jacob served his father-in-law Laban seven years for each of his daughters. Pharaoh’s mysterious dream represented to his imagination seven fat oxen, and seven lean ones; seven full ears of corn, and as many that were empty and shrivelled. These stood for seven years of plenty, and seven of scarcity. The number of seven days is observed in the octaves of the great solemnities of the passover, of tabernacles, and of the dedication of the tabernacle and the temple; the seven branches of the golden candlestick, the number of seven sacrifices appointed on several occasions, Numbers xxvii, 11; xxix, 17–21, &c. Seven trumpets, seven priests that sounded them, seven days to surround the walls of Jericho, Joshua vi, 4, 6, 8. In the Revelation, are the seven churches, seven candlesticks, seven spirits, seven stars, seven lamps, seven seals, seven angels, seven phials, seven plagues, &c. In certain passages, the number seven is put for a great number. Isaiah, iv, 1, says that seven women should lay hold on one man, to ask him to marry them. Hannah, the mother of Samuel, says, 1 Sam. ii, 5, that she who was barren should have seven children. Jeremiah, xv, 9, makes use of the same expression. God threatens his people to smite them seven times for their transgressions, Lev. xxvi, 24, that is to say several times. The Psalmist, speaking of very pure silver, says it is “purified seven times,” Psalm xii, 6. And elsewhere, “Render unto our neighbours sevenfold into their bosom,” Psalm lxxix, 12; punish them severely, and as often as they deserve it. The slayer of Cain was to be punished seven times; but of Lamech seventy times seven times, Gen. iv, 15, 24. The slothful man thinks himself wiser than seven men, that set forth proverbs, Prov. xxvi, 16; he thinks himself of more worth than many wise men. St. Peter asks our Saviour, Matthew xviii, 21, 22, How many times should he forgive his brother? till seven times? And Christ answers him, I say not only seven times, but seventy times seven; meaning, as often as he may offend, however frequent it may be.

SHARON, PLAIN OF, a beautiful and spacious plain, extending from Cæsarea to Joppa on the sea coast, and eastward to the mountains of Judea; and is celebrated for its wines, its flowers, and its pastures. It still preserves some portions of its natural beauty, and is adorned in the spring with the white and red rose, the narcissus, the white and orange lily, the carnation and other flowers; but for the rest of the year it appears little better than a desert, with here and there a ruined village, and some clumps of olive trees and sycamores. This name was almost become a proverb, to express a place of extraordinary beauty and fruitfulness, Isaiah xxxiii, 9; xxxv, 2. But there are three cantons of Palestine known by the name of Sharon. The first, according to Eusebius and St. Jerom, is a canton between Mount Tabor and the sea of Tiberias. The second, a canton between the city of Cæsarea of Palestine and Joppa. And the third a canton beyond Jordan, in the country of Basan, and in the division of the tribe of Gad. Modern travellers give this name also to the plain that lies between Ecdippe and Ptolemais.

SHAVING. In time of mourning the Jews shaved their heads, and neglected to trim their beards. The king of the Ammonites shaved off half the beards of David’s ambassadors, which was the greatest insult he could offer. This will appear from the regard which the easterns have ever paid to the beard. D’Arvieux gives a remarkable instance of an Arab who, having received a wound in his jaw, chose to hazard his life rather than to suffer his surgeon to take off his beard. It was one of the most infamous punishments of cowardice in Sparta, that they who turned their backs in the day of battle were obliged to appear abroad with one half of their beard shaved, and the other half unshaved. The easterns considered the beard as venerable, because it distinguished men from women, and was the mark of freemen in opposition to slaves. It was still, in times comparatively modern, the greatest indignity that could be offered in Persia. Shah Abbas, king of that country, enraged that the emperor of Hindostan had inadvertently addressed him by a title far inferior to that of the great shah-in-shah, or king of kings, ordered the beards of the ambassadors to be shaved off, and sent them home to their master. “One of the buffoons of the bashaw,” says Belzoni, “took it into his head one day, for a frolic, to shave his beard, which is no trifle among the Turks; for some of them, I really believe, would sooner have their head cut off than their beard. In this state he went home to his women, who actually thrust him out of the door; and such was the disgrace of cutting off his beard, that even his fellow buffoons would not eat with him till it was grown again.”

SHEAF. After the feast of the passover the Jews brought a sheaf into the temple, as the first fruits of the barley harvest, Lev. xxiii, 10, 12; and these were the ceremonies that were then performed. On the 16th of the month Nisan, in the evening, when the feast day of the passover was ended, and the second day was begun, which was a working day, the house of judgment deputed three men to go in solemnity, and gather the sheaf of barley. The inhabitants of the neighbouring cities came together, to be present at the ceremony. The barley was gathered in the territory of Jerusalem. The deputies demanded three times successively if the sun was set; and were as often answered that it was. Then they demanded three times if they might be permitted to cut the sheaf, and permission was as often granted. They reaped it out of three different fields, with three different sickels, and put the ears into three boxes to carry to the temple. This sheaf was threshed in the court; and of the grain they took a full omer, and after it had been winnowed, parched, and bruised, they sprinkled oil over it, and added a handful of incense; then the priest who received the offering, waved it before the Lord to the four quarters of the world, crosswise; he cast part of it upon the altar, and the rest was his own. After this every one might begin to reap the harvest.

SHEBA. Of “the queen of Sheba,” mention is made 1 Kings x, 1, 2, &c; 2 Chron. ix, 1, 2, &c; Matt. xii, 42; Luke xi, 31. She is called “queen of the south,” and was, according to some, a queen of Arabia; and, according to others, a queen of Ethiopia. Josephus says, that Sheba was the ancient name of the city of Meroe, before Cambyses gave it that of his sister; and that it was from thence the queen came of whom we are speaking. This opinion has much prevailed. The Abyssinians at this day, maintain, that this princess was of their country, and that her posterity reigned there a long time. They preserve a catalogue of them, their names and successions.

שח SHEEP, שה, occurs frequently, and צאן, a general name for both sheep and goats, considered collectively in a flock, Arabic _zain_. The sheep is a well known animal. The benefits which mankind owe to it are numerous. Its fleece, its skin, its flesh, its tallow, and even its horns and bowels are articles of great utility to human life and happiness. Its mildness and inoffensiveness of temper, strongly recommend it to human affection and regard; and have designated it the pattern and emblem of meekness, innocence, patience, and submission. It is a social animal. The flock follow the ram as their leader; who frequently displays the most impetuous courage in their defence: dogs, and even men, when attempting to molest them, have often suffered from his sagacious and generous valour. There are two varieties of sheep found in Syria. The first, called the “Bidoween sheep,” differs little from the large breed among us, except that the tail is somewhat longer and thicker. The second is much more common, and is more valued on account of the extraordinary bulk of its tail, which has been remarked by all the eastern travellers. The carcass of one of these sheep, without including the head, feet, entrails, and skin, weighs from fifty to sixty pounds, of which the tail makes up fifteen pounds. Some of a larger size, fattened with care, will sometimes weigh one hundred and fifty pounds, the tail alone composing one third of the whole weight. It is of a substance between fat and marrow, and is not eaten separately, but mixed with the lean meat in many of their dishes, and often also used instead of butter. A reference to this part is made in Exod. xxix, 22; Lev. iii, 9; where the fat and the tail were to be burnt on the altar of sacrifice. Mr. Street considers this precept to have had respect to the health of the Israelites; observing that “bilious disorders are very frequent in hot countries; the eating of fat meat is a great encouragement and excitement to them; and though the fat of the tail is now considered as a delicacy, it is really unwholesome.” The conclusion of the seventeenth verse, which is, “Ye shall eat neither fat nor blood,” justifies this opinion. The prohibition of eating fat, that is of fat unmixed with the flesh, the omentum or caul, is given also, Lev. vii, 23.

SHEKEL, שקל, signifies weight, money, shekel, _siclus_, a Hebrew weight and money, Exod. xxx, 23, 24; 2 Sam. xiv, 26. Shekel is used to denote the weight of any thing; as iron, hair, spices, &c. Dr. Arbuthnot makes the weight of the shekel equal to 9 dwt. 2 4 ⁄ 7 gr. English troy weight; and the value equal to 2s. 3⅜d. sterling money: but the golden shekel was worth 1_l._ 16_s._ 6_d._ English money. Some are of opinion that the Jews had two kinds of shekels, namely, the common one already noticed, and the shekel of the sanctuary, which last they make double the former. But most authors make them the same, and think that the word sanctuary is added to express a just and exact weight, according to the standards kept in the temple or tabernacle. Moses, Num. xviii, 16, and Ezekiel, xlv, 12, say, that the shekel was worth twenty gerahs.

SHEM, the son of Noah, Gen. vi, 10. He was born A. M. 1558. It is the opinion of the generality of commentators, that Shem was younger than Japheth, and the second son of Noah, for reasons given under the article JAPHETH. See also Gen. ix, 23–25. He lived six hundred years, and died A. M. 2158. The posterity of Shem obtained their portion in the best parts of Asia. The Jews ascribe to Shem the theological tradition of the things that Noah had learned from the first men. Shem communicated them to his children, and by this means the true religion was preserved in the world. Some have thought Shem the same as Melchisedec, and that he himself had been at the school of Methuselah before the deluge: that he gave to Abraham the whole tradition, the ceremonies of the sacrifices of religion, according to which this patriarch afterward offered his sacrifices. But this opinion has no adequate support. Lastly, the Jews say, that he taught men the law of justice, and the manner of reckoning months and years, and the intercalations of the months. All that can be said as to these speculations is, that Noah and all his sons were the depositaries of the knowledge which existed among men before the flood, and were perhaps both specially qualified by God first to attain it, and then to transmit it to their descendants. Shem had five sons, Elam, Asher, Arphaxad, Lud, and Aran, who peopled the richest provinces of Asia.

SHEPHERDS. The patriarchal shepherds, rich in flocks and herds, in silver and gold, and attended by a numerous train of servants purchased with their money, or hired from the neighbouring towns and villages, acknowledge no civil superior; they held the rank, and exercised the rights, of sovereign princes; they concluded alliances with the kings in whose territories they tended their flocks; they made peace or war with the surrounding states; and, in fine, they wanted nothing of sovereign authority but the name. Unfettered by the cumbrous ceremonies of regal power, they led a plain and laborious life, in perfect freedom and overflowing abundance. Refusing to confine themselves to any particular spot, (for the pastures were not yet appropriated,) they lived in tents, and removed from one place to another in search of pasture for their cattle. Strangers in the countries where they sojourned, they refused to mingle with the permanent settlers, to occupy their towns, and to form with them one people. They were conscious of their strength, and jealous of their independence; and although patient and forbearing, their conduct proved, on several occasions, that they wanted neither skill nor courage to vindicate their rights and avenge their wrongs. In the wealth, the power, and the splendour of patriarchal shepherds, we discover the rudiments of regal grandeur and authority; and in their numerous and hardy retainers, the germ of potent empires. Hence the custom so prevalent among the ancients, of distinguishing the office and duties of their kings and princes, by terms borrowed from the pastoral life: Agamemnon, shepherd of the people, Αγαμεμνονα ποιμενα λαων, is a phrase frequently used in the strains of Homer. The sacred writers very often speak of kings under the name of shepherds, and compare the royal sceptre to the shepherd’s crook: “He chose David also his servant, and took him from the sheep folds; from following the ewes great with young, he brought him to feed Jacob his people, and Israel his inheritance. So he fed them according to the integrity of his heart, and guided them by the skilfulness of his hands.” And Jehovah said to David himself: “Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be a captain over Israel.” The royal Psalmist, on the other hand, celebrates under the same allusions, the special care and goodness of God toward himself, and also toward his ancient people. “The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want.” “Give ear, O shepherd of Israel, thou that leadest Joseph like a flock; thou that dwellest between the cherubim, shine forth.” In many other places of Scripture, the church is compared to a sheep fold, the saints to sheep, and the ministers of religion to shepherds, who must render, at last, an account of their administration to the Shepherd and Overseer to whom they owe their authority.

The patriarchs did not commit their flocks and herds solely to the care of menial servants and strangers; they tended them in person, or placed them under the superintendence of their sons and their daughters, who were bred to the same laborious employment, and taught to perform, without reluctance, the meanest services. Rebecca, the only daughter of a shepherd prince, went to a considerable distance to draw water; and it is evident, from the readiness and address with which she let down her pitcher from her shoulder, and gave drink to the servant of Abraham, and afterward drew for all his camels, that she had been long accustomed to that humble employment. From the same authority we know that Rachel, the daughter of Laban, kept her father’s flocks, and submitted to the various privations and hardships of the pastoral life, in the deserts of Syria. The patriarch Jacob, though he was the son of a shepherd prince, kept the flocks of Laban, his maternal uncle; and his own sons followed the same business, both in Mesopotamia, and after his return to the land of Canaan. This primeval simplicity was long retained among the Greeks. Homer often sends the daughters of princes and nobles to tend the flocks, to wash the clothes of the family at the fountain, or in the flowing stream, and to perform many other menial services. Adonis, the son of Cinyras, a king of Cyprus, fed his flocks by the streaming rivers:

_Et formosus oves ad flumina pavit Adonis._ VIR. Ecl. x, l. 18. “Along the streams his flock Adonis fed.” DRYDEN.

Andromache, the wife of Hector, complains that Achilles had slain her seven brothers when they were tending their flocks and herds. Æneas pastured his oxen on Mount Ida, when Achilles seized them, and forced the Trojan hero to flee. Phœbus himself was a keeper of oxen in the groves and valleys of Mount Ida. This custom has descended to modern times; for in Syria the daughters of the Turcoman and Arabian shepherds, and in India the Brahmin women of distinction, are seen drawing water at the village wells, and tending their cattle to the lakes and rivers.

The flocks and herds of these shepherds were immensely numerous. The sheep of the Bedoween Arabs in Egypt, and probably throughout the east, are very fine, black-faced and white-faced, and many of them clothed in a brown coloured fleece: and of this superior breed the ample flocks of the Syrian shepherds consisted. So great was the stock of Abraham and Lot, that they were obliged to separate, because “the land was not able to bear them.” From the present which Jacob made to his brother Esau, consisting of five hundred and eighty head of different sorts, we may form some idea of the countless numbers of great and small cattle which he had acquired in the service of Laban. In modern times, the numbers of cattle in the Turcoman flocks, which feed on the fertile plains of Syria, are almost incredible. They sometimes occupy three or four days in passing from one part of the country to another. Chardin had an opportunity of seeing a clan of Turcoman shepherds on their march, about two days’ distance from Aleppo. The whole country was covered with them. Many of their principal people with whom he conversed on the road, assured him, that there were four hundred thousand beasts of carriage, camels, horses, oxen, cows, and asses, and three millions of sheep and goats. This astonishing account of Chardin is confirmed by Dr. Shaw, who states, that several Arabian tribes, who can bring no more than three or four hundred horses into the field, are possessed of more than as many thousand camels, and triple the number of sheep and black cattle. Russel, in his “History of Aleppo,” speaks of vast flocks which pass that city every year, of which many sheep are sold to supply the inhabitants. The flocks and herds which belonged to the Jewish patriarchs were not more numerous.

The care of such overgrown flocks, says Paxton, required many shepherds. These were of different kinds; the master of the family and his children, with a number of herdsmen who were hired to assist them, and felt but little interest in the preservation and increase of their charge. In Hebrew, these persons, so different in station and feeling, were not distinguished by appropriate names; the master, the slave, and the hired servant, were all known by the common appellation of shepherds. The distinction, not sufficiently important to require the invention of a particular term, is expressed among every people by a periphrasis. The only instance in the Old Testament, in which the hired servant is distinguished from the master, or one of his family, occurs in the history of David, where he is said to have left the sheep, על שומר, “in the hand of a keeper,” while he went down to visit his brethren, and the armies who were fighting against the Philistines under the banners of Saul, 1 Samuel xvii, 20. This word exactly corresponds with the Latin term _custos_, “a keeper,” which Virgil uses to denote a hireling shepherd, in his tenth Eclogue:

_Atque utinam ex vobis unus vestrique fuissem,_ _Aut custos gregis, aut maturæ vinitor uvæ._

“O that your birth and business had been mine, To feed the flock and prune the spreading vine!” WHARTON.

In such extensive pastoral concerns, the vigilance and activity of the master were often insufficient for directing the operations of so many shepherds, who were not unfrequently scattered over a considerable extent of country. An upper servant was therefore appointed to superintend their labours, and take care that his master suffered no injury. In the house of Abraham, this honourable station was held by Eliezer, a native of Damascus, a servant in every respect worthy of so great and good a master. The numerous flocks of Pharaoh seem to have required the superintending care of many overseers, Gen. xlvii, 6. Doeg, an Edomite, was entrusted with the whole pastoral establishment of Saul, 1 Sam. xxi, 7. But in the reign of David, the important office of chief herdsman was abolished, and the vast flocks and herds of that monarch were entrusted to a number of superintendents; animals of the same species forming a separate flock, under its proper overseer, 1 Chronicles xxvii, 29. These overseers, in the language of the Hebrews, were called the princes of the flock; they were treated with great distinction, and seem to have been selected in the reign of David from among the nobles of his court. Eumæus, a person of noble birth, agreeably to this custom, was charged with the care of the herds of swine belonging to Ulysses. The office of chief shepherd is frequently mentioned by the classic authors of antiquity. Diodorus relates from Ctesias, that Simma was overseer of the royal flocks under Ninus, king of Assyria. According to Plutarch, one Samo managed the flocks and herds of Neoptolemus, the king of the Molossians. The office of chief shepherd was also known among the Latins; for, in the seventh Æneid, Tyrrheus is named as governor of the royal flocks:

_Tyrrheusque pater, cui regia parent_ _Armenta, et late custodia credita camp._

“Their father, Tyrrheus, did his fodder bring; Tyrrheus, chief ranger to the Latian king.” DRYDEN.

And Livy informs us, that Faustulus held the same office under Numitor, king of the Latins. But it is needless to multiply quotations; every scholar knows that the Greek and Roman classics abound with allusions to this office, which in those days was one of great importance and dignity, on the faithful discharge of which the power and splendour of an eastern potentate greatly depended. The office of chief shepherd, therefore, being in pastoral countries one of great trust, of high responsibility, and of distinguished honour, is with great propriety applied to our Lord by the Apostle Peter: “And when the chief shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory which fadeth not away,” 1 Peter v, 4. The same allusion occurs in these words of Paul: “Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus Christ, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every good work to do his will,” Hebrews xiii, 20.

SHIBBOLETH, “an ear of corn,” was a word which the Gileadites used as the test of an Ephraimite. For the Ephraimites could not, from disuse, pronounce the Hebrew letter _shin_; therefore, they said Sibboleth instead of Shibboleth, Judges xii, 6. The Greeks, says Hartley, have not the sound _sh_ in their language: hence they are liable to be detected, like the Ephraimites. I was struck with this circumstance, in learning Turkish from a Greek tutor; _pasha_, he pronounced _pasa_; _shimdi_, he called _simdi_; _Dervish_, _Dervis_, &c. _Shibboleth_ he would, of course, pronounce _Sibboleth_.

SHIELD. See ARMS.

SHILOH, Gen. xlix, 10. The Hebrew text is, “until Shiloh come.” All Christian commentators agree, that this word ought to be understood of the Messiah, that is, of Jesus Christ. The LXX. read it, “Until the coming of him to whom it is reserved.” It must be owned that the signification of the Hebrew word Shiloh is not well known. Some translate the clause, “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, till he comes to whom it belongs;” others, “till the coming of the peacemaker, or the pacific, or prosperity;” and some, “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah till its end, its ruin,” till the downfall of the kingdom of the Jews. However, this much is clear, that the ancient Jews are in this matter agreed with the Christians, in acknowledging that the word stands for Messiah, the King. It is thus that the paraphrasts, Onkelos and Jonathan, and the ancient Hebrew commentaries upon Genesis, and the Talmudists explain it. If Jesus Christ and his Apostles did not make use of this passage to prove the coming of the Messiah, it was because then the completion of this prophecy was not sufficiently manifest. The sceptre still continued among the Jews; they had still kings of their own nation, in the persons of the Herods; but soon after the sceptre was entirely taken away from them, and a people began to be gathered to Christ, out of the Gentile nations.

2. SHILOH, a celebrated city of the tribe of Ephraim, twelve miles from Shechem, Joshua xviii, xix, xxi. It was in this place that the tabernacle of the Lord was set up, when the people were settled in the country. The ark and the tabernacle of the Lord continued at Shiloh from A. M. 2560 till 2888, when it was taken by the Philistines, under the administration of the high priest Eli, 1 Sam. iv. Here the Prophet Ahijah dwelt, 1 Kings xiv, 2.

SHINAR, a province of Babylonia, where men undertook to build the tower of Babel, Genesis xi, 2; x, 10. Calneh was built in this country. Amraphel was king of Shinar in the days of Abraham, Genesis xiv, 1. See BABYLON.

SHISHAK, king of Egypt, declared war against Rehoboam in the fifth year of the reign of that prince, 2 Chron. xii, 2, 3, &c. This Shishak, according to Sir Isaac Newton, was the greatest conqueror, and the most celebrated hero, of all antiquity, being the son of Ammon, or the Egyptian Jupiter, and known to the Greeks by the name of Bacchus, Osiris, and Hercules; was the Belus of the Chaldeans, and the Mars or Mavors of the Thracians, &c. He made great conquests in India, Assyria, Media, Scythia, Phenicia, Syria, Judea, &c. His army was at last routed in Greece by Perseus; which, with other circumstances, compelled him to return home.

SHITTIM, SITTIM, SITTAH, שטים, Exod. xxv, 5, 10, 13, 23, 28; xxvi, 26, 32, 37; xxvii, 1, 6; xxx, 5; xxxv, 7, 24; xxxvi, 20, 31, 36; xxxvii, 1, 4, 10, 15, 25, 28; xxxviii, 1, 6; Deut. x, 3; Isaiah xli, 19. What particular species of wood this is, interpreters are not agreed. The LXX. render ἄσηπτα ξύλα, _incorruptible wood_. St. Jerom says, the shittim wood grows in the deserts of Arabia, and is like white thorn, as to its colour and leaves: but the tree is so large as to furnish very long planks. The wood is hard, tough, smooth, and extremely beautiful. It is thought that this wood is the black acacia, because that, it is said, is the most common tree growing in the deserts of Arabia; and agrees with what the Scriptures say of the shittim wood. The _acacia vera_ grows abundantly in Egypt, in places far from the sea; in the mountains of Sinai, near the Red Sea, and in the deserts. It is of the size of a large mulberry tree. The spreading branches and larger limbs are armed with thorns which grow three together; the bark is rough; the leaves are oblong, and stand opposite each other; the flowers, though sometimes white, are generally of a bright yellow; and the fruit which resembles a bean, is contained in pods like those of the lupin. “The acacia tree,” says Dr. Shaw, “being by much the largest and most common tree in these deserts, Arabia Petræa, we have some reason to conjecture, that the shittim wood was the wood of the acacia; especially as its flowers are of an excellent smell, for the shittah tree is, in Isaiah xli, 19, joined with the myrtle and other fragrant shrubs.”

SHOES. To put off the shoes from one’s feet, was an act of reverence to the Divine majesty of God, Exod. iii, 5. It was likewise a sign of mourning and humiliation. David went up the ascent of Mount Olivet barefoot, 2 Sam. xv, 30; Isa. xx, 2, 4; Ezek. xxiv, 17. See SANDAL.

SHOULDER. To give or lend the shoulder for the bearing of a burden, signifies to submit to servitude. “Issachar bowed his shoulder to bear, and became a servant unto tribute,” Gen. xlix, 15. And Isaiah, x, 27, comforting Israel with the promise of deliverance from Assyria, says, “His burden shall be taken away from off thy shoulder.” The Scripture calls that a rebellious shoulder, a withdrawing shoulder, which will not submit to the yoke; and to bear it together with joint consent, is termed “serving with one shoulder.” To bear any thing upon the shoulder, is to sustain it, and this is applied to government and authority. Thus Messiah was to bear the government upon his shoulder: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor,” &c, Isa. ix, 6; and God promises Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, to give him the key of the house of David, and to lay it upon his shoulder; “so he shall open, and none shall shut, and he shall shut, and none shall open;” that is, the sole authority shall rest upon him.

SHUSHAN, or SUSA, the ancient capital of Persia, seated on the river Ulai, the modern Abzal. After the union of the kingdoms of Media and Persia by Cyrus, Susa was made the winter residence of the kings of Persia, from its southern position, and the shelter afforded by a range of mountains on the north and east, which rendered the heat insupportable in the summer season; while Ecbatana, in Media, from its greater elevation, and more northern situation, was preferred at this season, as being more cool and agreeable. Here the transactions occurred related in the book of Esther. Here also Daniel had the vision of the ram with two horns, and the goat with one horn, &c, in the third year of Belshazzar’s reign. Susa was situated in the ancient province of Elam, or Elymais, called also Susiana, and now forming a part of Kuzestan. It has for several hundred years, like Babylon, been reduced to a heap of undistinguished ruins. Mr. Kinneir says, “About seven or eight miles to the west of Dezphoul, commence the ruins of Shus, stretching not less, perhaps, than twelve miles, from one extremity to the other. They extend as far as the eastern bank of the Kerah; occupying an immense space between that river and the Abzal; and, like the ruins of Ctesiphon, Babylon, and Kufa, consist of hillocks of earth and rubbish, covered with broken pieces of brick and coloured tile. The largest and most remarkable of these mounds stand at the distance of about two miles from the Kerah. The first is, at the lowest computation, a mile in circumference, and nearly a hundred feet in height; and the other, although not quite so high, is double the circuit of the former. These mounds bear some resemblance to the pyramids of Babylon; with this difference, that instead of being entirely made of brick, they are formed of clay and pieces of tile, with irregular layers of brick and mortar, five or six feet in thickness, to serve, it should seem, as a kind of prop to the mass. Large blocks of marble, covered with hieroglyphics, are not unfrequently here discovered by the Arabs when digging in search of hidden treasure; and at the foot of the most elevated of the pyramids stands the tomb of Daniel, a small and apparently a modern building, erected on the spot where the relics of that prophet are believed to rest. The site of the city of Shus is now a gloomy wilderness, infested by lions, hyænas, and other beasts of prey. The dread of these furious animals compelled Mr. Monteith and myself to take shelter for the night within the walls that encompass Daniel’s tomb.” Of this tomb Sir John Malcom observes, that “it is a small building, but sufficient to shelter some dervishes who watch the remains of the prophet, and are supported by the alms of pious pilgrims who visit the holy sepulchre. These dervishes are now the only inhabitants of Susa; and every species of wild beast roams at large over that spot on which some of the proudest palaces ever raised by human art once stood.” He also observes, respecting the authenticity of this tomb, that “although the building at the tomb of Daniel be comparatively modern, nothing could have led to its being built where it is, but a belief that this was the real site of the prophet’s sepulchre.”

SIDON, or ZIDON, a celebrated city and port of Phenicia, and one of the most ancient cities in the world; as it is supposed to have been founded by Sidon, the eldest son of Canaan, which will carry it up to above two thousand years before Christ. But if it was founded by Sidon, his descendants were driven out by a body of Phenician colonists, or Cushim from the east; who are supposed either to have given it its name, or to have retained the old one in compliment to their god Siton, or Dagon. Its inhabitants appear to have early acquired a preëminence in arts, manufactures, and commerce; and from their superior skill in hewing timber, by which must be understood their cutting it out and preparing it for building, as well as the mere act of felling it, Sidonian workmen were hired by Solomon to prepare the wood for the building of his temple. The Sidonians are said to have been the first manufacturers of glass; and Homer often speaks of them as excelling in many useful and ingenious arts, giving them the title of Πολυδαιδάλοι. Add to this, they were, if not the first shipwrights and navigators, the first who ventured beyond their own coasts, and in those early ages engrossed the greatest part of the then commerce of the world. The natural result of these exclusive advantages to the inhabitants of Sidon was, a high degree of wealth and prosperity; and content with the riches which their trade and manufactures brought them, they lived in ease and luxury, trusting the defence of their city and property, like the Tyrians after them, to hired troops; so that to live in ease and security, is said in Scripture to be after the manner of the Sidonians. In all these respects, however, Sidon was totally eclipsed by her neighbour and rival Tyre; whose more enterprising inhabitants pushed their commercial dealings to the extremities of the known world, raised their city to a rank in power and opulence unknown before, and converted it into a luxurious metropolis, and the emporium of the produce of all nations. After the subversion of the Grecian empire by the Romans, Sidon fell into the hands of the latter; who, to put an end to the frequent revolt of the inhabitants, deprived it of its freedom. It then fell successively under the power of the Saracens, the Seljukian Turks, and the sultans of Egypt; who, in 1289, that they might never more afford shelter to the Christians, destroyed both it and Tyre. But it again somewhat revived, and has ever since been in the possession of the Ottoman Turks.

SIGN. This word is used in the sense of token and pledge; as, when the Lord gave to Noah the rainbow, as a sign of his covenant, Gen. ix, 12, 13; and when he appointed to Abraham the use of circumcision, as the seal of the covenant he had made with him and his posterity, Gen. xvii, 11. Sign is also put for a miracle: “Thou shalt do these signs and wonders in the midst of Egypt,” Exodus iv, 7–9, &c. A sign or token is often put for the proof or evidence of a thing: For example, “This shall be a token or sign unto thee, that I have sent thee,” Exod. iii, 12. “Shew me a sign, that thou talkest with me,” Judges vi, 17, that is a proof. “What shall be the sign,” or evidence, “that the Lord will heal me?” 2 Kings xx, 8. This acceptation agrees with the first above mentioned; as also what is said in Gen. iv, 15, “And the Lord set a mark or sign upon Cain;” he gave him a pledge that his life should not be taken away. The signs of heaven, and the signs of the magicians, are the phenomena of the heavens, and the impostures of magicians, which they made use of for the purposes of deception: “The Lord frustrateth the tokens or signs of the liars, and maketh diviners mad,” Isaiah xliv, 25. “Be not dismayed at the signs of heaven, for the Heathen are dismayed at them,” Jer. x, 2. To be a sign was farther to be a type, or prediction, of what should happen. Thus the Prophet Isaiah, viii, 18, “Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given me, are for signs and for wonders in Israel.” See also Ezek. iv, 3.

SILAS, or SYLVANUS, was, according to St. Luke, Acts xv, 22, one of the “chief men among the brethren,” which makes it probable, that he was of the number of the seventy disciples. When a dispute was raised at Antioch about the observation of the legal ceremonies, they chose Paul, Barnabas, Judas, and Silas, to go to Jerusalem, to advise with the Apostles concerning this question. He is thought to be the same Silas who is mentioned by the name of Sylvanus, in the title of the two epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians. St. Peter sent his first epistle by him from Rome, wherein he styles him “a faithful brother.” Silas joined himself to St. Paul; and after Saul and Barnabas had parted, on account of John Mark, Acts xv, 37–41, Silas followed St. Paul, and went with him to visit the churches of Syria and Cilicia.

SILENCE. This word not only signifies to refrain from speaking; but also in the style of the Hebrews, it is taken for, “to be quiet, to remain immovable.” As for example: “Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon,” in Hebrew, be silent. “And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed,” Joshua x, 12, 13, or were silent, at the commandment of Joshua.

SILOAH, the same as Siloam, Neh. iii, 15; Luke xiii, 4; a fountain under the walls of Jerusalem, toward the east, between the city and the brook Kidron, perhaps the same with Enrogel. Near this was a tower, Luke xiii, 4.

שריקות SILK, משי. As the word which is rendered “silk” in our version more probably meant cotton, or rather muslin, it is doubtful whether silk is mentioned expressly in the Scripture, unless, perhaps, in Isaiah xix, 9, where we find the Hebrew word שריקות, from שרק, _yellowish_, _tawny_; which is generally the natural colour of raw silk; hence the Latin sericum: or it may be from the Seres, a nation whence the Greeks and Romans first obtained the article silk. Calmet remarks that the ancient Greeks and Romans had but little knowledge of the nature of silk. The Seres communicated their silk to the Persians, from whom it passed to the Greeks, and from them to the Romans. But the Persians and orientals for a long time kept the secret of manufacturing it among themselves. Silk was first brought into Greece after Alexander’s conquest of Persia, and came into Italy during the flourishing times of the Roman empire; but was long so dear in all these parts as to be worth its weight in gold. At length the emperor Justinian, who died in the year 365, by means of two monks, whom he sent into India for that purpose, procured great quantities of silk worms’ eggs to be brought to Constantinople, and from these have sprung all the silk worms and all the silk trade that have been since in Europe, See FLAX.

SILVER, כסף, Gen. xx, 16; ἀργύριον, 1 Pet. i, 18; Acts iii, 4; xx, 33; a well known metal, of a white shining colour; next in value to gold. It does not appear to have been in use before the deluge; at least Moses says nothing of it: he speaks only of the metals brass and iron, Gen. iv, 22. But in Abraham’s time it was become common, and traffic was carried on with it, Gen. xxiii, 2, 15. Yet it was not then coined, but was only in bars or ingots; and in commerce was always weighed.

SIMEON, son of Jacob and Leah, was born A. M. 2247, Genesis xxix, 33; xxxiv, 25. Jacob, on his death bed, showed his indignation against Simeon and Levi for their cruelty to the Shechemites, Gen. xlix, 5: “I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel.” And in effect these two tribes were scattered in Israel. As to Levi, he never had any fixed lot or portion; and Simeon received only a canton that was dismembered from the tribe of Judah, Joshua xix, 1, &c, and some other lands they went to conquer in the mountains of Seir, and the desert of Gedor, 1 Chronicles iv, 27, 39, 42.

2. SIMEON, a holy man, who was at Jerusalem, full of the Holy Ghost, and expecting the redemption of Israel, Luke ii, 25, 26, &c. The Holy Ghost had assured him, that he should not die before he had seen the Christ of the Lord; he therefore came into the temple, prompted by inspiration, just at the time when Joseph and Mary presented Jesus Christ there, in obedience to the law. Simeon took the child into his arms, gave thanks to God, and then blessed Joseph and Mary. It is believed, with good reason, that he died soon after he had given his testimony to Jesus Christ. Some have conjectured, that Simeon, who received Jesus Christ into his arms, was the same as Simeon the Just, the son of Hillel, and master of Gamaliel, whose disciple St. Paul was. See SANHEDRIM.

SIMON MACCABÆUS, surnamed Thossi, son of Mattathias, and brother of Judas and Jonathan. He was chief prince and pontiff of the Jews from A. M. 3860 to 3869, and was succeeded by John Hyrcanus. For the particulars of his life and transactions, see 1 Mac. ii, 65; v, 17; x, 74–82; xii, 33, &c; xiii, 1, &c; xiv, 4, &c; xv, 1, &c.

2. SIMON, the Canaanite, an Apostle of Jesus Christ. It is doubtful whether the name of Canaanite was derived to him from the city Cana in Galilee, or whether it should not be taken according to its signification in the Hebrew, by deriving it from the root _kana_, “to be zealous,” and this is the opinion of some learned men. See Luke vi, 15; Acts i, 13, where he is surnamed Zelotes; see also Matt. x, 4; Mark iii, 18.

3. SIMON, brother of our Lord, Matt. xiii, 55; Mark vi, 3; that is to say, his cousin-german, being son of Mary, sister to the holy virgin. He is thought to be the same with Simeon, bishop of Jerusalem, and son of Cleopas.

4. SIMON MAGUS. Of this heretic, or rather father of heresy, Dr. Burton gives the following account:--Justin Martyr, about A. D. 140, presented a defence of Christianity to the emperor Antoninus Pius, in which he mentions, as a well known fact, that Simon, a native of Gittum, a village in Samaria, came to Rome in the reign of Claudius, was looked upon there as a god, and had a statue erected to him, with a Latin inscription, in the river Tiber, between the two bridges. Justin adds, that nearly all the Samaritans, and a few also in other nations, acknowledged and worshipped him as the supreme God. There is in this passage such a minute detail, such a confident appeal to the emperor’s own knowledge of what the apologist was saying, that we can hardly suppose the story to be false, when not only the emperor, but every person in Rome would have been able to detect it. I would observe, also, that Justin Martyr was himself a native of Samaria; hence he was able to name the very place where Simon was born; and when he says, in his second defence, which was presented a few years later, “I have despised the impious and false doctrine of Simon which is in my country;” when we see the shame which he felt at the name of Christian being assumed by the followers of that impostor; we can never believe that he would have countenanced the story, if the truth of it had not been notorious, much less would he have given to his own country the disgrace of originating the evil.

Simon Magus was a native of Gittum, a town in Samaria; and it is stated in a suspicious document of ancient though doubtful date, that he studied for some time at Alexandria. Concerning the time of his birth, and of his first rising into notice, little can now be known. The only contemporary document which mentions him is the Acts of the Apostles; and we there read, that, when Philip the deacon preached the Gospel in Samaria after the death of Stephen, “there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one; to whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God. And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries,” Acts viii, 9–11. According to my calculation, the death of Stephen happened in the same year with the crucifixion of our Lord; and it appears from the passage now quoted, that Simon’s celebrity had begun some time before. We are then told that “Simon himself believed also; and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done,” Acts viii, 13. I need not mention how he shortly fell away from the faith which he had embraced, and how St. Peter rebuked him for thinking that the gift of God might be purchased for money, Acts viii, 20; but I would observe, that some of those persons who insist upon the fact that Simon was not a Christian appear to have forgotten that he was actually baptized. For a time, at least, he believed in Jesus Christ; and part of this belief he appears always to have retained; that is, he always believed that Jesus Christ was a being more than human, who came from God. If these events happened, as I have supposed, within a short time of our Lord’s ascension, the fathers had good reason to call Simon Magus the parent of all heresies; for he must then have been among the first persons, beyond the limits of Jerusalem, who embraced the Gospel; and we might hope that there was no one before him who perverted the faith which he had professed.

From the detailed account which we have of Simon in the Acts of the Apostles, I should be inclined to infer these two things: 1. That St. Luke knew no earlier instance of apostasy from the Gospel; and he mentions this because it was the first: and 2. That when St. Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles the heresy of Simon was widely spread; and therefore he tells his readers how it had begun. Concerning the remainder of Simon’s life we know little, and in that little it is difficult to separate truth from fiction. I should be inclined, for the reasons given above, to believe the account of Justin Martyr, who says that Simon Magus went to Rome in the reign of Claudius, and attracted numerous followers. Eusebius quotes this passage of Justin Martyr; but he adds, upon some other authority, which he does not name, that St. Peter came to Rome at the same time; and that, in consequence of his preaching, the popularity of the impostor was entirely destroyed. This would be a most interesting and important fact, if we were certain of its being true; but Eusebius contradicts himself in his account of Simon Magus going to Rome; and later writers have so embellished the story of this meeting, and made the death of Simon so astonishingly miraculous, that criticism is at a loss to know what to believe. The account which we have of Simon’s death is, in a few words, as follows: St. Peter and St. Paul being both at Rome, Simon Magus gave out that he was Christ; and, in proof of his assertion, he undertook to raise himself aloft into the air. The attempt at first appeared as if it would succeed; but the two Apostles addressing themselves in prayer to God, the impostor fell to the ground, and his death ensued shortly after. It is difficult to give this marvellous narration, without forgetting that we are treating of a grave and sacred subject; and the question for us to consider is, whether we are to look upon the whole as a fiction, or whether, as is most probable, it contains a basis and groundwork of truth. I must observe, in the first place, that Arnobius, who did not write till the fourth century, is the first person who says anything of Simon’s death at all approaching to this story; nor does he by any means give it all the particulars which later writers have supplied. It will be observed, also, that Eusebius, who wrote after Arnobius, does not say any thing of Simon’s extraordinary end; but merely states that his credit and influence were extinguished, as soon as St. Peter began to preach in Rome. It is probable, therefore, that no Greek writer before the time of Eusebius had mentioned this story; but, on the other hand, there is such a host of evidence, that the death of Simon Magus was in some way or other connected with the presence of St. Peter and St. Paul at Rome, that we might be carrying our skepticism too far if we rejected it.

With respect to the doctrines of Simon Magus, we know for certain that Christ held a conspicuous place in the philosophy which he taught; but to define with accuracy the various points of this philosophy, is a difficult, if not impossible, task. The fathers perhaps may be suspected of laying too many impieties to the charge of this heretic; and some of their accounts cannot be reconciled with each other. Still, however, we may extract from their writings an outline of the truth; and in this instance, as before, I would attach particular weight to the authority of Justin Martyr. That writer says that nearly all the inhabitants of Samaria, and a few persons in other countries, acknowledged and worshipped Simon Magus as the first or supreme God: and in another place he says that they styled him God, above all dominion and authority and power. Later writers have increased the blasphemy of this doctrine, and said that Simon declared himself to the Samaritans as the Father, to the Jews as the Son, and to the rest of the world as the Holy Ghost. But I cannot bring myself to believe that he ever advanced so far in wickedness or absurdity. The true state of the case may perhaps be collected from the words of St. Luke, who tells us that Simon gave himself out to be “some great one,” and that the people said of him, “This man is the great power of God,” Acts viii, 10. Such is the title which he bore before he had heard of Christ; and there is no reason to think that he afterward raised his pretensions, and identified himself with God. He gave himself out as “the great power of God,” that is, a person in whom divine power resided: and, after he had heard the Apostles, he seems to have so far enlarged his doctrine, as to have said, that the God whose minister he was, and who had always been worshipped in Samaria, had revealed himself to the Jews by his Son, and to the rest of the world by the Holy Ghost. There is reason to believe that he declared himself to be the Christ who appeared to the Jews; or rather, he said that the same spirit which descended upon Jesus had descended afterward upon himself; for he did not believe that Jesus had a real body, but he taught that he was only a phantom. To this he added, that the Holy Ghost, by which God was revealed to the Gentiles, resided in himself: and this I take to be the real origin of the story, that he was the God who revealed himself as the Father to the Samaritans, as the Son to the Jews, and as the Holy Ghost to the rest of the world.

Another charge, which is equally difficult to believe, relates to a female companion, whom he is said to have declared to be the first idea, or conception, which he, as God, put forth from his mind. By another mental process, in which this first idea was a partner, he produced the angels, and they created the world. All this was highly mystical, and writers have had recourse to different allegories, by which the absurdity may be explained. That Simon never identified a real living person with an idea emanating from the mind of God, may, I think, be assumed as certain. But we see, in this story, evident traces of the Gnostic doctrines. Valentinus, in the second century, made the first cause, or Bythus, act upon Σιγὴ, or Ἐννοία, that is, upon his own mind, and produce the first pair of æons. This then was the doctrine of Simon: the supreme God, by a mental process, produced different orders of angels, and they created the world. It was this same God, whose first or principal power resided in Simon Magus. But when later writers had said that he actually proclaimed himself as God, it followed that it was he, who, by an operation of his own mind, produced the angels. If I have argued rightly, I have freed the doctrine of Simon Magus from some of its impieties; but there is still much which is absurd, and much which is impious; for he believed that the world was created, not by the supreme God, but by inferior beings: he taught also, that Christ was one of those successive generations of æons which were derived from God; not the æon which created the world; but he was sent from God to rescue mankind from the tyranny of the demiurgus, or creative æon. Simon was also inventor of the strange notion, that the Jesus who was said to be born and crucified had not a material body, but was only a phantom. His other doctrines were, that the writers of the Old Testament were not inspired by the supreme God, the Fountain of good, but by those inferior beings who created the world, and who were the authors of evil. He denied a general resurrection; and the lives of himself and his followers are said to have been a continued course of impure and vicious conduct.

Such was the doctrine and the practice of Simon Magus, from whom all the pseudo-Christian or Gnostic heresies were said to be derived. Simon himself seems to have been one of those Jews who, as we learn from the Acts of the Apostles, travelled about the country, exorcising evil spirits. But he was also a man of speculative mind; and, having studied the doctrines of Plato, he entered into the questions which were then so commonly agitated, concerning the eternity of matter, and the origin of evil. Hence we find him embracing the opinion, that the world was created by angels, who were themselves produced from God. This was a corrupted Platonism. Plato imagined that the ideas which were in the mind of the Deity created intellectual beings: Simon taught that the supreme God by an operation of his own mind produced the angels. The first intelligences of Plato were employed by God to create the world: Simon also taught that the angels, or æons, created the world; but in one respect the Gnostics had totally changed the philosophy of Plato; for they taught that the angel, or angels, who created the world, acted contrary to the wishes of the supreme God.

SIN, the transgression of the law, or want of conformity to the will of God, 1 John iii, 4. Original sin is that whereby our whole nature is corrupted, and rendered contrary to the nature and law of God; or, according to the ninth article of the church of England, “It is that whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is, of his own nature, inclined to evil.” This is sometimes called, “indwelling sin,” Rom. vii. The imputation of the sin of Adam to his posterity, is also what divines call, with some latitude of expression, original sin. Actual sin is a direct violation of God’s law, and generally applied to those who are capable of committing moral evil; as opposed to idiots or children, who have not the right use of their powers. Sins of omission consist in leaving those things undone which ought to be done. Sins of commission are those which are committed against affirmative precepts, or doing what should not be done. Sins of infirmity are those which arise from ignorance, surprise, &c. Secret sins are those committed in secret, or those of which, through blindness or prejudice, we do not see the evil, Psalm xix, 7–12. Presumptuous sins are those which are done boldly against light and conviction. The unpardonable sin is, according to some, the ascribing to the devil the miracles which Christ wrought by the power of the Holy Ghost. This sin, or blasphemy, as it should rather be called, many scribes and Pharisees were guilty of, who, beholding our Lord do his miracles, affirmed that he wrought them by Beelzebub, the prince of devils, which was, in effect, calling the Holy Ghost Satan, a most horrible blasphemy; and, as on this ground they rejected Christ, and salvation by him, their sin could certainly have no forgiveness, Mark iii, 22–30. No one therefore could be guilty of this blasphemy, except those who were spectators of Christ’s miracles. There is, however, another view of this unpardonable offence, which deserves consideration: The sin or blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, says Bishop Tomline, is mentioned in the first three Gospels. It appears that all the three evangelists agree in representing the sin or blasphemy against the Holy Ghost as a crime which would not be forgiven; but no one of them affirms that those who had ascribed Christ’s power of casting out devils to Beelzebub, had been guilty of that sin, and in St. Luke it is not mentioned that any such charge had been made. Our Saviour, according to the account in St. Matthew and St. Mark, endeavoured to convince the Jews of their error; but so far from accusing them of having committed an unpardonable sin in what they had said concerning him, he declares that “whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him;” that is, whatever reproaches men may utter against the Son of man during his ministry, however they may calumniate the authority upon which he acts, it is still possible that hereafter they may repent and believe, and all their sins may be forgiven them; but the reviling of the Holy Ghost is described as an offence of a far more heinous nature: “The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.” “He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness.” “Unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.” It is plain that this sin against the Holy Ghost could not be committed while our Saviour was upon earth, since he always speaks of the Holy Ghost as not being to come till after his ascension into heaven. A few days after that great event, the descent of the Holy Ghost enabled the Apostles to work miracles, and communicated to them a variety of other supernatural gifts. If men should ascribe these powers to Beelzebub, or in any respect reject their authority, they would blaspheme the Holy Ghost, from whom they were derived; and that sin would be unpardonable, because this was the completion of the evidence of the divine authority of Christ and his religion; and they who rejected these last means of conviction, could have no other opportunity of being brought to faith in Christ, the only appointed condition of pardon and forgiveness. The greater heinousness of the sin of these men would consist in their rejecting a greater body of testimony; for they are supposed to be acquainted with the resurrection of our Saviour from the dead, with his ascension into heaven, with the miraculous descent of the Holy Ghost, and with the supernatural powers which it communicated; circumstances, all of which were enforced by the Apostles when they preached the Gospel; but none of which could be known to those who refused to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah during his actual ministry. Though this was a great sin, it was not an unpardonable one, it might be remedied by subsequent belief, by yielding to subsequent testimony. But, on the other hand, they who finally rejected the accumulated and complete evidence of Jesus being the Messiah, as exhibited by the inspired Apostles, precluded themselves from the possibility of conviction, because no farther testimony would be afforded them, and consequently, there being no means of repentance, they would be incapable of forgiveness and redemption. Hence it appears that the sin against the Holy Ghost consisted in finally rejecting the Gospel as preached by the Apostles, who confirmed the truth of the doctrine which they taught “by signs and wonders, and divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost,” Heb. ii, 4. It was unpardonable, because this was the consummation of the proofs afforded to the men of that generation of the divine mission of Christ. This sin was manifestly distinct from all other sins; it indicated an invincible obstinacy of mind, an impious and unalterable determination to refuse the offered mercy of God. It would appear from this, that those only committed or could commit this irremissible offence, who were witnesses of the mighty works wrought by the Holy Spirit in the Apostles after Christ’s ascension and the day of pentecost. Our Lord’s declaration appears chiefly to respect the Jews. This view will serve to explain those passages in the Epistle to the Hebrews, in which the hopeless case of Jewish apostates is described. But see BLASPHEMY.

SIN, DESERT OF. To this the tenth station the Israelites came exactly a month after they left Egypt. And here again they murmured for “the bread and the flesh-pots of Egypt.” So the Lord gave them quails for a day, and manna for forty years, till they came to the borders of Canaan. On this occasion the institution of the Sabbath was revived, as a day of rest, which had been intermitted during their Egyptian bondage. On this day there fell no manna, but on the preceding they were directed to gather two days’ provision. To perpetuate the memorial of “this bread from heaven” to future generations, a pot of manna, which was preserved fresh, by a standing miracle, was ordered to be laid up beside the ark of the covenant, in the sanctuary, Exod. xvi.

SINAI, a famous mountain of Arabia Petræa, on which God gave the law to Moses, Exod. xix, 1; xxiv, 16; xxxi, 18; xxxiv, 2, 4, &c; Lev. xxv, 1; xxvi, 46. It stands in a kind of peninsula, formed by the two arms of the Red Sea; one extending north, called the Gulf of Kolsom; the other extending east, called the Gulf of Elan. The Arabs call Mount Sinai by the name of Tor, that is, the mountain, by way of excellence; or Gibel Mousa, “the mountain of Moses.” It is two hundred and sixty miles from Cairo, which is a journey of ten days. The wilderness of Sinai, where the Israelites continued encamped almost a year, and where Moses erected the tabernacle of the covenant, is considerably elevated above the rest of the country; the ascent to it is very craggy, the greater part cut out of the rock; then one comes to a large space of ground, which is a plain surrounded on all sides by rocks and eminences, whose length is nearly twelve miles. Toward the extremity of this plain, on the north, two high mountains appear; the highest is called Sinai, the other Horeb. They are of very steep ascent, and do not stand on much ground in comparison to their extraordinary height. Sinai is at least one third part higher than the other, and its ascent more upright and difficult. The top of the mountain terminates in an uneven and rugged space, which might contain about sixty persons. On this eminence is built a little chapel, called St. Catherine’s, where it is thought the body of this saint rested for three hundred and sixty years; but afterward it was removed into a church at the foot of the mountain. Near this chapel issues a fountain of very good fresh water; it is looked upon as miraculous, it not being conceivable how water can flow from the brow of so high and so barren a mountain. Mount Horeb stands west of Sinai; so that at sun-rising the shadow of Sinai covers Horeb. Beside the little fountain at the top of Sinai, there is another at the foot of Horeb, which supplies the monastery of St. Catherine. Five or six paces from thence they show a stone, whose height is four or five feet, and breadth about three, which they say is the very stone from whence Moses caused the water to gush out. Its colour is of a spotted grey; and it is, as it were, set in a kind of earth, where no other rock appears. This stone has twelve holes or channels, which are about a foot wide, from whence they say the water issued which the Israelites drank.

“Sinai,” says Sandys, “has three tops of a marvellous height; that on the west side, where God appeared to Moses in a bush, fruitful in pasturage, far lower than the middlemost, and shadowed when the sun riseth thereon; which is that whereon God gave the law to Moses, and which is now called the Mount of Moses, at the foot of which stands the monastery called St. Catherine’s, from which there were steps formerly up to the very top of the mountain, and were computed fourteen thousand in number. At present some of them are broken, but those that remain are well made, and easy to go up and down. There are, in several places of the ascent, good cisterns; and especially near the top, a fair and good one. The third or most easterly summit is called by the religious in those parts, Mount Catherine; on the top of which there is a dome, under which they say was interred the body of this saint, brought thither by angels after she was beheaded at Alexandria.” One may judge of the height of St. Catherine’s Mount, which certainly is not so high as that of Moses by a third part, from this circumstance, that Thevenot found much snow on both when he was there, which was in February. The monastery of St. Catherine is from Cairo some eight days’ journey over the deserts.

SION, or ZION, MOUNT, a mount or hill on the south of Old Jerusalem or Salem, and higher than that on which the ancient city stood. This hill was, perhaps, on this account, made choice of by the Jebusites for building a fort or citadel upon; which fort was taken by David, who transferred his court thither from Hebron, and brought the ark of the Lord and set it in a tabernacle or tent pitched for it. On this account it is, that this hill is so frequently styled in the Psalms the “holy hill;” and, by way of excellence, is used in the poetical language of Scripture to denote the whole city of Jerusalem. Here David built a palace, and a city, called after him the city of David; and which subsequently formed a part of Jerusalem, enclosed within the same walls, although a great part of the hill is now left without them; while, on the contrary, Calvary, which is supposed to have stood formerly without the walls, is now enclosed within them, the city having drawn itself round about this sacred mount. “This hill,” says M. Chateaubriand, “is of a yellowish colour, and barren appearance; open in form of a crescent, toward Jerusalem; and is about as high as Montmartre at Paris, but rounder at the top. This sacred summit is distinguished by three monuments, or, more properly, by three ruins, the house of Caiaphas, the place where Christ celebrated his last supper, and the tomb or palace of David. From the top of the hill you see, to the south, the valley of Ben Hinnom; beyond this, the field of blood, purchased with the thirty pieces of silver given to Judas; the hill of Evil Counsel, the tombs of the judges, and the whole desert toward Hebron and Bethlehem. To the north, the wall of Jerusalem, which passes over the top of Sion, intercepts the view of the city, the site of which gradually slopes toward the Valley of Jehoshaphat.”

Dr. Richardson observes of Sion, “At the time when I visited this sacred ground, one part of it supported a crop of barley, another was undergoing the labour of the plough, and the soil turned up consisted of stones and lime mixed with earth, such as is usually met with in the foundations of ruined cities. It is nearly a mile in circumference, is highest on the west side, and toward the east falls down in broad terraces on the upper part of the mountain, and narrow ones on the side as it slopes down toward the brook Kedron. Each terrace is divided from the one above it by a low wall of dry stone, built of the ruins of this celebrated spot. The terraces near the bottom of the hill are used as gardens, and are watered from the pool of Siloam. We have here another remarkable instance of the special fulfilment of prophecy. ‘Therefore shall Zion for your sakes be ploughed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps,’ Micah iii, 12.” Mr. Jolliffe represents the hill of Sion as not more raised above the city than the Aventine hill above the Roman forum; but conjectures that its height, from its base in the Valley of Gehinnon, from which it rises abruptly, may be equivalent to some of the lowest hills which encompass Bath; that is, if the estimate be correct, about three hundred and sixty feet, which is the height of the lowest of the hills above that city.

SISTER, in the style of the Hebrews, has equal latitude as brother. It is used not only for a sister by natural relation from the same father and mother, but also for a sister only by the same father or by the same mother, or a near relation only. Sarah is called sister to Abraham, Gen. xii, 13; xx, 12, though only his niece according to some, or sister by the father’s side according to others. In the law, Lev. xviii, 18, it is forbidden to take to wife the sister of a wife; to marry two sisters; or, according to some interpreters, to marry a second wife, having one already. Literally, “Thou shalt not take a wife over her sister to afflict her;” as if meaning to forbid polygamy. In the Gospels, the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ are his cousins, children of the sisters of the holy virgin, Matt. xiii, 56; Mark vi, 3.

SLAVE. See SERVANT.

SLEEP, SLEEPING, SLUMBERING, is taken either for the sleep or repose of the body; or for the sleep of the soul, which is supineness, indolence, stupidity; or for the sleep of death. “You shall sleep with your fathers;” you shall die, as they are dead. Jeremiah, li, 39, threatens Babylon, in the name of the Lord, with a perpetual sleep, out of which they shall not awake. Daniel, xii, 2, speaks of those that sleep in the dust of the grave. “Lazarus our friend sleepeth; let us go and awake him,” John xi, 11; he is dead, let us go and raise him up. “Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light,” Eph. v, 14. Here St. Paul speaks to those that were dead in sin and infidelity. St. Peter says of the wicked, “Their damnation slumbereth not,” 2 Peter ii, 3. God is not asleep, he will not forget to punish them in his own due time. Isaiah, lxv, 4, speaks of a superstitious practice among the Pagans, who went to sleep in the temples of their idols, to obtain prophetic dreams: “They remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments.” The word, which we translate “monuments,” signifies places “kept” or “observed.” Some interpret it of idol temples, some of caves and dens, in which the Heathens used to worship their idols; and some of tombs or monuments for dead persons. Thus also the superstitious and idolatrous Jews, in contempt of the prophets, and of the temple of the Lord, went into the tombs and temples of idols to sleep there, and to have dreams that might discover future events to them. The Pagans for this purpose used to lie upon the skins of the sacrificed victims.

SLINGS. See ARMS.

SMYRNA, a city of Asia Minor, and one of the finest in all the Levant. It contended for the honour of giving birth to Homer, and its title is by many thought to be the best founded. The Christian church in Smyrna was one of the seven churches of Asia to which the Apostle John was commanded to address an epistle, Rev. ii, 8–10. The present Smyrna, which the Turks call Esmir, is about four miles in circumference, and contains a population of about a hundred thousand souls. It is less remarkable for the elegance of its buildings than for the beauty of its situation, the extent of its commerce, and the riches of its inhabitants.

SOCINIANS, a sect so called from Faustus Socinus, who died in Poland in 1604. This celebrated man was born in Tuscany, and was descended from an ancient and noble family. In the earlier period of his life he devoted little time to literary acquisitions, but he was possessed of a vigorous understanding, and of that steady fortitude which qualified him for the memorable part which he afterward acted. His connection with his uncle Lælius probably gave a bias to his mind with respect to religion. He warmly embraced his tenets, and he spent a great part of his days in studying and disseminating them. Having left his native country, he visited Poland; and finally he settled in it for the express purpose of propagating his own peculiar views of religious truth. The fundamental principles which he assumed were, the rejection of all mystery from revelation, and the necessity of trying its doctrines by the light of reason; and he rigorously applied this latter maxim in conducting his theological investigations. He inculcated in the strictest sense, the unity of God; considered the Word and the Holy Ghost as attributes of the supreme Being; taught that Christ was a man peculiarly honoured by the Almighty, having been born through the operation of the Spirit; and that he was so highly exalted, in consequence of his office as the Saviour of the world, that he might be styled the Son of God, and ought to be worshipped. Struck with several declarations of our Lord which seemed to imply that he had descended from heaven, and which militated against his leading tenet respecting Jesus, he endeavoured to evade the application of them, by supposing or affirming that, previous to the commencement of our Saviour’s ministry, he had, through the power of God, been taken up to the celestial regions, and had in them received from the Almighty the truths which he was commissioned to reveal.

The first reception of Socinus in Poland, even by those who might have been expected to welcome him, was most discouraging. The Unitarian churches which had been previously established in that kingdom, differing from him in several points, would not admit him into their communion; and he had to encounter the enmity of the great majority of Christians, who abhorred his tenets, and branded them as impious. But, notwithstanding all this, and although he was visited with much suffering and affliction, his perseverance, his talents, and his zeal soon excited admiration; his views were adopted by many even in the highest stations of life; his principles were embodied in a catechism, which, though not imposed upon his followers, they read with very extensive acquiescence; and he had the satisfaction of beholding the sentiments which he had long cherished, embraced by various churches enjoying the protection of government, and permitted to establish seminaries of education by which the impression made on the public mind might be preserved and deepened. There was not, however, perfect unanimity of faith among all his associates who united in denying the divinity of our Lord. Vast numbers of these, previous to their having perused the papers of Lælius Socinus, had so far received the system of Arianism, that they believed Christ to have existed before he entered into the world; and although many, in consequence of the reasonings and representations of Socinus, abandoned this doctrine, it was retained by some, who, from their leader, were called Farnovians. Socinus conducted himself toward these men with admirable address. Fully aware that the tendency of their having departed so far from the orthodox tenets was to lead them to still farther recession, and sensible that his own system naturally and consequentially resulted from what they readily admitted, he used every method to conciliate them, and he permitted them to remain with his followers, upon condition of their not openly insisting on the preëxistence of Christ. They did, however, at length separate from the great body of his adherents; but they gradually approached nearer and nearer to them, and, upon the death of Farnovius, most of them incorporated themselves with the Socinians, and all trace of them as a distinct party was obliterated.

Socinus was much more agitated by the promulgation of an opinion very opposite to those now mentioned. As might have been anticipated, there were some who, having adopted the sentiments of Lælius Socinus as to the simple humanity of Christ, deduced from this tenet consequences which appeared to them obviously to flow from it, although these had not been perceived or admitted by Lælius himself. A striking example of this took place in the time of Faustus Socinus. Francis David, a man of considerable influence among the Unitarians, being the superintendent of their churches in Transylvania, maintained that, as Christ was born just like other men, so he continued, notwithstanding his exaltation, to be merely a human being; and that therefore all invocation of him, and worship paid to him, were to be shunned as impiety or idolatry. Socinus inveighed with the utmost warmth against this opinion; he used every method to induce David to renounce it; and, at the desire of one of his friends, he resided for a considerable time at the house of his opponent, that the subject at issue might be fully and calmly discussed. He failed, however, in accomplishing his object. David persisted, as he had, upon the ground which he had taken, good reason to do, in asserting the doctrine which he had announced; and he was soon after this thrown by the prince of Transylvania into prison, where he lingered for several years, and then died at an advanced age. It has been insinuated that Socinus was accessary to this cruel deed of detestable persecution; and, although attempts have been made to wipe off the imputation, there is too much cause to think that it is not wholly unfounded. Most certain it is, that he had it much at heart to root out what he viewed as the heresy of David, and that the support of it after the death of the unhappy sufferer by some distinguished Unitarians gave him much uneasiness. It is not unlikely that the zeal which he thus displayed arose from his apprehension that the tenets which he opposed would supplant his own, and from the difficulty that he must have experienced in turning aside the inferences which were affirmed to follow from what he admitted. If such was the case, and it seems in many respects more probable than the conjecture of Mosheim, that it is to be attributed to the dread of rendering the sect more odious than it actually was, we have a striking proof of his discernment, though at the expense of his candour; for the present creed of Unitarianism approaches much nearer to that of David than to the doctrines of the founder of Socinianism himself.

But, while he was thus disquieted by opposition which, after the liberty with which he had himself departed from the faith of the most ancient and numerous Christian churches, should have created no surprise, he was highly gratified by the zeal and the establishment of his followers. Under the protection of the ample toleration which they enjoyed in Poland they were sedulous in their attempts to imprint their tenets upon those among whom they lived, and to send these tenets abroad to foreign nations. The Anti-trinitarians in Poland had early translated the Scriptures, and their successors under Socinus composed many works with the design of defending the principles of their faith. They also sent missionaries to propagate their views and to disseminate the books which supported them, anticipating success similar to that which had accompanied their efforts in Transylvania. But in Hungary and in Austria they were successfully opposed by the united and cordial efforts of Catholics and Protestants. In Holland they were more fortunate; and in England they established only one congregation, which differed in some points from the parent sect, and which soon dwindled away.

These failures, which the ardour, the ability, and the high rank of many who engaged in the diffusion of Socinianism were unable to prevent, were soon followed by their expulsion from the country in which they had so long remained in security and peace. Toward the middle of the seventeenth century some of the students attending the academy at Racow, wantonly insulted the feelings and the principles of the Catholics, by a contemptible act of outrage against a crucifix, which, with stones, they threw down from the place in which it had been erected. By men warmly attached to their own religion, and who had at all times regarded the Socinians as undermining its foundation, this youthful excess was represented as confirming all the charges that had been made against the community to which the perpetrators belonged, and they determined to exert themselves to procure their punishment or extirpation. The supporters of the established religion accordingly applied to the diet at Warsaw; and, notwithstanding the powerful influence used in favour of the Socinians, a cruel edict was passed, abolishing their academy at Racow, banishing the learned men who had taught in it, breaking the printing presses, and shutting up the churches. This edict was carried into effect with much severity; but it did not exhaust the enmity now cherished against the sect; for within a few years after, by a solemn act of the Polish diet, they were banished from the territories of the republic, and, with sad departure from the tolerant and beneficent spirit of the Gospel, death was denounced against all who held their opinions, or who even sheltered and protected those who entertained them. A short time was allowed to the unfortunate victims to arrange their affairs before they bade an eternal adieu to scenes which all the ties of human life must have endeared to them; but this period was abridged. Some, however, had escaped the operation of the law, and had remained in Poland; but three years after the edict was renewed, and the Socinians who still lingered in their beloved country were driven from it with a rigour and an inhumanity reflecting infamy upon those who were guilty of them, and leading to the most melancholy reflections upon that dismal perversion of all that is amiable in our nature, which has so often been effected by a mistaken zeal for a religion breathing the tenderest concern for the happiness of mankind. The principles of Socinus were, notwithstanding, secretly fostered, and various causes tended to perpetuate them even where in profession they were abjured. The propensity, so natural to man, of dissipating every shade of mystery, and casting the light of his own understanding around the subjects of his contemplation, did not cease to operate; and the application of this principle, so gratifying to the pride of human reason, carried many farther than even Socinus had probably anticipated.

The Socinians hold, that Jesus Christ was a mere man, who had no existence before he was born of the virgin Mary; that the Holy Ghost is no distinct person; but that the Father only is truly and properly God. They own that the name of God is given in Scripture to Jesus Christ, but contend that it is only a deputed title; which, however, invests him with a great authority over all creatures. They deny the doctrine of satisfaction and imputed righteousness, and say, that Christ only preached the truth to mankind, set before them in himself an example of heroic virtue, and sealed his doctrines with his blood. Original sin they esteem a mere scholastic chimera. Some of them, likewise, maintain the sleep of the soul, which, they say, becomes insensible at death, and is raised again with the body at the resurrection, when the good shall be established in the possession of eternal felicity, while the wicked shall be consigned to a fire that will torment them, not eternally, but for a certain duration, proportioned to their demerits.

SODOM, the capital of Pentapolis, which for some time was the residence of Lot, the nephew of Abraham. The history of its destruction is given in the book of Genesis. See ABRAHAM, LOT, and DEAD SEA.

SOLOMON, or SALOMON, son of David and Bathsheba, was born A. M. 2971. The Lord loved him, and sent Nathan to David to give Solomon the name of Jedidiah, or, “beloved of the Lord,” 2 Sam. xii, 24, 25. This was probably when Nathan assured David that his son should succeed him, and that he should inherit those promises which had been made to him some years before, when he had conceived the design of building a temple to the Lord; for then God declared, by the prophet Nathan, that the honour of building a temple should be reserved for his son, 2 Sam. vii, 5, &c. Solomon, being confirmed in his kingdom, contracted an alliance with Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and married his daughter, A.M. 2291. He brought her to Jerusalem, and had apartments for her in the city of David, till he should build her a palace, which he did some years afterward, when he had finished the temple. It is thought that on occasion of this marriage, Solomon composed the Canticles, which are a kind of epithalamium. The Scripture speaks of the daughter of Pharaoh, as contributing to pervert Solomon, 1 Kings xi, 1, 2; Neh. xiii, 26; and it is very likely, that if at first this princess might seem converted to the Lord, she afterward might retain her private disposition to idolatry, and might engage her husband in it.

Solomon, accompanied by his troops and all Israel, went up to Gibeon, where was then the brazen altar, upon which he offered a thousand burnt-offerings. The night following, God appeared to him in a dream, and said, “Ask of me what thou wilt.” Solomon begged of God a wise and understanding heart, and such qualities as were necessary for the government of the people committed to him. This request pleased the Lord, and was fully granted by him. Solomon returned to Jerusalem, where he offered a great number of sacrifices on the altar before the ark of the Lord, and made a great feast for his servants. He enjoyed a profound peace throughout his dominions; Judah and Israel lived in security; and his neighbours either paid him tribute, or were his allies; he ruled over all the countries and kingdoms from the Euphrates to the Nile, and his dominions extended even beyond the former; he had abundance of horses and chariots of war; he exceeded the orientals, and all the Egyptians, in wisdom and prudence; he was the wisest of mankind, and his reputation was spread through all nations. He composed or collected, three thousand proverbs, and one thousand and five canticles. He knew the nature of plants and trees, from the cedar on Libanus to the hyssop on the wall; also of beasts, of birds, of reptiles, of fishes. There was a concourse of strangers from all countries to hear his wisdom, and ambassadors from the most remote princes.

When Hiram, king of Tyre, knew that Solomon was made king of Israel, he sent ambassadors to congratulate him on his accession to the crown. Some time afterward, Solomon desired him to supply wood and workmen, to assist in building a temple to the Lord. Hiram gladly undertook this service, and Solomon, on his part, obliged himself to give twenty thousand measures of wheat, and twenty thousand measures of oil. The Hebrew and the Vulgate have only twenty measures of oil; but the reading ought no doubt to be twenty thousand. Solomon began to build the temple in the fourth year of his reign, and the second after the death of David; four hundred and eighty years after the exodus from Egypt. He employed in this great work seventy thousand proselytes, descendants of the ancient Canaanites, in carrying burdens, fourscore thousand in cutting stones out of the quarries, and three thousand six hundred overseers of the works; beside thirty thousand Israelites in the quarries of Libanus.

The temple was completed in the eleventh year of Solomon, so that he was but seven years in performing this vast work. The dedication was made the year following, A. M. 3001. To make this ceremony the more august, Solomon chose for it the eighth day of the seventh month of the holy year, which was the first of the civil year, and answered to our October. The ceremony of the dedication lasted seven days, at the end of which began the feast of tabernacles, which continued seven days longer; so that the people continued at Jerusalem fourteen or fifteen days, from the eighth to the twenty-second of the seventh month. When the ark was placed in the sanctuary, while the priests and Levites were celebrating the praises of the Lord, the temple was filled with a miraculous cloud, so that the priests could no longer stand to perform the functions of their ministry. Then Solomon, being on his throne, prostrated himself with his face to the ground; and rising up, and turning toward the sanctuary, he addressed his prayer to God, and besought him that the house which he had built might be acceptable to him, that he would bless and sanctify it, and hear the prayers of those who should address him from this holy place. He besought him also to fulfil the promises he had made to David his servant in favour of his family, and of the kings his successors. Then turning himself to the people, he solemnly blessed them. Fire coming down from heaven consumed the victims and burnt sacrifices on the altar, and the glory of the Lord filled the whole temple. On this day the king caused to be sacrificed twenty-two thousand oxen, and one hundred and twenty thousand sheep for peace-offerings. And because the altar of burnt-offerings was not sufficient for all these victims, the king consecrated the court of the people.

Solomon afterward built a palace for himself, and another for his queen, the king of Egypt’s daughter. He was thirteen years in finishing these buildings, and employed in them whatever the most exquisite art, or the most profuse riches, could furnish. The palace in which he generally resided was called the house of the forest of Lebanon; probably because of the great quantity of cedar used in it. Solomon also built the walls of Jerusalem, and the place called Millo in this city; he repaired and fortified Hazor, Megiddo, Gezer, the two Bethhorons, Upper and Lower, Baalath, and Palmyra in the desert of Syria. He also fortified the cities where he had magazines of corn, wine, and oil; and those where his horses and chariots were kept. He brought under his government the Hittites, the Hivites, the Amorites, and the Perizzites, which remained in the land of Israel. He made them tributaries, and compelled them to work at the public works. He fitted out a fleet at Ezion-Geber, and at Elath, on the Red Sea, to go to Ophir. Hiram, king of Tyre, furnished him with mariners, who instructed the subjects of Solomon. They performed this voyage in three years, and brought back gold, ivory, ebony, precious wood, peacocks, apes, and other curiosities. In one voyage they brought Solomon four hundred and fifty talents of gold, 2 Chron. ix, 21. About the same time, the queen of Sheba came to Jerusalem, attracted by the great fame of the king. She brought rich presents of gold, spices, and precious stones; and proposed several enigmas and hard questions, to which Solomon gave her such satisfactory answers, that she owned what had been told her of his wisdom and magnificence was far short of what she had found. The king, on his part, made her rich presents in return.

Solomon was one of the richest, if not the very richest, of all princes that have ever lived; and the Scripture expressly tells us he exceeded in riches and wisdom all the kings of the earth. His annual revenues were six hundred and sixty-six talents of gold, without reckoning tributes from kings and nations, or paid by Israelites, or sums received for customs. The bucklers of his guards, and the throne he sat on, were overlaid with gold. All the vessels of his table, and the utensils of his palaces, were of gold. From all parts he received presents, vessels of gold and silver, precious stuffs, spices, arms, horses, and mules; and the whole earth desired to see his face, and to hear the wisdom which God had put into his heart. But the latter actions of his life disgraced his character. Beside Pharaoh’s daughter, he married wives from among the Moabites, Ammonites, Idumeans, Sidonians, and Hittites. He had seven hundred wives, who were so many queens, beside three hundred concubines. These women perverted his heart in his declining age, so that he worshipped Ashtoreth, goddess of the Sidonians, Moloch, idol of the Ammonites, and Chemosh, god of the Moabites. To these he built temples on the Mount of Olives, over against and east of Jerusalem, and thus insulted openly the Majesty he had adored.

Solomon died after he had reigned forty years, A. M. 3029. He might be about fifty-eight years of age; for he was about eighteen when he began to reign. Josephus makes him to have reigned eighty years and to have lived ninety-four years; but this is a manifest error. The history of this prince was written by the prophets Nathan, Ahijah, and Iddo. He was buried in the city of David; and Rehoboam his son reigned in his stead. Of all the ingenious works composed by Solomon, we have nothing remaining but his Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Canticles; that is, every literary monument respecting him has perished, except those written under inspiration--the inspired history which registers his apostasy, and his own inspired works, which, in all the principles they contain, condemn his vices. Some have ascribed to him the book of Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus; but these were written by Hellenistic Jews.

SOUL, that immortal, immaterial, active substance or principle in man, whereby he perceives, remembers, reasons, and wills. See MATERIALISM.

SOWING. Our Lord, in his parable of the sower, says, “Some seeds fell by the wayside, and the fowls came and devoured them.” Buckingham, in his Travels in Palestine, remarks, “We ascended to an elevated plain where husbandmen were sowing, and some thousands of starlings covered the ground, as the wild pigeons do in Egypt, laying a heavy contribution on the grain thrown into the furrows, which are not covered by harrowing, as in Europe.” The sowing “beside all waters,” mentioned by Isaiah, seems to refer to the sowing of rice, which is done on low grounds flooded, and prepared for sowing by being trodden by oxen and asses, mid-leg deep; thus, they send “forth thither the feet of the ox and the ass.”

SPARROW, צפור, Gen. vii, 14, and afterward frequently; ϛρουθίον, Matt. x, 29; Luke xii, 6, 7; a little bird every where known. The Hebrew word is used not only for a sparrow, but for all sorts of clean birds, or for those the use of which was not forbidden by the law. That the sparrow is not intended in Psalm cii, 7, is evident from several circumstances; for that is intimated to be a bird of night, one that is both solitary and mournful; none of which characteristics is applicable to the sparrow, which rests by night, is gregarious and cheerful. It seems rather to mean a bird melancholy and drooping, much like one confined in a cage. See SWALLOW.

SPEECH. See LANGUAGE.

SPIDER, עכביש, Job viii, 14; Isa. lix, 5. An insect well known, remarkable for the thread which it spins, with which it forms a web of curious texture, but so frail that it is exposed to be broken and destroyed by the slightest accident. To the slenderness of this filmy workmanship, Job compares the hope of the wicked. This, says Dr. Good, was “doubtless a proverbial allusion; and so exquisite, that it is impossible to conceive any figure that can more fully describe the utter vanity of the hopes and prosperity of the wicked.”

“Deceiving bliss! in bitter shame it ends, His prop a cobweb, which an insect rends.”

So Isaiah says, “They weave the web of the spider; of their webs no garment shall be made; neither shall they cover themselves with their works.”

SPIKENARD, נרד. By this was meant a highly aromatic plant growing in the Indies, called “nardostachys,” by Dioscorides and Galen; from whence was made the very valuable extract or unguent, or favourite perfume, used at the ancient baths and feasts, _unguentum nardinum_, _unguentum nardi spicatæ_, [the perfume or unction of spikenard,] which it appears from a passage in Horace, was so valuable, that as much of it as could be contained in a small box of precious stone, was considered as a sort of equivalent for a large vessel of wine, and a handsome quota for a guest to contribute at an entertainment, according to the custom of antiquity:

_Nardo vina merebere: Nardi parvus onyx eliciet cadum._

“Bring you the odours, and a cask is thine. Thy little box of ointment shall produce A mighty cask.” FRANCIS.

St. Mark, xiv, 3, mentions “ointment of spikenard very precious,” which is said to be worth more than three hundred denarii; and John, xii, 3, mentions a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly; the house was filled with the odour of the ointment; it was worth three hundred denarii. It is not to be supposed that this was a Syrian production, but the true “atar” of Indian spikenard; an unguent, containing the very essence of the plant, and brought at a great expense from a remote country.

SPIRIT, in Hebrew, רוח, in Greek, ϖνεῦμα, and in Latin, _spiritus_, is in the Scriptures sometimes taken for the Holy Ghost, the third person of the Holy Trinity. The word signifies also the reasonable soul which animates us, and continues in existence even after the death of the body: that spiritual, thinking and reasoning substance, which is capable of eternal happiness, Num. xvi, 22; Acts vii, 59. The term spirit is also often used for an angel, a demon, and a ghost, or soul separate from the body. It is said, in Acts xxiii, 8, that the Sadducees denied the existence of angels and spirits. Jesus Christ appearing to his disciples, said to them, Luke xxiv, 39, “Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” And St. Paul calls the good angels “ministering spirits,” Heb. i, 14. In 1 Sam. xvi, 14; xviii, 10; xix 9, it is said that an evil spirit from the Lord troubled Saul: and we have also the expression unclean spirits. Add to this, spirit is sometimes put for the disposition of the heart or mind: see Num. v, 14; Zech. xii, 10; Luke xiii, 11; Isa. xi, 2. Discerning of spirits, or the secret character and thoughts of men, was a gift of God, and placed among the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. xii, 10; 1 John iv, 1.

STAR, in Hebrew, בוכב. Under the name of stars, the ancient Hebrews comprehended all the heavenly bodies, constellations, and planets; in a word, all the luminaries, the sun and moon excepted. The number of the stars was looked upon as infinite. And the Psalmist, to exalt the power and magnificence of God, says, that he numbers the stars and calls them by their names; and so are they put to express a vast multitude, Gen. xv, 5; xxii, 17; Exod. xxxiii, 13.

STEPHEN, the first martyr. He is always put at the head of the seven deacons; and it is believed he had studied at the feet of Gamaliel. As he was full of the Holy Ghost, and of zeal, Acts vi, 5, 6, &c, he performed many wonderful miracles: and those of the synagogue of the Libertines, of the Cyrenians, of the Alexandrians, and others, disputing with him, could not withstand the wisdom and the power with which he spoke. Then having suborned false witnesses, to testify that they had heard him blaspheme against Moses, and against God, they drew him before the sanhedrim. Stephen appeared in the midst of this assembly, with a countenance like that of an angel; and the high priest asking him what he had to answer, in his defence he rapidly traced the history of the Jews, showing that they had always opposed themselves to God and his prophets; faithfully upbraided them with the hardness of their hearts, with their putting the prophets to death, and, lastly, with slaying Christ himself. At these words they were filled with rage, and gnashed their teeth against him. But Stephen, lifting up his eyes to heaven, calmly exclaimed, “I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.” Then the Jews cried out, and stopped their ears as though they had heard blasphemy, and falling on him, they drew him out of the city, and stoned him. The witnesses laid down their clothes at the feet of a young man called Saul, afterward St. Paul, who then appears to have commenced his career of persecution. “And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit; and he kneeled down and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep,” an example of the majesty and meekness of true Christian heroism, and as the first, so also the pattern, of all subsequent martyrs. His Christian brethren forsook not the remains of this holy man; but took care to bury him, and accompanied his funeral with great mourning, Acts viii, 2.

STOICS, a sect of Heathen philosophers, Acts xvii, 18. Their distinguishing tenets were, that God is underived, incorruptible, and eternal; possessed of infinite wisdom and goodness; the efficient cause of all the qualities and forms of things; and the constant preserver and governor of the world: That matter, in its original elements, is also underived and eternal; and is by the powerful energy of the Deity impressed with motion and form: That though God and matter subsisted from eternity, the present regular frame of nature had a beginning originating in the gross and dark chaos, and will terminate in a universal conflagration, that will reduce the world to its pristine state: That at this period all material forms will be lost in one chaotic mass; and all animated nature be reunited to the Deity: That from this chaotic state, however, the world will again emerge by the energy of the efficient principle; and gods, and men, and all forms of regulated nature be renewed and dissolved, in endless succession: And that after the revolution of the great year all things will be restored, and the race of men will return to life. Some imagined, that each individual would return to its former body; while others supposed, that similar souls would be placed in similar bodies. Those among the stoics who maintained the existence of the soul after death, supposed it to be removed into the celestial regions of the gods, where it remains until, at the general conflagration, all souls, both human and divine, shall be absorbed in the Deity. But many imagined that, before they were admitted among the divinities, they must purge away their inherent vices and imperfections, by a temporary residence in some aërial regions between the earth and the planets. According to the general doctrine of the stoics, all things are subject to a stern irresistible fatality, even the gods themselves. Some of them explained this fate as an eternal chain of causes and effects; while others, more approaching the Christian system, describe it as resulting from the divine decrees--the fiat of an eternal providence. Considering the system practically, it was the object of this philosophy to divest men of their passions and affections. They taught, therefore, that a wise man might be happy in the midst of torture; and that all external things were to him indifferent. Their virtues all arose from, and centred in, themselves; and self approbation was their great reward.

STONE. This word is sometimes taken in the sense of rock, and is applied figuratively to God, as the refuge of his people. See _Rock_, The Hebrews gave the name of “stones” to the weights used in commerce; no doubt because they were originally formed of stone. “Just weights,” is therefore in Hebrew, “just stones.” “The corner stone,” or “the head stone of the corner,” is a figurative representation of Christ. It is the stone at the angle of a building, whether at the foundation or the top of the wall. Christ was that corner stone, which, though rejected by the Jews, became the corner stone of the church, and the stone that binds and unites the synagogue and the Gentiles in the unity of the same faith. Some have thought the showers of stones cast down by the Lord out of heaven, mentioned several times in the Old Testament, to be showers of hail of extraordinary size; which was probably the case, as they even now sometimes occur in those countries in a most terrific and destructive form, and show how irresistible an agent this meteor is in the hands of an offended God. The knives of stone that were made use of by the Jews in circumcision, were not enjoined by the law; but the use of them was founded, either upon custom, or upon the experience that this kind of instrument is found to be less dangerous than those made of metal. Zipporah made use of a stone to circumcise her sons, Exod. iv, 25. Joshua, v, 2, did the same, when he caused such of the Israelites to be circumcised at Gilgal, as had not received circumcision during their journey in the wilderness. The Egyptians, according to Herodotus, made use of knives of stone to open dead bodies that were to be embalmed; and Pliny assures us, that the priests of the mother of the gods had sharp stones, with which they cut and slashed themselves, which they thought they could not do with any thing else without danger. Great heaps of stones, raised up for a witness of any memorable event, and to preserve the remembrance of some matter of great importance, are among the most ancient monuments. In those elder ages, before the use of writing, these monuments were instead of inscriptions, pyramids, medals, or histories. Jacob and Laban raised such a monument upon Mount Gilead in memory of their covenant, Gen. xxxi, 46. Joshua erected one at Gilgal, made of stones taken out of the Jordan, to preserve the memorial of his miraculous passage over this river, Josh. iv, 5–7. The Israelites that dwelt beyond Jordan also raised one upon the banks of the river, as a testimony that they constituted but one nation with their brethren on the other side, Joshua xxii, 10. Sometimes they heaped up such a collection of stones upon the burying place of some odious persons, as was done in the case of Achan and Absalom, Joshua vii, 26; 2 Kings xviii, 17.

A “heart of stone” may be understood several ways. Job, xli, 24, speaking of the leviathan, says, that “his heart is as firm as a stone, yea as hard as a piece of the nether millstone:” that is, he is of a very extraordinary strength, boldness, and courage. It is said, 1 Sam. xxv, 37, that Nabal’s heart died within him, and he became as a stone, when he was told of the danger he had incurred by his imprudence; his heart became contracted or convulsed, and this was the occasion of his death. Ezekiel, xxxvi, 26, says, that the Lord will take away from his people their heart of stone, and give them a heart of flesh; that is, he will render them contrite, and sensible to spiritual things. “I will give him a white stone,” Rev. ii, 17; that is, I will give him full and public pardon and absolution. It is spoken in allusion to an ancient custom of delivering a white stone to such as they acquitted in judgment. They used likewise to give a white stone to such as conquered in the Grecian games.

STORK, חסידה, Lev. xi, 19; Deut. xiv, 18; Job xxxix, 13; Psalm civ, 17; Jer. viii, 7; Zech. v, 9; a bird similar to the crane in size, has the same formation as to the bill, neck, legs, and body, but is rather more corpulent. The colour of the crane is ash and black; that of the stork is white and brown. The nails of its toes are also very peculiar; not being clawed like those of other birds, but flat like the nails of a man. It has a very long beak, and long red legs. It feeds upon serpents, frogs, and insects, and on this account might be reckoned by Moses among unclean birds. As it seeks for these in watery places, nature has provided it with long legs; and as it flies away, as well as the crane and heron, to its nest with its plunder, therefore its bill is strong and jagged, the sharp hooks of which enable it to retain its slippery prey. It has long been remarkable for its love to its parents, whom it never forsakes, but tenderly feeds and cherishes when they have become old, and unable to provide for themselves. The very learned and judicious Bochart has collected a variety of passages from the ancients, in which they testify this curious particular. Its very name in the Hebrew language, _chasida_, signifies mercy or piety: and its English name is taken, if not directly, yet secondarily, through the Saxon, from the Greek word στοργὴ, which is often used for natural affection.

The stork’s an emblem of true piety; Because, when age has seized and made his dam Unfit for flight, the grateful young one takes His mother on his back, provides her food, Repaying thus her tender care of him Ere he was fit to fly. BEAUMONT.

It is a bird of passage, and is spoken of as such in Scripture: “The stork knoweth her appointed time,” Jer. viii, 7.

Who bid the stork, Columbus-like, explore Heavens not its own, and worlds unknown before? Who calls the council, states the certain day, Who forms the phalanx, and who points the way? POPE.

Bochart has collected several testimonies of the migration of storks. Ælian says, that in summer time they remain stationary, but at the close of autumn they repair to Egypt, Libya, and Ethiopia. “For about the space of a fortnight before they pass from one country to another,” says Dr. Shaw, “they constantly resort together, from all the adjacent parts, in a certain plain; and there forming themselves, once every day, into a ‘douwanne,’ or council, (according to the phrase of these eastern nations,) are said to determine the exact time of their departure, and the place of their future abodes.” See SWALLOW.

STRANGER. Moses inculcated and enforced by numerous and by powerful considerations, as well as by various examples of benevolent hospitality, mentioned in the book of Genesis, the exhibition of kindness and humanity to strangers. There were two classes of persons who, in reference to this subject, were denominated _strangers_, גרים. One class were those who, whether Hebrews or foreigners, were destitute of a home, in Hebrew תושבים. The others were persons who, though not natives, had a home in Palestine; the latter were גרים, _strangers_ or _foreigners_, in the strict sense of the word. Both of these classes, according to the civil code of Moses, were to be treated with kindness, and were to enjoy the same rights with other citizens, Lev. xix, 33, 34; xxiv, 16, 22; Num. ix, 14; xv, 14; Deut. x, 18; xxiii, 7; xxiv, 17; xxvii, 19. In the earlier periods of the Hebrew state, persons who were natives of another country, but who had come, either from choice or from necessity, to take up their residence among the Hebrews, appear to have been placed in favourable circumstances. At a later period, namely, in the reigns of David and Solomon, they were compelled to labour on the religious edifices which were erected by those princes; as we may learn from such passages as these: “And Solomon numbered all the strangers that were in the land of Israel, after the numbering wherewith David his father had numbered them; and they were found a hundred and fifty thousand and three thousand and six hundred; and he set three score and ten thousand of them to be bearers of burdens,” &c, 1 Chron. xxii, 2; 2 Chron. ii, 1, 16, 17. The exaction of such laborious services from foreigners was probably limited to those who had been taken prisoners in war; and who, according to the rights of war, as they were understood at that period, could be justly employed in any offices, however low and however laborious, which the conqueror thought proper to impose. In the time of Christ, the degenerate Jews did not find it convenient to render to the strangers from a foreign country those deeds of kindness and humanity which were not only their due, but which were demanded in their behalf by the laws of Moses. They were in the habit of understanding by the word רע, _neighbour_, their friends merely, and accordingly restricted the exercise of their benevolence by the same narrow limits that bounded in this case their interpretation; contrary as both were to the spirit of those passages which have been adduced above, Lev. xix, 18.

STREETS, CORNERS OF. Our Lord reproves the Pharisees for praying in the corners of the streets, that is, choosing public places for what ought to have been private devotion. The Hindoos, Mohammedans, and others still have this practice. “Both Hindoos and Mussulmans offer their devotions in the most public places; as, at the landing places of rivers, in the public streets, and on the roofs of boats, without the least modesty or attempt at concealment.” “An aged Turk,” observes Richardson, “is particularly proud of a long flowing white beard, a well shaved cheek and head, and a clean turban. It is a common thing to see such characters, far past the bloom of life, mounted on stone seats, with a bit of Persian carpet, at the corner of the streets, or in front of their bazaars, combing their beards, smoking their pipes, or drinking their coffee, with a pitcher of water standing beside them, or saying their prayers, or reading the Koran.”

STUMBLING, STONE OF. “We set out from Argos very early in the morning,” says Hartley, “and were almost eleven hours in reaching Tripolitza. The road is, for the most part, dreary; leading over lofty and barren hills, the principal of which is Mount Parthenius. In England, where the roads are so excellent, we do not readily perceive the force and just application of the Scriptural figures, derived from a ‘stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence,’ Isaiah viii, 14, and similar passages; but in the east, where the roads are, for the most part, nothing more than an accustomed track, the constant danger and impediment arising to travellers from stones and rocks fully explain the allusion.”

In the grand description which Isaiah gives, lxiii, 13, of God “with his glorious arm” leading his people through the Red Sea, it is said, “That led them through the deep, as a horse in the wilderness, that they should not stumble;” that is, who preserved them from falling amidst the numerous inequalities in the bed of the sea, caused in some instances by deep cavities, and in others by abrupt intervening rocks. The figure is a very natural one, especially in the east, where the Arabs and Tartars are famed for their dexterity in the management of even bad horses. A curious instance of this occurs in Colonel Campbell’s “Overland Journey to the East Indies.” Speaking of the Tartar, an accredited courier of the Turkish government, under whose guidance he travelled in disguise across the desert from Aleppo to Mosul, he says, “One day, after riding about four miles from a caravansera, at which we had changed our cattle, I found that a most execrably bad horse had fallen to my lot. He was stiff, feeble, and foundered; in consequence of which he stumbled very much, and I every minute expected that he would fall and roll over me. I therefore proposed to the guide to exchange with me; a favour which he had hitherto never refused, and for which I was the more anxious as the beast that he rode was of the very best kind. To my utter astonishment, he peremptorily refused; and as this had been a day of unusual taciturnity on his part, I attributed his refusal to peevishness and ill temper, and was resolved not to let the matter rest there. I therefore desired the interpreter to inform him, that as he had at Aleppo agreed to change horses with me as often as I pleased, I should consider our agreement infringed if he did not comply, and would write to the consul at Aleppo to that effect. As soon as this was conveyed to him, he seemed strongly agitated by anger, yet endeavoured to conceal his emotions under affected contempt and derision, which produced from him one of the most singular grins that ever yet marred the human physiognomy. At length he broke forth:--‘You will write to Aleppo, will you? Foolish Frank! they will not believe you,’ &c.--‘Why do you not, then,’ said I, interrupting him; ‘why do you not perform your promise by changing horses, when you are convinced in your conscience (if you have any) that it was part of our agreement?’--‘Once for all, I tell you,’ interrupted he, ‘I will not give up this horse. There is not,’ said he gasconadingly, ‘there is not a Mussulman that ever wore a beard, not to talk of a wretched Frank, who should get this horse from under me. I would not yield him to the Commander of the Faithful this minute, were he in your place; and I have my own reasons for it.’--‘I dare say you have,’ returned I, ‘love of your ease, and fear of your bones.’ At hearing this he grew quite outrageous; called Mohammed and Allah to witness, that he did not know what it was to fear any thing; declared that he was convinced some infernal spirit had that day got possession of me, &c. At length observing that I looked at him with sneering contemptuous defiance, he rode up alongside of me. I thought it was to strike, and prepared to defend myself. I was however mistaken: he snatched the reins out of my hand, and caught hold of them collected close at the horse’s jaw, then began to flog my horse and to spur his own, till he got them both into full speed: nor did he stop there, but continued to belabour mine with his whip and to spur his own, driving headlong over every impediment that came in our way, till I really thought he had run mad, or designed to kill me. Several times I was on the point of striking him with my whip, in order to knock him off his horse; but as often patience providentially came in to my assistance, and whispered to me to forbear, and see it out. Meantime I considered myself as being in some danger; and yet such was the power which he had over the cattle, that I found it impossible to stop him. So, resigning the event to the direction of Providence, I suffered him, without a farther effort, to proceed. He continued this for some miles, over an uncultivated tract, here and there intersected with channels formed by rills of water in the periodical rains, thickly set with low furze, ferns, and other dwarf bushes, and broken up and down into little hills. His horse carried him clear over all; and though mine was every minute stumbling and nearly down, yet, with a dexterity inexpressible and a vigour altogether amazing, he kept him up by the bridle, and, I may say, _carried_ him gallantly over every thing. At all this I was very much astonished; and, toward the end, as much pleased as astonished; which he perceiving, cried out frequently and triumphantly, ‘Behold, Frank, behold!’ and at last, drawing in the horses, stopping short, and looking me full in the face, he exclaimed, ‘Frank, what say you now?’ For some time I was incapable of making him any answer, but continued surveying him from head to foot as the most extraordinary savage I had ever beheld; while he stroked his whiskers with great self-complacency and composure, and nodded his head every now and then, as much as to say, ‘Look at me! Am I not a very capital fellow?’ We alighted on the brow of a small hill, whence was to be seen a full and uninterrupted prospect of the country all round. The interpreter coming up, the Tartar called to him, and desired him to explain to me carefully the meaning of what he was about to say. ‘You see those mountains,’ said he, pointing to the east; ‘they are in the province of Kurdestan, and inhabited by a vile race of robbers, who pay homage to a god of their own, and worship the devil from fear. They live by plunder; and often descend from those mountains, cross the Tigris which runs between them and us, and plunder and ravage this country in bands of great number and formidable strength, carrying away into slavery all they can catch, and killing all who resist them. This country therefore, for some distance round us, is very dangerous to travellers, whose only safety lies in flight. Now it was our misfortune this morning to get a very bad horse. Should we meet with a band of those Curds, what could we do but fly? And if you, Frank, rode this horse, and I that, we could never escape; for I doubt _you could not keep him up from falling under_ ME, _as I did under_ YOU. I should therefore come down and be taken; you would lose your guide and miss your way; and all of us would be undone.’ As soon as the interpreter had explained this to me, ‘Well,’ continued the Tartar, ‘what does he say to it now?’--‘Why, I say,’ returned I, ‘that you have spoken good sense and sound reason; and I am obliged to you.’ This, when fully interpreted, operated most pleasingly upon him, and his features relaxed into a broad look of satisfaction.”

SUPERSTITION may be described to be either the careful and anxious observation of numerous and unauthorized ceremonies in religion, under the idea that they possess some virtue to propitiate God and obtain his favour, or, as among Pagans and others, the worship of imaginary deities, and the various means of averting evil by religious ceremonies, which a heart oppressed with fears, and a perverted fancy, may dictate to those ignorant of the true God, and the doctrines of salvation. Dr. Neander observes, The consideration of human nature and history shows us that the transition from unbelief to superstition is always easy. Both these conditions of the human heart proceed from the self-same ground, the want of that which may be properly called faith, the want of a life in God, of a lively communion with divine things by means of the inward life; that is, by means of the feelings. Man, whose inward feelings are estranged from the divine nature, is inclined, sometimes to deny the reality of that of which he has nothing within him, and for the conception and application of which to himself he has no organ. Or else, the irresistible force of his inward nature impels man to recognize that higher power from which he would fain free himself entirely, and to seek that connection with it which he cannot but feel needful to his comfort; but, inasmuch as he is without any real inward sympathy of disposition with the Divinity, and wants a true sense of holiness, the Divinity appears to his darkened religious conscience only under the form of power and arbitrary rule. His conscience paints to him this power as an angry and avenging power. But as he has no idea of that which the Divinity really is, he cannot duly understand this feeling of estrangement from God, this consciousness of divine wrath; and, instead of seeking in moral things the source of this unquiet feeling, which leaves him no rest by day or night, and from which there is no escape, he fancies that by this or that action, which of itself is perfectly indifferent, he may have offended this higher power, and he seeks by outward observances again to reconcile the offended power. Religion here becomes a source, not of life, but of death; the source, not of consolation and blessing, but of the most unspeakable anxiety which torments man day and night with the spectres of his own imagination. Religion here is no source of sanctification, but may unite in man’s heart with every kind of untruth, and serve to promote it. There is one kind of superstition in which, while man torments himself to the utmost, he still remains estranged from the true nature of inward holiness; and while he is restrained from many good works of charity by his constant attendance on mischievous, arbitrary, and outward observances, he is still actuated by a horror of any great sin, a superstition in which man avoids pleasure so completely that he falls into the opposite extreme; and even the most innocent enjoyments, which a childlike simplicity would receive with thankfulness from the hand of a heavenly Father, he dares not indulge in. But there is also another kind of superstition, which makes it easy for man, by certain outward observances, to silence his conscience under all kinds of sin, and which therefore serves as a welcome support to it.

SUPPER, LORD’S, derives its name from having been instituted by Jesus, after he had supped with his Apostles, immediately before he went out to be delivered into the hands of his enemies. In Egypt, for every house of the children of Israel, a lamb was slain upon that night, when the Almighty punished the cruelty and obstinacy of the Egyptians by killing their first-born, but charged the destroying angel to pass over the houses upon which the blood of the lamb was sprinkled. This was the original sacrifice of the passover. In commemoration of it, the Jews observed the annual festival of the passover, when all the males of Judea assembled before the Lord in Jerusalem. A lamb was slain for every house, the representative of that whose blood had been sprinkled in the night of the escape from Egypt. After the blood was poured under the altar by the priests, the lambs were carried home to be eaten by the people in their tents or houses at a domestic feast, where every master of a family took the cup of thanksgiving, and gave thanks with his family to the God of Israel. Jesus having fulfilled the law of Moses, to which in all things he submitted, by eating the paschal supper with his disciples, proceeded after supper to institute a rite, which, to any person that reads the words of the institution without having formed a previous opinion upon the subject, will probably appear to have been intended by him as a memorial of that event which was to happen not many hours after. “He took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave it unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you,” Luke xxii, 19, 20. He took the bread which was then on the table, and the wine, of which some had been used in sending round the cup of thanksgiving; and by saying, “This is my body, this is my blood, do this in remembrance of me,” he declared to his Apostles that this was the representation of his death by which he wished them to commemorate that event. The Apostle Paul, not having been present at the institution, received it by immediate revelation from the Lord Jesus; and the manner in which he delivers it to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. xi, 23–26, implies that it was not a rite confined to the Apostles who were present when it was instituted, but that it was meant to be observed by all Christians till the end of the world. “As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come.” Whether we consider these words as part of the revelation made to St. Paul, or as his own commentary upon the nature of the ordinance which was revealed to him, they mark, with equal significancy and propriety, the extent and the perpetuity of the obligation to observe that rite which was first instituted in presence of the Apostles.

There is a striking correspondence between this view of the Lord’s Supper, as a rite by which it was intended that all Christians should commemorate the death of Christ, and the circumstances attending the institution of the feast of the passover. Like the Jews, we have the original sacrifice: “Christ our passover is sacrificed for us,” and by his substitution our souls are delivered from death. Like the Jews, we have a feast in which that sacrifice, and the deliverance purchased by it, are remembered. Hence the Lord’s Supper was early called the eucharist, from its being said by St. Luke, “Jesus, when he took the bread, gave thanks;” and his disciples in all ages, when they receive the bread, keep a feast of thanksgiving. To Christians, as to Jews, there is “a night to be much observed unto the Lord,” in all generations. To Christians, as to Jews, the manner of observing the night is appointed. To both it is accompanied with thanksgiving.

The Lord’s Supper exhibits, by a significant action, the characteristical doctrine of the Christian faith, that the death of its author, which seemed to be the completion of the rage of his enemies, was a voluntary sacrifice, so efficacious as to supersede the necessity of every other; and that his blood was shed for the remission of sins. By partaking of this rite, his disciples publish an event most interesting to all the kindreds of the earth; they declare that, far from being ashamed of the suffering of their Master, they glory in his cross; and, while they thus perform the office implied in that expression of the Apostle, “Ye do show forth the Lord’s death,” they at the same time cherish the sentiments by which their religion ministers to their own consolation and improvement. They cannot remember the death of Christ, the circumstances which rendered that event necessary, the disinterested love and the exalted virtues of their deliverer, without feeling their obligations to him. Unless the vilest hypocrisy accompany an action, which, by its very nature, professes to flow from warm affection, the love of Christ will constrain them to fulfil the purposes of his death, by “living unto him who died for them;” and we have reason to hope, that, in the places where he causes his name to be remembered, he will come and bless his people. As the object of faith is thus explicitly set before them in every commemoration, so the renewed exercise of that faith, which the ordinance is designed to excite, must bring renewed life, and a deeper experience of the “great salvation.” See SACRAMENT.

SURETY, in common speech, is one who gives security for another; and hence it has become prevalent among theological writers to confound it with the terms substitute and representative, when applied to Christ. In fact, the word “surety” occurs only once in our translation of the Scriptures, namely, Heb. vii, 22: “By so much was Jesus made the surety of a better covenant.” It is certainly true that the Son of God, in all that he has done or is still doing as Mediator, may be justly viewed as the surety of the new and everlasting covenant, and as affording the utmost security to believers that, as the Father hath given all things into his hands, they will be conducted with effect, and all the exceeding great and precious promises of that covenant assuredly be accomplished. But this does not appear to be the precise idea which the Apostle has in view in the above passage. This has been sufficiently evinced by many critics and commentators, particularly by Pierce, Macknight, and M’Lean, in their notes on the place. The substance of their remarks is, that the original term employed by the Apostle, and which occurs no where else in Scripture, is ἔγγυος, which is derived from ἐγγὺς, _near_, and signifies _one who draws near_, or who brings others near; which sense of the word will not very well accord with that of a substitute or representative. The Greek commentators very properly explain the word by μεσίτης, _a mediator_. Now, as in this passage a comparison is stated between Jesus, as a high priest, and the Levitical high priests; and as the latter were considered by the Apostle to be the mediators of the Sinai covenant, because through their mediation the Israelites worshipped God with sacrifices; it is evident that the Apostle in this passage terms Jesus the High Priest or Mediator of the better covenant, because, through his mediation, or in virtue of the sacrifice which he offered of himself to God, believers receive all the blessings of the new covenant. And as in verse 16 the Apostle had said that “by the introduction of a better hope we draw near to God,” he, in verse 22, very properly calls Jesus ἔγγυος, “he by whom we draw nigh,” thereby denoting the effect of his mediation. From the whole, therefore, it is plain that the word “surety” in this place is equivalent with that of mediator or high priest.

SWALLOWS, סיס, a bird too well known to need description. Our translators of the Bible have given this name to two different Hebrew words. The first, דרור, in Psalm lxxxiv, 3, and Prov. xxvi, 2, is probably the bird which Forskal mentions among the migratory birds of Alexandria, by the name of _dururi_; and the second, עגור, Isa. xxxviii, 14, and Jer. viii, 7, is the crane; but the word סיס, in the two last places rendered in our version “crane,” is really the swallow. So the Septuagint, Vulgate, and two ancient manuscripts, Theodotion, and Jerom, render it, and Bochart and Lowth follow them. Bochart assigns the note of this bird for the reason of its name, and ingeniously remarks that the Italians about Venice call a swallow _zizilla_, and its twittering _zizillare_. The swallow being a plaintive bird, and a bird of passage, perfectly agrees with the meaning of Isaiah and Jeremiah. The annual migration of the swallow has been familiarly known in every age, and perhaps in every region of the earth. In Psalm lxxxiv, 3, it is said, “The sparrow hath found a house, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may lay her young, even thine altars, O Lord of hosts.” By the altars of Jehovah we are to understand the temple. The words probably refer to the custom of several nations of antiquity,--that birds which built their nests on the temples, or within the limits of them, were not suffered to be driven away, much less killed; but found a secure and uninterrupted dwelling. Hence, when Aristodicus disturbed the birds’ nests of the temple of Kumæ, and took the young from them, a voice, according to a tradition preserved by Herodotus, is said to have spoken these words from the interior of the temple: “Most villainous of men, how darest thou to drive away such as seek refuge in my temple?” The Athenians were so enraged at Atarbes, who had killed a sparrow which built on the temple of Æsculapius, that they killed him. Among the Arabs, who are more closely related to the Hebrews, birds which build their nests on the temple of Mecca have been inviolable from the earliest times. In the very ancient poem of a Dschorhamidish prince, published by a Schulten, in which he laments that his tribe had been deprived of the protection of the sanctuary of Mecca, it is said,

“We lament the house, whose dove Was never suffer’d to be hurt: She remain’d there secure; in it, also, The sparrow built its nest.”

In another ancient Arabian poet, Nabega, the Dhobianit swears “by the sanctuary which affords shelter to the birds which seek it there.” Niebuhr says, “I will observe, that among the Mohammedans, not only is the _kaba_ a refuge for the pigeons, but also on the mosques over the graves of Ali and Hassein, on the Dsjamea, or chief mosque, at Helle, and in other cities, they are equally undisturbed.” And Thevenot remarks: “Within a mosque at Oudjicum lies interred the son of a king, called Schah-Zadeh-Imam Dgiafer, whom they reckon a saint. The dome is rough cast over; before the mosque there is a court, well planted with many high plane trees, on which we saw a great many storks, that haunt thereabout all the year round.” See SPARROW.

SWAN, תנשמת, Lev. xi, 18; Deut. xiv, 16. The Hebrew word is very ambiguous, for in the first of these places, it is ranked among water-fowls; and by the Vulgate, which our version follows, rendered “swan,” and in the thirtieth verse, the same word is rendered “mole,” and ranked among reptiles. Some translate it in the former place, “the bat,” which they justify by the affinity which there is between the bat and the mole. The LXX. in the former verse render it ϖορφυρίωνα, the _porphyrion_, or “purple bird,” probably the “flamingo;” and in the latter, “ibis.” Parkhurst shows that the name is given from the creature’s breathing in a strong and audible manner; and Michaëlis learnedly conjectures, that in verse eighteen, and Deut. xiv, 16, it may mean the “goose,” which every one knows is remarkable for its manner of “breathing out” or “hissing,” when approached.

SWEDENBORGIANS denote that particular denomination of Christians who admit the testimony of Baron Swedenborg, and receive the doctrines taught in the theological writings of that author. Emanuel Swedenborg was the son of a bishop of West Gothnia, in the kingdom of Sweden, whose name was Swedberg, a man of considerable learning and celebrity in his time. The son was born at Stockholm, January 29, 1688. He enjoyed early the advantages of a liberal education, and being naturally endowed with uncommon talents for the acquirement of learning, his progress in the sciences was rapid and extensive; and he soon distinguished himself by several publications in the Latin language, which gave proof of equal genius and erudition. It may reasonably be supposed that under the care of his pious and reverend father our author’s religious instruction was not neglected. This, indeed, appears plain from the general tenor of his life and writings, which are marked with strong and lively characters of a mind deeply impressed with a sense of the divine Being, and of all the relative duties thence resulting. He was ennobled in the year 1719, by Queen Ulrica Eleonora, and named Swedenborg, from which time he took his seat with the nobles of the equestrian order, in the triennial assembly of the states. The philosophical works, published in Latin, by Baron Swedenborg, are numerous; but his theological works are said to be still more so.

1. The first and principal distinguishing doctrine contained in the writings of Baron Swedenborg, and maintained by his followers, relates to the person and character of Jesus Christ, and to the redemption wrought by him. On this subject it is insisted that Jesus Christ is Jehovah, manifested in the flesh; and that he came into the world to glorify his human nature, by making it one with the divine. It is therefore insisted farther that the humanity of Jesus Christ is itself divine, by virtue of its indissoluble union with the indwelling Father, agreeably to the testimony of St. Paul, that, “in Jesus Christ dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,” Col. ii, 9; and that thus, as to his humanity, he is the Mediator between God and man, since there is now no other medium of God’s access to man, or of man’s access to God, but this divine humanity, which was assumed for this purpose. Thus it is taught, that in the person of Jesus Christ dwells the whole Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; the Father constituting the soul of the above humanity, while the humanity itself is the Son, and the divine virtue or operation proceeding from it is the Holy Spirit; forming altogether one God, just as the soul, the body, and operation of man, form one man. On the subject of the redemption wrought by this incarnate God, it is lastly taught that it consisted not in the vicarious sacrifice of Christ, but in the real subjugation of the powers of darkness and their removal from man, by continual combats and victories over them, during his abode in the world; and in the consequent descent to man of divine power and life, which was brought near to him in the thus glorified humanity of this victorious God. They who receive this testimony concerning Jesus Christ therefore acknowledge no other God but him; and believe that in approaching his divine humanity, they approach, at the same time, and have communication with, all the fulness of the Godhead, seeing and worshipping the invisible in the visible, agreeably to the tenor of those words of Jesus Christ: “He that believeth on me believeth not on me, but on him that sent me; and he that seeth me, seeth him that sent me,” John xii, 44, 45.

2. A second doctrine taught by the same author relates to the sacred Scripture, or word of God, which is maintained to be divinely inspired throughout, and, consequently, to be the repository of the whole will and wisdom of the most high God. It is, however, insisted, that this will and wisdom are not in all places discoverable from the letter or history of the sacred pages, but lie deeply concealed under the letter. For it is taught by Baron Swedenborg, that the sense of the letter of the holy word is the basis, the continent, and the firmament, of its spiritual and celestial senses, being written according to the doctrine of correspondencies between things spiritual and things natural, and thus designed by the Most High as the vehicle of communication of the eternal spiritual truths of his kingdom to the minds of men. It is farther endeavoured to be shown that Jesus Christ spake continually according to this same doctrine, veiling divine and spiritual truths under natural images, especially in his parables, and thus communicating to man the most important mysteries relative to himself and his kingdom, under the most beautiful and edifying figures taken from the natural things of this world. Thus, according to Baron Swedenborg, even the historical parts both of the Old and New Testament contain vast stores of important and spiritual wisdom under the outward letter; and this consideration, as he farther asserts, justifies the pages of divine revelation, even in those parts which to a common observer appear trifling, nugatory, and contradictory. It is lastly maintained, on this subject, that the sacred Scripture, or word of God, is the only medium of communication and conjunction between God and man, and is likewise the only source of all genuine truth and knowledge respecting God, his kingdom, and operation, and the only sure guide for man’s understanding, in whatever relates to his spiritual or eternal concerns.

3. The next branch of the system is practical, and relates to the life, or to that rule of conduct on the part of man which is truly acceptable to the Deity, and at the same time conducive to man’s eternal happiness and salvation, by conjoining him with his God. This rule is taught to be simply this: to shun all known evils as sins against God, and at the same time to love, to cherish, and to practise whatsoever is wise, virtuous, and holy, as being most agreeable to the will of God, and to the spirit of his precepts. On this subject it is strongly and repeatedly insisted that evil must of necessity remain with man, and prove his eternal destruction, unless it be removed by sincere repentance, leading him to note what is disorderly in his own mind and life; and, when he has discovered it, to fight resolutely against its influence, in dependence on the aid and grace of Jesus Christ. It is insisted farther, that this opposition to evil ought to be grounded on the consideration that all evil is against God, since, if evil be combated from any inferior motive, it is not radically removed, but only concealed, and on that account is even more dangerous and destructive than before. It is added, that when man has done the work of repentance, by shunning his hereditary evils as sins against God, he ought to set himself to the practice of what is wise and good by a faithful, diligent, and conscientious discharge of all the duties of his station; by which means his mind is preserved from a return of the power of disorder, and kept in the order of heaven, and the fulfilment of the great law of charity.

4. A fourth doctrine inculcated in the same writings, is the coöperation on the part of man with the divine grace or agency of Jesus Christ. On this subject it is insisted that man ought not indolently to hang down his hands, under the idle expectation that God will do every thing for him in the way of purification and regeneration, without any exertion of his own; but that he is bound by the above law of coöperation to exert himself, as if the whole progress of his purification and regeneration depended entirely on his own exertions; yet, in exerting himself, he is continually to recollect, and humbly to acknowledge, that all his power to do so is from above, agreeably to the declaration of Jesus Christ, “Without me ye can do nothing,” John xv, 5.

5. A fifth and last distinguishing doctrine taught in the theological writings of our author, relates to man’s connection with the other world, and its various inhabitants. On this subject, it is insisted, not only from his view of the sacred Scriptures, but also from the experience of the author himself, that every man is in continual association with angels and spirits, and that without such association he could not possibly think or exert any living faculty. It is insisted farther, that man, according to his life in the world, takes up his eternal abode, either with angels of light, or with the spirits of darkness; with the former, if he is wise to live according to the precepts of God’s holy word; or with the latter, if, through folly and transgression, he rejects the counsel and guidance of the Most High.

Some other peculiar doctrines of minor importance might be enlarged on in this place if it was deemed necessary; such as the doctrine concerning the human soul, as being in a human form; concerning the marriage of the good and the true, as existing in the holy word, and in all things in nature. But it may be observed generally, that the fundamental error of the system is a denial of the divinity of Christ, while it appears to be acknowledged, and of the doctrine of the atonement. Many true things are said also of the figurative and typical character of the word of God; but the interpretation of it in this view runs into the wildest extravagance for want of principles; while the whole is clothed with mysticism on the one hand and gross and carnal conceptions of spiritual things on the other. There is, indeed, much in which this sect agrees with other Christians, and much, therefore, that is true in their strange system; but it is unconnected with other great and vital truths of the Gospel; and is joined also with great errors. It is a dreamy delusion, which defies all rational defence: it rests upon the assumed experience of a man of genius, it is true, but one who was not always in his wits.

In London, and some of the other cities and great towns in England, places of public worship have been opened, for the express purpose of preaching the preceding doctrines. In all such places particular forms of prayer have been adopted, in agreement with the ideas of the worshippers, as grounded in the religious sentiments above stated, especially respecting the supreme object of adoration, who is acknowledged to be the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in his divine humanity. But in no place have any peculiar rites and ceremonies been introduced, the worshippers being content with retaining the celebration of the two sacraments of baptism and the holy supper, since no other rites are insisted on by the author whose testimony they receive. It is believed, by a large majority of them, that it was never his intention that any particular sect should be formed upon his doctrines, but that all who receive them, whether in the establishment, or in any other communion of Christians, should be at perfect liberty either to continue in their former communion, or to quit it, as their conscience dictates. England appears to be the country where the system has been most generally received. Baron Swedenborg had many eccentricities; but perhaps the most remarkable circumstance respecting him, was his asserting, that, during the uninterrupted period of twenty-seven years, he enjoyed open intercourse with the world of departed spirits, and during that time was instructed in the internal sense of the sacred Scriptures, hitherto undiscovered! This is a correspondence with the invisible world, to which few or no writers, before or since his time, ever pretended, if we except the Arabian prophet.

SWINE, חזיר, Lev. xi, 7; Deut. xiv, 8; Psalm lxxx, 13; Prov. xi, 22; Isaiah lxv, 4; lxvi, 3, 17; χοῖρος, Matt. vii, 6; viii, 30; Mark v, 14; Luke viii, 33; xv, 15; the plural of hog, an animal well known. In impurity and grossness of manners, this creature stands almost unrivalled among the order of quadrupeds; and the meanness of his appearance corresponds to the grossness of his manners. He has a most indiscriminate, voracious, and insatiable appetite. The Prophet Isaiah, lxv, 4, charges his degenerate people with eating swine’s flesh, and having broth of abominable things in their vessels, Isaiah lxvi, 3. Conduct so contrary to their solemn engagements, so hateful in the sight of the Holy One, though long endured, was not always to pass with impunity. “They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens, behind one tree in the midst, eating swine’s flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the Lord,” Isaiah lxvi, 17. Such a sacrifice was an abomination to the Lord, because the eating of the blood was prohibited, and because the sacrifice consisted of swine’s flesh. To these precepts and threatenings, which were often enforced by severe judgments may be traced the habitual and unconquerable aversion of the latter Jews to the use of swine’s flesh; an aversion which the most alluring promises and the most cruel sufferings have been found alike insufficient to subdue.

In such detestation was the hog held by the Jews that they would not so much as pronounce its name, but called it “the strange thing;” and we read in the history of the Maccabees, that Eleazer, a principal scribe, being compelled by Antiochus Epiphanes to open his mouth and receive swine’s flesh, spit it forth, and went of his own accord to the torment, choosing rather to suffer death than to break the law of God, and give offence to his nation, 2 Mac. vi, 18; vii, 1. It is observed that when Adrian rebuilt Jerusalem, he set up the image of a hog, in bas-relief, upon the gates of the city, to drive the Jews away from it, and to express the greater contempt for that miserable people. It was avarice, a contempt of the law of Moses, and a design to supply the neighbouring idolaters with victims, that caused whole herds of swine to be fed on the borders of Galilee. Whence the reason is plain of Christ’s permitting the devils to throw the swine headlong into the lake of Genesareth, Matthew viii, 32. We read, in Matthew vii, 6, “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” There is a similar maxim in the Talmudical writings: “Do not cast pearls before swine;” to which is added, by way of explanation, “Do not offer wisdom to one who knows not the value of it, but profanes its glory.”

SYCAMINE, συκάμινος, in Arabic _sokam_, Luke xvii, 6. This is a different tree from the sycamore, mentioned Luke xix, 4. Dioscorides says that this tree is the mulberry, though he allows that some apprehend that it is the same with the sycamore. Galen has a separate article on the _sycamorus_, which he speaks of as rare, and mentions as having seen it at Alexandria in Egypt. The Greeks name the _morus_ the sycamine. Grotius says the word συκάμινος has no connection with συκέη, _the fig-tree_, but is entirely Syrian, שקמין, in Hebrew, שקמים. It should seem, indeed, to be very similar to the mulberry, as not only the Latin, but the Syriac and the Arabic, render it by _morus_; and thus Coverdale’s, the Rheim’s, and Purver’s English translations render it by the mulberry; and so it is in Bishop Wilson’s Bible.

SYCAMORE, שקמות, שקמים, 1 Kings x, 27; 1 Chron. xxvii, 28; 2 Chron. i, 15; Psalm lxxviii, 47; Isa. ix, 9; Amos viii, 14; συκομορέα, Luke xix, 4; a large tree, according to the description of Theophrastus, Dioscorides, and Galen, resembling the mulberry-tree in the leaf, and the fig in its fruit; hence its name, compounded of συκέη _fig_, and μόρος, _mulberry_; and some have fancied that it was originally produced by ingrafting the one tree upon the other. Its fruit is palatable. When ripe it is soft, watery, somewhat sweet, with a little of an aromatic taste. The trees are very common in Palestine, Arabia, and Egypt; grow large, and to a great height; and though their grain is coarse are much used in building. To change sycamores into cedars, Isa. ix, 10, means, to render the buildings of cities, and the state of the nation, much more magnificent than before. Dr. Shaw remarks, that as the grain and texture of the sycamore is remarkably coarse and spongy, it could therefore stand in no competition at all with the cedar for beauty and ornament. We meet with the same opposition of cedars to sycamores in 1 Kings x, 27, where Solomon is said to have made silver as the stones, and cedars as the sycamores of the vale for abundance. “By this _mashal_, or figurative and sententious speech,” says Bishop Lowth, “they boast, in this place of Isaiah, that they shall be easily able to repair their present losses, suffered, perhaps, by the first Assyrian invasion under Tiglath-Pileser, and to bring their affairs to a more flourishing condition than ever.” The wood of this tree is very durable. “The mummy chests,” says Dr. Shaw, “and whatever figures and instruments of wood are found in the catacombs, are all of them of sycamore, which, though spongy and porous to appearance, has, notwithstanding, continued entire and uncorrupted for at least three thousand years. From its value in furnishing wood for various uses, from the grateful shade which its wide-spreading branches afforded, and on account of the fruit which Mallet says the Egyptians hold in the highest estimation, we perceive the loss which the ancient inhabitants of Egypt must have felt when their vines were destroyed with hail, and their sycamore trees with frost,” Psalm lxxviii, 47. “The sycamore,” says Mr. Norden, “is of the height of a beech, and bears its fruit in a manner quite different from other trees; it has them on the trunk itself, which shoots out little sprigs, in form of grape stalks, at the end of which grow the fruit close to one another, almost like clusters of grapes. The tree is always green, and bears fruit several times in the year, without observing any certain seasons; for I have seen some sycamores that have given fruit two months after others. The fruit has the figure and smell of real figs, but is inferior to them in the taste, having a disgustful sweetness. Its colour is a yellow, inclining to an ochre, shadowed by a flesh colour. In the inside it resembles the common figs, excepting that it has a blackish colouring with yellow spots. This sort of tree is pretty common in Egypt; the people, for the greater part, live upon its fruit, and think themselves well regaled when they have a piece of bread, a couple of sycamore figs, and a pitcher of water.” There might be many of these trees in Judea. David appointed a particular officer, whose sole duty it was to watch over the plantations of sycamore and olive-trees, 1 Chron. xxviii, 28; and being joined with the olive, the high estimation in which it was held is intimated; for the olive is considered as one of the most precious gifts which the God of nature has bestowed on the oriental nations. There seem to have been great numbers of them in Solomon’s time, 1 Kings x, 27; and in the Talmud they are mentioned as growing in the plains of Jericho.

One curious particular in the cultivation of the fruit must not be passed over. Pliny, Dioscorides, and Theophrastus observe that the fruit must be cut or scratched, either with the nail or with iron, or it will not ripen; but four days after this process it will become ripe. To this same purpose Jerom, on Amos vii, 14, says, that without this management the figs are excessively bitter. These testimonies, together with the Septuagint and Vulgate version, are adduced to settle the meaning of the word בולס, in Amos vii, 14, which must signify scraping, or making incisions in the sycamore fruit; an employment of Amos before he was called to the prophetic office: “I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet’s son; but I was a herdman, and a gatherer of sycamore fruit.” Hasselquist, describing the _ficus sycamorus_, or Scripture sycamore, says, “It buds the latter end of March, and the fruit ripens in the beginning of June. At the time when the fruit has arrived to the size of an inch diameter, the inhabitants pare off a part at the centre point. They say that without this paring it would not come to maturity.” The figs thus prematurely ripened are called _djumeis_ _bædri_, that is, “precocious sycamore figs.” As the sycamore is a large spreading tree, sometimes shooting up to a considerable height, we see the reason why Zaccheus climbed up into a sycamore tree to get a sight of our Saviour. This incident also furnishes a proof that the sycamore was still common in Palestine; for this tree stood to protect the traveller by the side of the highway.

SYENE, a city of Egypt, now called Assouan, situated at its southern extremity. Ezekiel, xxix, 10, describing the desolation to be brought upon Egypt says, “Therefore thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will make the land of Egypt utterly desolate, from the tower of Syene even to the border of Cush,” or Arabia, or, as some read it, “from Migdol to Syene,” implying, according to either version of the passage, the whole length of the country from north to south. The latitude of Syene, according to Bruce, is 24° 0´ 45´´; that of Alexandria, 31° 11´ 33´´; difference 7° 10´ 48´´, equal to four hundred and thirty geographical miles on the meridian, or about five hundred British miles; but the real length of the valley of Egypt, as it follows the windings of the Nile, is full six hundred miles.

SYNAGOGUE, συναγωγὴ, “an assembly,” Rev. ii, 9; iii, 9. The word often occurs in the Gospels and in the Acts, because Jesus Christ and his Apostles generally went to preach in those places. Although the sacrifices could not be offered, except in the tabernacle or the temple, the other exercises of religion were restricted to no particular place. Accordingly we find that the praises of God were sung, at a very ancient period, in the schools of the prophets; and those who felt any particular interest in religion, were assembled by the seers on the Sabbath, and the new moons, for prayers and religious instruction, 1 Sam. x, 5–11; xix, 18–24; 2 Kings iv, 23. During the Babylonish captivity, the Jews, who were then deprived of their customary religious privileges, were wont to collect around some prophet or other pious man, who taught them and their children in religion, exhorted to good conduct, and read out of the sacred books, Ezek. xiv, 1; xx, 1; Dan. vi, 11; Neh. viii, 18. These assemblies, or meetings, became, in progress of time, fixed to certain places, and a regular order was observed in them. Such appears to have been the origin of synagogues.

In speaking of synagogues, it is worthy to be noticed, that there is nothing said in respect to the existence of such buildings in Palestine, during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. They are, therefore, by some supposed to have been first erected under the Maccabean princes, but that, in foreign countries, they were much more ancient. Whether this statement be correct or not, it is nevertheless certain, that in the time of the Apostles, there were synagogues wherever there were Jews. They were built, in imitation of the temple of Jerusalem, with a court and porches, as is the case with the synagogues in the east at the present day. In the centre of the court is a chapel, supported by four columns, in which, on an elevation prepared for it, is placed the book of the law, rolled up. This, on the appointed days, is publicly read. In addition to the chapel, there is erected within the court a large covered hall or vestry, into which the people retire, when the weather happens to be cold and stormy, and each family has its particular seat. The uppermost seats in the synagogue, that is, those which were nearest the chapel where the sacred books were kept, were esteemed peculiarly honourable, Matt. xxiii, 6; James ii, 3. The “proseuchæ,” ϖροσευχαὶ, are understood by some to be smaller synagogues, but by others are supposed to be particular places under the open sky, where the Jews assembled for religious exercise. But Josephus calls the proseucha of Tiberias a large house, which held very many persons. See _Proseuchæ_. The Apostles preached the Gospel in synagogues and proseuchæ, and with their adherents performed in them all the religious services. When excluded, they imitated the Jews in those places, where they were too poor to erect these buildings, and held their religious meetings in the houses of individuals. Hence we not only hear of synagogues in houses in the Talmud, but of churches in houses in the New Testament, Rom. xvi, 5; 1 Cor. xvi, 19; Col. iv, 15; Phil. ii; Acts iii, 46; v, 42. The Apostles sometimes hired a house, in which they performed religious services, and taught daily, Acts xix, 9; xx, 8. Συναγωγὴ means literally a convention or assembly, but by metonymy, was eventually used for the place of assembling; in the same way, that ἐκκλησία, which means literally a calling together, or convocation, signifies also at the present time the place of convocation. Synagogues were sometimes called by the Jews schools; but they were careful to make an accurate distinction between such, and the schools, properly so called, the מדרשים, or “sublimer schools,” in which the Talmud was read, while the law merely was read in the synagogues, which they placed far behind the Talmud.

The mode of conducting religious instruction and worship in the primitive Christian churches was derived for the most part from the practice which anciently prevailed in synagogues. But there were no regular teachers in the synagogues who were officially qualified to pronounce discourses before the people; although there were interpreters who rendered into the vernacular tongue, namely, the _Hebræo-aramean_, the sections, which had been publicly read in the Hebrew.

The “synagogue preacher,” דרשן, whose business it is, in consequence of his office, to address the people, is an official personage that has been introduced in later times; at least we find no mention of such a one in the New Testament. On the contrary, in the time of Christ, the person who read the section for the Sabbath, or any other person who was respectable for learning and had a readiness of speech, addressed the people, Luke iv, 16–21; Acts xiii, 5, 15; xv, 21; Matt. iv, 23.

The other persons who were employed in the services and government of the synagogue, in addition to the one who read the Scriptures, and the person who rendered them into the vernacular tongue, were as follows: 1. “The ruler of the synagogue,” ἀρχισυνάγωγος, ראש הכנסת, who presided over the assembly, and invited readers and speakers, unless some persons who were acceptable voluntarily offered themselves, Mark v, 22, 35–38; Luke viii, 41; xiii, 14, 15; Acts xiii, 15. 2. “The elders of the synagogue,” וקנים, ϖρεσβύτεροι. They appear to have been the counsellors of the head or ruler of the synagogue, and were chosen from among the most powerful and learned of the people, and are hence called ἀρχισυνάγωγοι, Acts xiii, 15. The council of elders not only took a part in the management of the internal concerns of the synagogue, but also punished transgressors of the public laws, either by turning them out of the synagogue, or decreeing the punishment of thirty-nine stripes, John xii, 42; xvi, 2; 2 Cor. xi, 24. 3. “The collectors of alms,” גבאי צדקה, διάκονοι, “deacons.” Although every thing which is said of them by the Jews was not true concerning them in the time of the Apostles, there can be no doubt that there were such officers in the synagogues at that time, Acts vi. 4. “The servants of the synagogue,” חזן, ὑπηρέτης, Luke iv, 20; whose business it was to reach the book of the law to the person who was to read it, and to receive it back again, and to perform other services. The ceremonies which prevail in the synagogues at the present day in presenting the law were not observed in the time of our Saviour. 5. “The messenger or legate of the synagogue,” שליה צבור. This was a person who was sent from synagogues abroad, to carry alms to Jerusalem. The name, messenger of the synagogue, was applied likewise to any person, who was commissioned by a synagogue, and sent forth to propagate religious knowledge. A person likewise was denominated the messenger, or angel, ἄγγελλος, τῆς ἄγγελλος ἐκκλησίας, &c, who was selected by the assembly to recite for them the prayers; the same that is called by the Jews of modern times the synagogue singer, or cantilator, Rev. ii, 1, 8, 12, 18; iii, 1, 7, 14.

The Jews anciently called those persons who, from their superior erudition, were capable of teaching in the synagogue, פרנסים, “shepherds,” or “pastors.” They applied the same term, at least in more recent times, to the elders of the synagogue, and also to the collectors of alms, or deacons. The ground of the application of this term in such a way, is as follows: the word פרנם is, without doubt, derived from the Greek word ϖύρνος, “bread,” or “a fragment of bread;” and, as it is used in the Targums, it corresponds to the Hebrew verb רעה, “to feed.” It is easy to see, therefore, how the word פרנס might be applied to persons who sustained offices in the synagogue, in the same way as רעה is applied to kings, &c.

We do not find mention made of public worship in the synagogues, except on the Sabbath, Matthew xii, 9; Mark i, 21; iii, 1; vi, 2; Luke iv, 16, 32, 33; vi, 6; xiii, 10; Acts xiii, 14; xv, 21; xvi, 13–25; xvii, 2; xviii, 4. What is said of St. Paul’s hiring the school of one Tyrannus at Ephesus, and teaching in it daily, is a peculiar instance, Acts xix, 9, 10. Yet there can be no doubt that those Jews who were unable to go to Jerusalem attended worship on their festival days, as well as on the Sabbath, in their own synagogues. Individuals sometimes offered their private prayers in the synagogue. When an assembly was collected together for worship, the services began, after the customary greeting, with a doxology. A section was then read from the Mosaic law. Then followed, after the singing of a second doxology, the reading of a portion from the prophets, Acts xv, 31; Luke iv, 16. The person whose duty it was to perform the reading, placed upon his head, as is done at the present day, a covering called _tallith_, to which St. Paul alludes, 2 Cor. iii, 15. The sections which had been read in the Hebrew were rendered by an interpreter into the vernacular tongue, and the reader or some other man then addressed the people, Luke iv, 16; Acts xiii, 15. It was on such occasions as these, that Jesus, and afterward the Apostles, taught the Gospel. The meeting, as far as the religious exercises, were concerned, was ended with a prayer, to which the people responded Amen, when a collection was taken for the poor.

The customs which prevail at the present day, and which Vitringa has treated of, were not all of them practised in ancient times. The readers, for instance, were not then, as they are at the present day, called upon to perform, but presented themselves voluntarily, Luke iv, 16; the persons also who addressed the people were not rabbins expressly appointed for that purpose, but were either invited from those present, or offered themselves, Acts xiii, 15; Luke iv, 17. The parts to be publicly read, likewise, do not appear to have been previously pointed out, although the book was selected by the ruler of the synagogue, Luke iv, 16. Furthermore, the forms of prayer that are used by the Jews at the present time do not appear to have been in existence in the time of Christ; unless this may perhaps have been the case in respect to the substance of some of them, especially the one called שמץ קרי, concerning which the Talmudists, at a very early period, gave many precepts.

It was by ministering in synagogues that the Apostles gathered the churches. They retained also essentially the same mode of worship with that of the synagogues, excepting that the Lord’s Supper was made an additional institution, agreeably to the example of Christ, Acts ii, 42; xx, 7–11; 1 Cor. xi, 16–34. They were at length excluded from the synagogue and assembled at evening in the house of some Christian, which was lighted for the purpose with lamps, Acts xx, 7–11. The Apostle, with the elders, when engaged in public worship, took a position where they would be most likely to be heard by all. The first service was merely a salutation or blessing, namely, “The Lord be with you,” or, “Peace be with you.” Then followed the doxologies and prelexions, the same as in the synagogues. The Apostle then addressed the people on the subject of religion, and urged upon them that purity of life which it required. Prayer succeeded, which was followed by the commemoration of the Saviour’s death in the breaking and distribution of bread. The meeting was ended by taking a collection for the poor, especially those at Jerusalem, 2 Cor. ix, 1–15.

Those who held some office in the church were the regularly qualified instructers in these religious meetings; and yet laymen had liberty to address their brethren on these occasions the same as in the synagogues; also to sing hymns, and to pray; which, in truth, many of them did, especially those who were supernaturally gifted, not excepting the women. Those females who were not under a supernatural influence were forbidden by the Apostle Paul to make an address on such occasions, or to propose questions; and it was enjoined on those who did speak, not to lay aside their veils, 1 Cor. xi, 5; xiv, 34–40. The reader and the speaker stood; the others sat; all arose in the time of prayer. Whatever was stated in a foreign tongue was immediately rendered by an interpreter into the speech in common use. This was so necessary, that Paul enjoined silence on a person who was even endowed with supernatural gifts, provided an interpreter was not at hand, 1 Cor. xiv, 1–33. It was the practice among the Greek Christians to uncover their heads when attending divine service, 1 Cor. xi, 11–16; but in the east, the ancient custom of worshipping with the head covered was retained. Indeed, it is the practice among the oriental Christians to the present day, not to uncover their heads in their religious meetings, except when they receive the eucharist.

It is affirmed that in the city of Jerusalem alone there were no less than four hundred and sixty or four hundred and eighty synagogues. Every trading company had one of its own, and even strangers built some for those of their own nation. Hence we find synagogues of the Cyrenians, Alexandrians, Cilicians, and Asiatics, appointed for such as came up to Jerusalem from those countries, Acts vi, 9.

SYNODS, though actually synonymous with COUNCILS, are in common historical parlance employed to designate minor ecclesiastical conventions. In virtue of this distinction councils have usually claimed for themselves the ample epithet of _œcumenical_ or _general_, while synods have long been known only by the humbler term of _local_ or _provincial_. In the apostolic age four local assemblies were held, which some have called councils and others synods. The first was convened for the election of a successor to Judas in the apostleship, Acts i, 26. At the second, seven deacons were chosen, Acts vi, 5. The third, like the two which preceded it, was held at Jerusalem, according to some authors, A. D. 47, but, according to others, A. D. 51; that is, at the latest, eighteen years after Christ’s ascension. It originated in the attempt made to oblige the Gentile converts at Antioch to submit to the rite of circumcision. St. Paul and Barnabas opposed this attempt; and, after “no small dissension and disputation,” it was determined, that the question should be referred to the judgment of the Apostles and elders at Jerusalem. Accordingly, some of the Apostles and several of the “elders came together” to deliberate on the propriety of dispensing with the ceremonial law. The result of their deliberations was, that the Mosaic ordinances, being too rigorous, should be abrogated; and that their decision should be communicated to “the brethren which were of the Gentiles,” Acts xv, 1–30. The fourth apostolic synod was convened in reference to the toleration of legal rites, Acts xxi, 18. With respect to all these, the fact is, that, instead of being councils or synods in any proper sense, they were mere meetings of the church at Jerusalem, and all of them ordinary meetings except the third, when they assembled upon the request of the deputies from Antioch who came to ask advice.

Dr. Neander, speaking of the origin, use, and abuse of synods, says,--As a closer bond of union was early formed between the churches of the same province, so also the Christian catholic spirit introduced the custom that, in all pressing matters, controversies on doctrinal points, things relating to the ecclesiastical life, and very commonly in those relating to church discipline, general deliberations should be held by deputies from these churches. Such assemblies become familiar to us in the controversies about the time of celebrating Easter, and in the transactions about the Montanistic prophecies, in the last half of the second century. But these provincial synods appear, for the first time, as a constant and regular institution, fixed to definite times, about the end of the second or the beginning of the third century; and it was in this case a peculiarity of one country, where particular local causes may have introduced such an arrangement earlier than in other regions. This country was, in fact, exactly Greece, where, from the time of the Achaic league, the system of confederation had maintained itself; and as Christianity is able to connect itself with all the peculiarities of a people, provided they contain nothing immoral, and, entering into them, to take itself a peculiar form resembling them, so, also, it might easily happen that here the civil federal spirit which already existed worked upon the ecclesiastical catholic spirit, and gave it earlier than in other regions a tolerably good form, so that out of the representative assemblies of the civil communities, the Amphictyonic councils, were formed the representative assemblies of the ecclesiastical communities, that is, the provincial synods. As the Christians, in the consciousness that they are nothing, and can do nothing, without the Spirit from above, were accustomed to begin all important business with prayer, they prepared themselves here, also, for their general deliberations by common prayer, at the opening of these assemblies, to Him who has promised that he will enlighten and guide, by his Spirit, those who believe in him, if they will give themselves up to him wholly, and that he will be among them, where they are gathered together in his name. It appears that this regular institution met at first with opposition as an innovation, so that Tertullian felt himself called upon to stand up in its defence. Nevertheless, the ruling spirit of the church decided for this institution; and, down to the middle of the third century, the annual provincial synods appear to have been general in the church, as we may conclude, because we find them prevalent, at the same time, in parts of the church as far distant from each other as North Africa and Cappadocia.

These provincial synods might certainly become very useful for the churches; and, in many respects, they did become so. By means of a general deliberation, the views of individuals might mutually be enlarged and corrected; wants, abuses, and necessary reforms, might thus more easily be mutually communicated, and be deliberated on in many different points of view; and the experience of every individual, by being communicated, might be made useful to all. Certainly, men had every right to trust that Christ would be among them, according to his promise, and would lead those who were assembled in his name by his Spirit. Certainly it was neither enthusiasm nor hierarchical presumption, if the deputies, collected together to consult upon the affairs of their churches, and the pastors of these churches, hoped that a higher Spirit than that of man, by his illumination, would show them what they could never find by their own reason, whose insufficiency they felt deeply, if it were left to itself. It would far rather have been a proud self-confidence, had they been so little acquainted with the shallowness of their own heart, the poverty of human reason, and the self-deceits of human wisdom, as to expect that without the influence of that higher Spirit of holiness and truth they could provide sufficiently for the advantage of their churches. But this confidence, in itself just and salutary, took a false and destructive turn, when it was not constantly accompanied by the spirit of humility and self-watchfulness, with fear and trembling; when men were not constantly mindful of the important condition under which alone man could hope to share in the fulfilment of that promise, in that divine illumination and guidance,--the condition, that they were really assembled in the name of Christ, in lively faith in him, and honest devotion to him, and prepared to sacrifice their own wills; and when the people gave themselves up to the fancy, that such an assembly, whatever might be the hearts of those who were assembled, had unalienable claims to the illumination of the Holy Spirit; for then, in the confusion and the intermixture of human and divine, men were abandoned to every kind of self-delusion; and the formula, “_Spiritu Sancto suggerente_,” “By the suggestion of the Holy Spirit,” might become a pretence and sanction for all the suggestions of man’s own will. And farther, the provincial synods would necessarily become prejudicial to the progress of the churches, if, instead of providing for the advantage of the churches according to the changing wants of each period, they wished to lay down unchanging laws in changeable things. Evil was it at last, that the participation of the churches was entirely excluded from these synods, that at length the bishops alone decided every thing in them, and that their power, by means of their connection with each other in these synods, was constantly on the increase. As the provincial synods were also accustomed to communicate their resolutions to distant bishops in weighty matters of general concernment, they were serviceable, at the same time, toward setting distant parts of the church in connection with each other, and maintaining that connection.

In the second century after the birth of Christ, eight local synods were held on church affairs, about which little information is now extant, except that they related to the heresy of Montanus, the rebaptizing of heretics, and the time for celebrating the festival of Easter. In the third century eighteen synods were held; the principal of which were, that of Alexandria, against Origen; that of Africa, against the schismatic Novatus; that of Antioch, against the heresy of Sabellius, and another in the same city against Paul of Samosata; that of Carthage, against such persons as fell away in time of persecution; and that of Rome, against Novatian and other schismatics. Prior to the assembling of the first general council at Nice, A. D. 325, three synods were held at Sinuessa, Cirtha, and Alexandria, the subjects discussed in which are unworthy of notice. Others were held, the discussions in which are so far interesting as they show how desirous the Ante-Nicene fathers were to regulate the doctrine and practice of the church according to the apostolic model. The fourth was that of Elvira, which rejected by its thirty-sixth canon any use whatever even of pictures. “We would not,” say they, “have pictures placed in churches, that the object of our worship and adoration should not be painted on their walls.” The synod at Carthage not having brought the rival pretensions of Cæcilian and Majorinus to the episcopate of that city to a favourable issue, the Emperors Constantine appointed a commission (there being so few bishops present, it could not deserve any other title) to sit, first at Rome, and afterward at Arles, for the purpose of rehearing the matter. At Arles, it was decreed, that Easter should be celebrated on the same Sunday throughout the world; and that heretics, who had been baptized in the name of the Trinity, should not be rebaptized. The synods of Ancyra and Neo-Cæsarea followed. The tenth canon, decreed by the latter, shows the sense of the fathers on the subject of celibacy: namely, “If deacons declare at the time of their ordination that they would marry, they should not be deprived of their function if they did marry.” Rigid decrees were passed generally against such of the clergy as ate meats which had been sacrificed to idols. After the forementioned synods, two were convened at Alexandria, A. D. 322, against Arius. But their acts merge in the subsequent proceedings of the church. From the termination of the council of Nice to the next œcumenical council, A. D. 381, no fewer than forty-three synods, eastern and western were convened. The professed object of these meetings was the tranquillity of the church; yet, from the unhappy divisions which prevailed in these assemblies, their deliberations were conducted with much of the violence of party feeling; and, according as the one party or the other prevailed, they severally hurled spiritual thunder-bolts against their doctrinal rivals, as if against the enemies of God himself. Of the synod of Sardica a separate and more particular account will be subsequently given, because on the authority of that unimportant assembly the church of Rome grounds the right of appeal to itself before any other church. In the whole, no fewer than eighty-one synods were assembled throughout the universal church in this century. The principal subjects which engaged their attention related to Arianism, which was generally rejected by the western church; but experienced various vicissitudes in the east, according to the view taken of it by the reigning power. Unfortunately for the peace of the church, this heresy gave birth to numerous others. Marcellus, Photinus, Macedonius, and Priscilian, were severally betrayed by their violence into systems no less revolting to reason and common sense than the Arian impieties. Of sixty synods which were convened to regulate the affairs of the church between the second and third general councils, A. D. 381–431, more than half of that number were assembled in Africa:--no inconsiderable proof of the vigilance exercised by the local bishops over the interests of that portion of the church universal committed to their care. In the latter part of the fifth century many synods were held, some eastern and others western, but none of them possessed peculiar interest. In the commencement of this century, Zosimus, bishop of Rome, absolved the heresiarchs, Pelagius and Cælestius, and by this act confirmed their errors. On the latter appealing to him for support, Zosimus sent the Sardican canon to a council held at the time in Carthage, as if that canon had been decreed by the council of Nice; because it allowed the right of appeal to the see of Rome. The African council rejected it with disdain, having found, on reference to the eastern patriarchs, that no such canons belonged to the Nicene council, or were ever before heard of. Thus was the reputed infallible head of an equally infallible church detected in a gross act of imposition; so gross as to compel our good Bishop Jewel to call Zosimus “a forger and falsifier of councils,” The same pope pronounced his unerring judgment in the dispute between the bishops of Arles and Vincennes; while Boniface, his successor, under the influence of the same inerrant principle and in the plenitude of the same apostolic power, reversed that judgment. In the year 498, Symmachus and Laurentius were elected to the pontificate on the same day by different parties; and while they maintained the validity of their respective elections, they reciprocally denounced each other. Where, then, did infallibility reside before Theodoric, king of the Goths, gave it a supposed habitation in the person of Symmachus? Theodoric, an Arian, and consequently a heretic in the eyes of the Romish church, awarded the keys of St. Peter to Symmachus; a circumstance which must have vitiated the boasted apostolic succession in the bishops of Rome, and therefore have destroyed their title to infallibility! Cabals and intrigues for being elected to the popedom disgraced the commencement of the sixth century. Their prevention in future, however, was decreed; and certain rules, having in view the peace and order of the western church, were laid down by two synods convened at Rome about the same time. From this period to the middle of the century, upward of twenty local meetings of the clergy were held in different parts of Europe, fifteen in Asia, and only four in Africa. The directions for the married clergy, which occasionally present themselves to view in the proceedings of these synods, prove that _celibacy_ was not at this period a general regulation; while _communion in both kinds_ appears to have been an established usage. The synods which were held during the remainder of the sixth century were confined to France and Spain. They amount in number to twenty-six; and, like the rest of the minor class which preceded them, canons are interspersed among their acts which have in view the security of church property, and the rights, privileges, and powers of the different ranks of the clergy. The remaining canons relate to discipline, with the exception of the few which were at different times ordained for the suppression of heretical opinions, for the regulation of both the married and celibate clergy, and of the fees to which they should be entitled on the performance of certain duties. In none of them is to be found the least authority for the distinguishing tenets of the modern church of Rome; so that, to the very close of the sixth century, she may be considered as being orthodox, pure, and uncorrupt. Whatever deference she might claim as an elder branch of the church of Christ, she raised no pretensions to a lordly preëminence over the rights and privileges of other churches. Her jurisdiction was circumscribed within her own diocesan boundaries; and, beyond them, none was demanded. After the commencement of the seventh century, however, a complete change took place in this respect, so that if a comparison be instituted between the tenets which the church of Rome held in the first ages, and those which she subsequently professed, the precise period at which the novelties commenced which now distinguish her from her former self might easily be ascertained. The order of St. Benedict, which served as a model for the other monastic fraternities that were subsequently instituted, was founded in the early part of this century

As the history of synods after the sixth century dwindles down into a meagre narrative of the unjust incroachments and corrupt innovations of the church of Rome, and of the ineffectual struggles of Christian churches in various parts of Europe to resist his usurpation, we shall close this article with an account of the popish synod of Sardica and of the Protestant synod of Dort. After a long night of darkness, the glimmerings of a bright day were perceived at a distance, when, in the fourteenth century, our celebrated countryman, the immortal Wickliffe, appeared as the precursor of the reformation from popery. The light increased during the succeeding century, when those brave witnesses for the truth, John Huss and Jerome of Prague, suffered martyrdom; and the sixteenth century was favoured with the full blaze of day when Luther and Melancthon were encouraged and supported in their benevolent and arduous undertaking, and succeeded in putting down the shadowy forms of superstition and idolatry. Soon was the greatest part of irradiated Europe called upon to rejoice in this light; and to some of the best patriots in those countries that slighted such an opportunity, their own culpable supineness or neglect has been a source of deep national regret from one generation to another.

THE SYNOD OF SARDICA was held A. D. 347. The Emperors Constans and Constantius, being anxious to restore that peace to the church of which it was deprived by the continuance of Arius’s heresy, agreed to convene an ecclesiastical assembly in Sardica, a city of Mæsia on the verge of their respective empires. About a hundred western and seventy eastern bishops attended; but altercation, and not debate, ensued. The smaller party, apprehensive for their personal safety, withdrew to a town in Thrace; a circumstance that disclosed the first symptoms of discord and schism between the Greek and Latin churches. Before this period the right of appeal from all other churches to the see of Rome had not been claimed; but from it we date the first aspirations of Roman pontiffs to lordly preëminence, and they bent their restless energies to establish a spiritual tyranny over all the nations of the earth. Ecclesiastics, excommunicated by the oriental or African churches, fled to Rome for refuge, one after another; and as the bishop of that city afforded them his protection, gratified as he was at every occasion which made it necessary, they, in order to testify their gratitude, unwittingly compromised the rights of the clergy, when, to the extent of their individual sanction, they invested him with the appellant jurisdiction. Among the refugees at Rome was the celebrated bishop of Alexandria. Athanasius, persecuted by the Arian party in the east, knelt as a suppliant on the threshold of the Vatican. Julius gladly espoused his cause, and declared him to have been illegally condemned; a declaration that seemed to come with authority, but which the eastern bishops opposed as an usurpation of undue power. They went so far as even to excommunicate Hosius, Gaudentius, Julius the bishop of Rome, and others, on the alleged assumption of authority. They maintained the principle laid down in the canons, that the judgment passed on any individual, either by an eastern or western synod, ought to be confirmed by the other. And while they complained that the bishops of the west should disturb the whole church, on account of one or two troublesome fellows, they accused them of arrogantly attempting to establish a new law for the purpose of empowering themselves to reëxamine what had been already determined. Chrysostom, too, in his distress, implored, at a subsequent period, the interference of Innocent, the then occupant of the papal chair, with the emperor of the east, for the purpose of procuring a reversal of the sentence of deposition pronounced against him by an obscure synod in the suburbs of Chalcedon. But that father never once supposed that the Roman pontiff had any right to hear his cause. His appeal lay to the supreme tribunal of a free and general council, from a packed assembly which the empress Eudoxia had been instrumental in calling together, in order to effect his ruin. As these two cases of Athanasius and Chrysostom are pleaded by Romish writers in support of the appellant authority with which they invest the bishop of Rome, it is a matter of importance to examine the stability of this ground-work, on which is laid the immense structure of papal supremacy. Hosius, who presided in the Sardican synod, as he did at every council where he happened to be present, is reported to have proposed that an appeal should be made to Rome out of respect to the chair of St. Peter, and not, as was ruled at the council of Nice, to the bishops of the neighbouring province, when any decision had been come to in a provincial synod. But what is the language of the proposition made by Hosius? “If it be a favourite object with you, let us honour the memory of Peter, so that a letter may be addressed to Julius, bishop of Rome, by those who decided on the matter; that, if necessary, the judgment may be reviewed by the bishops in his neighbourhood, and that he may appoint some to hear the cause.” Here neither canon nor Scripture is referred to; while it is left optional with the assembly whether deference was or was not to be paid to Julius, who is simply styled συνεπίσκοπος, “a fellow bishop.” The fourth canon of this synod ordains, “that an archbishop, &c, deposed by a provincial synod, must not be expelled, until the bishop of Rome shall determine whether the cause shall be reëxamined;” and the fifth canon decrees, “that the bishop of Rome, if he deem it proper, shall order a rehearing of the matter; that, if convenient, he shall send deputies for the purpose; if not, that he should leave the decision of the case to the synod itself.” From the third and fourth canons it appears that a novelty in discipline is established, and made obligatory on the churches of both empires, but only by a handful of bishops belonging to one of them; and from the fifth, that the bishop of Rome, if he deemed a judgment erroneous, might convene a new council and send deputies to it, for the purpose of reconsidering the matter. These canons, no doubt, were very flattering to the ambition of the Roman pontiff, and, accordingly, they are pleaded in behalf of his supremacy; but how preposterous is it to ascribe that to a human law, which, it is asserted, belongs to him by the law of God! There are other canons regulating the intercourse between bishops and the imperial court; after such a manner, however, as to make the bishop of Rome the judge of the propriety of the petitions which they intended to prefer. Notwithstanding all this, they can never be rescued from the imputation of being forgeries. For, 1. They were never received by either the eastern or African church as general laws. At the sixth council of Carthage, Austin strenuously denied the right of appeal to the Roman see, although a letter has been forged in his name, strenuously contending for it, which is now deposited among the pious frauds of the Vatican. It happened, also, in the early part of the fifth century, that Appiarius, who had been excommunicated by the African bishops, applied to Zosimus, bishop of Rome. This pontiff forthwith sent them the Sardican canon, which conferred on him the right of appeal. This they indignantly rejected, inasmuch as their predecessors, who attended the council of Sardica, left no record of it; and because the eastern patriarchs, whom they consulted on the occasion, not only disclaimed all knowledge of any such canon being in existence, but furnished their brethren with an exact copy of the Nicene canons, among which the Sardican one was not to be found. 2. The Sardican canons were not inserted in the code of canons approved of by the council of Chalcedon. 3. The council which passed them is not reckoned, even by the church of Rome, as one of the eighteen general councils, whose authority it acknowledges; nor does Bellarmine himself say that it is one of those councils which his church receives in part and rejects in part. 4. When the western bishops entreated the Emperor Theodosius to summon a council, A.D. 407, so far were they from making any allusion to the doctrine of an appeal to the Roman see, that they distinctly disclaimed the thought of such a prerogative, and only sought the fellowship of a common arbitration. 5. Lastly, if, as the historian Sozomen says, the Sardican synod wrote to Julius, bishop of Rome, to apprize him of what they had done, and of their decrees being drawn up in the spirit of the council of Nice, the purport of the letter was not so strong as that which they addressed to the church of Alexandria, in which they pray it to give its suffrage to the determination of the council, additional suspicions are created. From all these circumstances taken together, it is evident that no value is to be attached to the decrees of this obscure council; and that, although due respect was paid to St. Peter’s chair, it was no acknowledgment of the superiority of its possessor as to ecclesiastical authority or jurisdiction.

THE SYNOD OF DORT. The Dutch churches forsook the communion of the corrupt church of Rome soon after the church of England had cast off the papal yoke; and they were generously aided in their endeavours to recover their civil and religious liberties by our good Queen Elizabeth and her wise counsellors. The first Christian teachers among them were Lutherans; but in process of time, the celebrity of Geneva as a place of public instruction for ministers of religion induced the majority of the candidates for the ministry to repair to that university; and, as might naturally be expected, they imported into the Low Countries the peculiar views of Calvin and Beza on the subject of predestination. It is justly observed by Le Vassor, “Some learned Hollanders had boldly defended this doctrine, before Arminius became a minister at Amsterdam and a professor at Leyden, and likewise before Gomarus had risen up against him. Their writings are still extant; although it is true that certain ministers, who were too hasty, exerted themselves to bring those authors and their productions into disrepute; but the states of Holland uniformly checked this impetuous zeal. The professors of Leyden were allowed a perfect liberty of teaching conformably to the sentiments of Melancthon; and when Arminius was called to that university, his opinions were generally known; for he had declared them in the church of Amsterdam, from the consistory of which he received very honourable testimonials. Gomarus, and many others of the same opinion, having entered into conversation with Arminius, made no scruple of acknowledging immediately that the difference of sentiments which existed between them did not at all concern the foundations of the Reformation. True it is, that Gomarus did not remain long on good terms with Arminius. Whether he had taken umbrage at the reputation of his new colleague, or the enemies of Arminius had found means to provoke the anger of Gomarus by some artful insinuation or other; he violently set his face against a man whom, some time before, he looked upon as orthodox.” The struggles of the party of Arminius in Holland, after the death of that great man, to obtain a toleration for their opinions, are matters of history. The political circumstances of that country and of Europe in general were at that period very peculiar, and exercised great influence in the convening and conducting of that famous ecclesiastical assembly, the synod of Dort; but in a sketch like this, they can only be briefly mentioned. Frederic, the elector Palatine, married Elizabeth, the only daughter of our King James the First; he was nephew to Maurice the prince of Orange: and he sent his Heidelberg divines to the synod to assist his uncle in the condemnation of the Remonstrant party, as the Arminians were generally called, and to gratify his polemical father-in-law in the overthrow of the heretical Vorstius. In return, he naturally expected both of his relations to aid him in his grand enterprise of seizing on the crown of Bohemia; in which, soon after the banishment of the Remonstrants, he completely succeeded,--though he subsequently lost that crown and all his hereditary possessions, and embroiled nearly the whole of Protestant Europe in the famous thirty years’ war.

The Remonstrants, according to Nichols, in the ample notes to his translation of the “Works of Arminius,” had long wished to have their “Five Points” of doctrine brought for adjudication either before a _provincial_ synod, to prepare matters for a _national_ one; or to have them brought at once before a _general council_ of Protestant divines. But the Calvinists would listen to neither of these equitable proposals. If a _provincial synod_ were convened, especially in that province (Holland) which most needed such a remedy, these men well knew, from trial, how difficult it would be to combat and refute the strong and popular arguments of the Remonstrants, when both parties were placed nearly on an equality in the same assembly; and if a _general council_ of Protestants was summoned together, they were certain that the principles of Arminius would, without demur, be recognized as integral parts of Scripture verity, and consequently entitled not only to toleration, (which was all that the Remonstrants had desired,) but to the especial patronage of the civil authorities. The latter result was anticipated, from the immense preponderance which the Lutheran divines, from all the small states of Germany, and from other parts of the north of Europe, would have had in such a council. Numerous state papers on this subject were written by the public functionaries of the different provinces in the year 1617; among which those of the composition of the learned Grotius, who conducted the arguments in favour of a _general council_, are very conspicuous for the superior ability which they display. A _national synod_ was therefore the sole remedy which the wisdom, or rather the worldly prudence, of the Calvinists could discover for removing the maladies under which the churches of Holland were at that time labouring. In showing cause for their preference, they were placed in an awkward dilemma; for they perceived, that the strongest reasons to be adduced for the adoption of this measure would extend too far, and might, in the hands of their able antagonists, be made to apply with greater cogency to the convening of a general council.

The designs which Prince Maurice had long cherished against the ancient liberties and internal jurisdiction of the states, (each of which possessed by the act of union the complete management of its own affairs,) were then in a course of execution. By the forcible and illegal removal of the old burgomasters and governors, and the appointment of new ones; by the preponderance which these newly elected individuals gave to their own party in their election of persons to fill the higher offices of state in the various towns which had been ill-affected toward Calvinism and arbitrary power; and by the untrue and scandalous reports which were invented and industriously propagated respecting the alleged secret intentions of Barnevelt and the Arminians to deliver up their country to the Spaniards; the prince was enabled to succeed in his ambitious enterprises. To the party, therefore, that had forwarded his views he willingly gave all the weight of his influence, and that of the States General, the majority of whom, in virtue of the late unlawful changes effected in the provinces, were favourable, not only to Calvinism, but to any measure which the prince might think fit to propose. It was in allusion to the revolution, thus craftily completed, that Bogerman, as president of the synod of Dort, told Episcopius, in a sarcastic style, as Hales tells us, “You may remember what you told the foreign divines in your letter to them, that there had of late been a great metamorphosis in the state; you are no longer judges and men in power, but persons under citation.” In such a state of affairs, an ordinance of government was easily obtained for convening a national synod, which was to consist of native divines appointed by the different classes and presbyteries, of civil deputies chosen out of each province by the states, and of foreign divines deputed by such churches as had adopted both the platform and the doctrine of Geneva. The temper and intolerant conduct of the various ecclesiastical meetings with whom rested the inland appointments, had been but too apparent; and time had not mollified their intolerant principles; for, under the new order of things, and with the sanction of the fresh race of magistrates, they were emboldened to effect a schism in many of the chief towns, and forcibly to exclude the Arminian ministers from the churches which they occupied. In other towns, in which these bold practices could not be attempted with any probability of success, they employed the ecclesiastical arms of the classes, provincial synods, and other packed vestry-meetings, the members of which (consisting generally of Calvinists) summoned before them all the chief Arminian pastors in the various districts, accused them of holding heterodox opinions on the subject of predestination, and suspended or expelled them from the ministry. This work of expulsion and suspension was carried on by the dominant party, even during the time in which the fate of Arminianism was in a course of determination by the synod of Dort: so that, had that far-famed and reverend assembly decided in favour of a toleration of the Arminian doctrines, the minor church meetings had left few ministers of that persecuted denomination to profit from such a decision. The Calvinistic account of this summary and iniquitous process is thus given, in the preface to the acts of the National Synod: “And since there were several pastors in that province, [Guelderland,] some of whom had been suspected of many other errors beside the Five Points of the Remonstrants, others of them had illegally intruded into the office of the ministry, while others were men of profligate habits; certain persons of this description being cited before the [provincial] synod [of Guelderland and Zutphen, held at Arnheim, in July, 1618,] were suspended from the ministry for some of the before-mentioned reasons, and by no means on account of the opinion contained in the Five Points of the Remonstrants, which was reserved for the cognizance of the national synod. The trial of the rest of these men being dismissed in the name of the synod, was committed to a deputation from their body, to whom the states added certain of their own delegates. When they had fully investigated the cases of these men in their classes, they suspended some of them from the ministry, and entirely removed others.” In the very able memorial which the Remonstrants, on their arrival at the synod, presented to the foreign members, it is justly observed, respecting those who were accused of having taught, beside the Five Points, those doctrines which were contrary to the fundamentals of faith: “Such particular cases do not in any manner affect the common cause of the Remonstrants, but concern those alone who may be found guilty of them. Nor are we adverse to the issuing of ecclesiastical censures against such persons, provided they be lawfully put upon their trials, and fairly heard in defence of themselves against such charges.” Because the members of these Calvinistic provincial synods could not be long absent from their respective congregations, such galloping commissions as these, endowed with ample powers, were appointed to traverse every province in which Arminianism had been planted; and they soon showed to the world the most compendious method of rooting out reputed heresies. Their track through the land resembled that of the angel of destruction; it was marked by anguish, mourning, and desolation. After this detail, established by the synodical documents themselves, few words will suffice to point out the purely Calvinistic constitution of the synod of Dort. When very few Remonstrant ministers remained in the land, except such as were ejected from the church or under suspension, it was no difficult matter to procure an assemblage of men that were of one heart respecting the main object that was then sought to be accomplished.

In the original order for holding the synod, and in the list appended to it, as they were both passed by the States General, no mention was made of inviting any other churches, except those of England, France, the Palatinate, Hesse, and Switzerland, and it was a matter postponed for farther deliberation, whether any invitation should be transmitted to the churches of Bremen, Brandenburgh, Geneva, and Nassau. The clergy of the principality of Anhalt were not invited to the synod, because their opinions were understood to be similar to those of the Remonstrants, the ancient confession adopted by their churches being decided on the subject of conditional predestination. The divines of Bremen were viewed as men inclined too much to moderate counsels, and on that account improper representatives in an assembly that intended to carry every proposition with the unanimity of force. The divines of Brandenburgh were the last of those invited. Indeed no invitation was transmitted to them, till the state and temper of their churches had been ascertained with tolerable accuracy; and when it was generally thought that the deputies from that electorate were tractable and would follow in the train of the Contra-Remonstrants, it was determined to summon them to the synod. It was for some time a matter of doubt with the leading men of Holland, whether they ought to invite the divines of Geneva and Nassau, two of the greatest nurseries of Calvinism, to be present at the synod. The cause of this demur was, to avoid the appearance of partiality, which they justly thought all the world would have imputed to them had they convened an assembly consisting only of Calvinistic doctors. To keep up this semblance of moderation, the synodical summons was not transmitted to those divines when they were sent to the churches of other states and countries. But when Prince Maurice’s schemes of secular aggrandizement and political power had succeeded beyond his utmost wishes, they no longer studied to “avoid the appearance of evil,” but boldly summoned all those divines about whose presence at the synod they had formerly hesitated. This was a most notable and certain method of procuring a strict Calvinian uniformity in the members. On this topic, Hales, in his letters from Dort, to the English ambassador at the Hague, says, “For a general confession of faith, at least so far as those churches stretch who have delegates here in the synod, I think his project very possible, there being no point of faith in which they differ.” Great interest was made at the court of France, to procure the attendance of deputies from the reformed churches of that country; but the king of France prohibited the Protestant clergy within his dominions from becoming members of the synod, or assisting at its deliberations.

The letters of the States General, inviting the foreign divines to the national synod, were issued on the 25th of June, 1618; and the members were summoned to meet together in the city of Dort, on the first day of November in the same year. The letters of invitation to the divines of the united provinces were dated Sept. 20th, and the synod of Dort was formally opened Nov. 13th. Whosoever casts his eye over the list of the foreign divines that composed this last of Protestant councils, will find scarcely one man who had not distinguished himself by his decided opposition to the doctrine of conditional predestination, and who was not consequently disqualified from acting the part of an impartial judge of the existing religious differences, or that of a peace-maker. This caused the famous Daniel Tilenus to observe, that “no persons were summoned to Dort who were not well known to be zealous promoters of Calvin’s predestination. In former ages, men were accustomed, first to go to the councils, and then to declare their sentiments: just the reverse of this is the practice in our days; for no one could be admitted into the synod of Dort unless he had previously manifested the bearing of his opinions.”

It will be perceived from the preceding statement, by what kind of ecclesiastical management the Remonstrants had been excluded from having any deputies in the synod of Dort. So completely had the Calvinistic plan of exclusion succeeded, that three of the members from Utrecht were the only Remonstrants in that synod. The reason of their being there at all, was, because that province was almost equally divided between Remonstrant and Calvinist churches, and it had been agreed that three of each denomination should be summoned. But so obnoxious were the persons as well as the doctrines of the Remonstrants to their adversaries, that they would not allow even those three individuals to have a place in the seat of judgment. In the twenty-fourth session, it was unanimously declared, that they could only be reputed as cited persons; however, as the Acts express it, “that this synod might not be exposed to calumnies, as if they wished to exclude them, it was allowed them to sit among the judges” on five conditions, the chief of which were, “that while the affairs of the Remonstrants were under discussion, they should not disturb the proceedings of the synod by unseasonable interruptions, and not acquaint their party with any thing done or said in the synod, which concerned their cause.” Two of them, after a day’s deliberation, united themselves with their suffering brethren; and the third, who was a layman, had seen enough of the partial conduct of that venerable assembly to induce him to absent himself from their farther deliberations. As the Remonstrants formed no part of the members convened, it was debated, in the fourth session, how they ought to be summoned. It was proposed and resolved, that a letter should be composed and sent to the whole body, that they might depute three out of each province as deputies to the synod. The president Bogerman then inquired, if all the Remonstrants were to be admitted; the president of the lay commissioners answered, that the ecclesiastical president and the secretaries should receive a private explanation from him respecting their numbers. In the interview which the two presidents and the secretaries had together, they concerted matters so well, that next day the preceding resolution for writing to the whole body was withdrawn for amendment; and it was finally agreed, that it should be left to the determination of the lay commissioners, what persons, and how many, should be convened. These gentlemen selected thirteen of the Remonstrants, to each of whom they addressed a letter of citation, commanding them to appear before the synod, “within fourteen days after the receipt of it without any tergiversation, excuse, or exception, that in it they might freely propose, explain, and defend the before-mentioned five points as far as they were able and should deem to be necessary.” In the mean time the Remonstrants, without knowing the resolution of the synod, had deputed three of their body from Leyden, to obtain leave for their appearance at the synod, in a competent number and under safe conduct to defend their cause. On making their request known to the lay commissioners, they were informed of the resolution which had passed the synod only the preceding day. To which they replied, that it was unreasonable to cite those to justify themselves who were both ready and willing to come of their own accord; and that if they persisted in proceeding with their plan of citation, they would by that act furnish just cause, not only to them, but to all good men, to entertain strange notions and suspicions of the synodical proceedings. Not being permitted to choose those men from their own body whom they deemed the best qualified to state and defend their cause, they accounted it an additional hardship, that their enemies should assume that unlawful authority to themselves. But neither at that time nor afterward, when they wished to add two of the most accomplished of the brethren to their number, were their representations of the least avail. On the sixth of December these valiant defenders of the truth arrived, and requested, by a deputation, to be allowed a few days to unpack their books, arrange their papers, &c. But they were commanded immediately to appear in a body before the synod, and to prefer their own request. They were introduced by their brethren of Utrecht, and ordered to sit down at a long table placed in the middle of the hall. Episcopius then, with the permission of the president, addressed an apostolic greeting to the synod; and, having repeated the request previously made, he said, that “the cited Remonstrants appeared there to defend their good and righteous cause before that venerable assembly, by reasons and arguments drawn from the word of God,--or else to be confuted and better informed from the same word. In reference to the favour which they had asked, they left it to the discretion of the commissioners of the States General, being ready on their parts, immediately and without delay, to engage in a conference, if that should be required.” Then were they desired to withdraw into a chamber prepared for them adjoining the hall of the synod. After some time spent in deliberation, they were recalled, and informed by the president, that they would be expected at the synod next morning at nine o’clock. He added, according to Hales, “that they came not to conference, neither did the synod profess themselves an adverse party against them. Conferences had been heretofore held to no purpose. They ought to have heeded the words of the letters by which they were cited. They were called not to conference, but to propose their opinions with their reasons, and leave it with the synod to judge of them.” Episcopius replied, that it was not necessary so nicely to criticise the word conference, and that they had come there with no other view than to treat about the doctrines which were controverted, according to the summons which they had received. The next day, December 7th, the Remonstrants were called in, when after Episcopius had desired and obtained leave to speak, he uttered an oration, the delivery of which occupied nearly two hours, and which, on account of the noble sentiments contained in it, deserves to be recorded in letters of gold. The gracefulness, force, and energy with which it was spoken, made such an impression on the auditory as drew tears from several of them, and even from some of the states’ deputies. This effect gave mighty umbrage to the choleric Bogerman, who, as president, according to Mr. Hales’s account, “signified unto Episcopius, that, because there were in his speech many things considerable, he was therefore to deliver the copy of it. Episcopius replied, that he had none handsomely written: if the synod would have patience, he would cause a fair transcript to be drawn for them. But this excuse would not serve; fair or foul, deliver it up he must, and so he did.” In the session, December 10, after the president had ceased to speak, he desired the Remonstrants to proceed with their explanation and defence of the five points. They requested leave to have a paper read by Episcopius. Bogerman would not consent to this; but the lay president ordered another of the Remonstrants, Bernard Dwinglo, to read it. This very convincing document was addressed to the synod, and consisted of two parts. It may be seen at full length in the acts, and is in every respect worthy of the great men whose holy cause it defended. The first part declared, that the Remonstrants did not own the members of the synod for lawful judges, because the great majority of them, with the exception of the foreign divines, were their professed enemies; and that most of the inland divines then assembled, as well as those whose representatives they were, had been guilty of the unhappy schism which was made in the churches of Holland. The second part contained the twelve qualifications, of which the Remonstrants thought a well constituted synod should consist. The observance of the stipulations proposed in it, they would gladly have obtained from the synod, averring that they were exceedingly equitable, and that the Protestants had offered similar conditions for the guidance of the Papists, and the Calvinists for the direction of the Lutherans. The production of such a mass of evidence from writers of the Calvinistic persuasion, in favour of a toleration and moderate measures, and against the principle of interested parties usurping the place of judges,--gave dreadful offence to that powerful body in the synod, and especially when they were charged with being at once plaintiff, judge, and jury. No one can form an adequate conception of the scene which followed the reading of this document. Bogerman, the Remonstrants, the lay president, and the commissioners, were warm interlocutors during that session and the succeeding one which was held in the afternoon of the same day. Bogerman laboured hard to show, that, by denying the competency and impartial constitution of the tribunal before which they were summoned, they in reality were guilty of disaffection to the higher powers, who had appointed and convened the synod; and that, by charging the majority of the members with being the authors of the schism, they had in effect accused the prince of Orange and the States General, because those great personages had frequented the separate meetings. In reference to the latter circumstance, which exceedingly galled him and the inland divines, he said, “The proper time has not yet arrived for discussing it. But when it shall have been proved to the synod, what kind of doctrine is sanctioned by the church, those who have departed from it, and who are consequently guilty of the schism, will appear in their true colours.” Charles Niellius, one of the Walloon ministers, answered in behalf of the Remonstrants, that though they acknowledged the authority of the states, and held the synod in due estimation, yet it was as lawful for them to challenge this synod, as for several of the Christian fathers who challenged some of the ancient councils, and their ancestors that of Trent. The laws themselves allowed men for certain reasons to challenge even sworn judges. But it was never known, that any law allowed parties to be judges. Nor was it equitable, that those who had previously separated from the Remonstrants should sit in the synod to try them, after they had by such separation pre-judged their doctrine and entered into mutual engagements to procure its condemnation. Episcopius then said, “Mr. President, if you were in our places and we in yours, would you submit to our judgment?” Bogerman replied, “If it had so happened, we must have endured it; and since government has ordered matters in a different way, it becomes you to bear it with patience.” Episcopius rejoined, “It is one thing to acknowledge a person for a judge, and it is another to bear with patience the sentence which he may impose. We also will endure it; but our consciences cannot be persuaded to acknowledge you for the judges of our doctrines, since you are our sworn adversaries, and have churches totally separated from ours.”

On the morning of the next day, the Remonstrants, being called in, were urged by the synod to present their objections in writing against the Confession and Catechism. Before they proceeded to do that, they craved permission to read another document: after some demur, leave was granted, when Dwinglo read a paper which commenced thus: “The celebrated Paræus, in his _Irenicum_, prudently observes, that he would advise no man to approach any council in which the same persons had to appear in the character of both adversaries and judges.” The rest of the paper was occupied in wiping off the aspersions which had been cast upon them in the four preceding sessions, and particularly the foul charge of their want of respect for the constituted authorities of their country. They declared, that in case men of peaceable dispositions had been deputed to the synod, as the States General had intended, and such men as had never been concerned in making or promoting these unhappy divisions, they would have had little reason to offer exceptions against such a synod. This document concluded with a protest. After the delivery of this protest, the synod invented various methods to vex the cited Remonstrants and to impede the prosecution of their cause. Among those methods one of the most artful was, to ask them questions singly, and not in a body, with an evident design to entrap them in their answers. They had with the greatest injustice chosen those Remonstrants whom they thought proper, to be cited as guilty persons at the bar of the synod, without the least regard to the useful or splendid qualifications of the individuals thus selected. Of the six prudent and accomplished men who had represented the Remonstrant party at the celebrated Hague Conference in 1611, only three were summoned to the present synod; and though those who appeared on this occasion were generally men of good natural talents and sound understandings, and well versed in the matters under discussion, yet they were not all endowed with the gift of rendering a ready and extempore reply in Latin to every question that might be suddenly asked; and if they had possessed such a gift in an eminent degree, it would still have been necessary that they should have had time for reflection, and for each to compare his own views and reasons with those of his brethren. This request, however, which cannot be viewed as a favour but as an act of justice, was almost without exception refused. Having presented to the synod their opinions relative to the Five Points and their remarks on the Catechism and Confession, the Remonstrants wished to enter on the “proposing, explanation, and defence of them, as far as they were able or should think necessary,” according to the very terms of the letters by which they had been cited; but the synod in opposition to the plain and obvious meaning which those expressions conveyed, decided that it was a privilege belonging to themselves alone to judge how far the Remonstrants might be permitted to enter into the explanation and defence of their doctrines. This was accounted an act of great injustice by the Remonstrants, who also alleged, that “they did not feel many scruples about the doctrine of election, but that it was reprobation in which the chief difficulty lay.” They were very desirous, therefore, of having reprobation discussed in the first instance: but the Calvinists of those days wished to keep unconditional reprobation enshrined in the dark _penetralia_ of their temples, only to be produced, as opportunity might serve, for their own private purposes, either to terrify the careless among their hearers, or to quicken the occasionally sluggish current of congregational benevolence. It was not to be expected, therefore, that the Calvinists of the synod would allow the Remonstrants to give reprobation that prominence in their discussions to which it was justly entitled. In one of the debates which these two questions produced, Bogerman again took advantage of the disingenuous trickery which we have just exposed, and asked Pynakker, one of the cited ministers, “Do you imagine the synod will suffer the Remonstrants to examine the doctrine of reprobation?” Pynakker replied, “Yes, I do: because, as this is the chief source of the troubles of the church, it ought to be _first_ discussed.” Perceiving either that his meaning was not correctly understood, or that he had expressed it in an imperfect manner, Pynakker immediately explained himself by adding, that by _first_ he meant _chiefly_, (both of which significations the Latin word conveys,) and by acknowledging that election ought to have the precedence of discussion. When relating this occurrence, Poppius remarks, “This, being received in a wrong sense, was imputed to all of us, as though we were unanimously of opinion, that the discussion of the doctrine of reprobation ought to precede that of election. Upon this question the foreign divines and others were desired by the president to deliver their sentiments. However, the expression imputed to us was employed by none of us, much less by all. But this was their manner: if one of us, in the name of all, said any thing that proved advantageous to the rest, the president seemed much displeased at our unanimity: then we were told that we were cited singly and personally, and that we did not compose a society or corporation. But when any of us happened to employ a word that was capable of being wrested to our common injury and misconstrued, then what was said by one was certain to be imputed to all!” After gaining a favourable opportunity like this, Bogerman always hastily dismissed the cited persons; and on this occasion he dwelt largely, in their absence, on Pynakker’s expression, and persuaded the foreign divines that the proposal of the Remonstrants, to treat of reprobation before election, was a _sine quâ non_, and that without it was granted to them they would not proceed. This alarmed all the Calvinistic brotherhood, who rose _vi et armis_, delivered _seriatim_ their objections to such a bold proceeding, and thought, with the professor of Heidelberg, “that it was unreasonable for the Remonstrants to disturb the consciences of the elect on account of God’s judgments against the reprobated, and to plead the cause of the latter, as though they had been hired to undertake the defence of those who had by the just judgment of God been rejected; and that for these reasons the synod neither could nor ought to grant the Remonstrant brethren any farther liberty, unless the members designed to expose the orthodox doctrine of predestination to be openly ridiculed.” Finding this great aversion in the synod to the precedence of reprobation, the Remonstrants proposed, since they were forbidden to explain or defend their sentiments _vivâ voce_, “to explain their doctrines in writing, beginning with the article of election, and proceeding to that of reprobation; to defend their doctrines, and to refute the contrary opinions of the Contra-Remonstrants and of those whom they consider orthodox: but that, in case this explanation or defence seems to be defective, they would answer in writing the questions which the president might think proper to propose to them, or in oral communications by those of their body whom they might judge best qualified for that purpose. And that the liberty which they desired might not appear unlimited, they bound themselves to proceed in such a manner as should not savour in the least of an insolent licentiousness: and that their discussions might not be extended too far, the lay commissioners were empowered to curtail them at pleasure.” But these very equitable terms, which were much worse than those which the unsophisticated and grammatical sense of the citatory letters held out to them, were rejected by the synod, at the instigation and by the management of the president, who, after having had recourse to his old trick of propounding questions to each of the cited persons, and after procuring against them three or four synodical censures, had them at length, (Jan. 14th,) dismissed from the synod, with every mark of contumely and scorn which he could invent. Bogerman had previously busied himself in extracting the opinions of the Remonstrants from such writings of theirs as had been published long before, and in forming them into articles, to be separately discussed by the synod. This passing of judgment on the Remonstrants from the testimony of their own writings, was an employment which Deodatus and his colleague from Geneva had at one of the earliest sessions mentioned as very desirable, and in which they appeared eager to engage. Any one who attentively reads the Acts of the synod, and compares them with the private accounts both of Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants will find, that this had also been the intention of the president from the very commencement, and that all his shifting schemes and boisterous conduct was intended to irritate the Remonstrants, who possessed more patience than he had contemplated, and who were therefore to be removed from the synod by a greater exercise of art and with greater difficulty. But one of the greatest injuries of which the Remonstrants had to complain, was, that the book from which their supposed opinions were chiefly collected, was the production of a declared enemy, who wrote a highly coloured account of a conference respecting the Five Points, in which he pretended that the Calvinists had obtained a complete victory. A Remonstrant author had also written an able statement of the same conference, and had claimed a triumph for his party. The latter would therefore have certainly been the most proper authority from which to extract the real opinions of his body.

But though dismissed from their farther attendance on the synod, the Remonstrants were not permitted to depart from Dort; the states’ commissioners having charged them not to quit the town, without their special permission. The president, in his speech dimissory, had said, that they would receive an intimation when the synod had any farther occasion for them. When a Remonstrant deputy, by leave of the acting burgomaster of Dort, who was one of the commissioners, had hastily gone to Utrecht, to visit one of his children that was expected soon to die, he was on his return called to an account for his conduct, and the former order repeated. In the course of their detention at Dort during eight months, they were as strictly watched as if they had been condemned malefactors. One of them whose sister lay on her death-bed and earnestly desired to see him, could not obtain permission to visit her while she lived; and after her decease he was not allowed to attend her funeral. Another, whose wife was near the time of her accouchment, wished, like a good family man, to be at home for a few days at that critical period; but his request was refused. When the uncle of another of them was at the point of death, he longed for the presence of his nephew, to receive his dying commands, and to benefit him by his counsels and prayers; but the wishes of the good old man could not be gratified. After his death, the nephew was not allowed to look after the pressing concerns of his orphan cousins, although his uncle had appointed him their legal guardian. None of these favours, though reasonable and asked with much humility, could be obtained from the high bigots, in whose hands, at that time, was vested the personal liberty of the persecuted and cited Remonstrants. Toward the close of February, the magistrates of different towns deposed from the ministry three of the cited Remonstrant ministers who were present at the synod, and sent regular notices to their families, speedily to quit the parsonage houses which they severally occupied. These three good men, being heartily tired of the strict durance in which they had been held since their arrival at Dort, represented to the states’ commissioners, that, as they were not now in the ministry, they could no longer be considered amenable to the jurisdiction of the synod: this was the very argument of the commissioners, when, at the commencement of the synod, the Remonstrants had wished to have associated with them the two recently deposed ministers, Grevinchovius and Goulart. Though, for very obvious reasons, at that early stage of the business, they would permit no Remonstrants to appear among the cited, “except such as were actually in the exercise of the ministry;” yet they would not listen to the same argument when it militated against their favourite purposes: and the three ministers were commanded to remain at Dort with their brethren. One of the three, however, whose wife then far advanced in pregnancy, had been ordered to leave her house within eight days, ventured to return to Horn, and to assist her to remove from their former dwelling. But, on his arrival, he found her already removed to another house; and his return to Dort was speedily required by the higher powers. To expedite his departure, two or three of the Calvinist magistrates employed their official authority in a manner the most reprehensible: they placed him, like a criminal, in the town wagon openly before his own door, though he had provided a carriage for himself on the outside of the town, to which he wished to have retired privately and without noise. A tumult ensued between the populace who were attached to their good pastor, and the soldiers whom the magistrates had placed before his house two hours before his departure. On his return to Dort, he was severely examined before the commissioners respecting the unhappy commotion; but being convinced that he had not been at all to blame in that affair, they passed it over in silence. At different times the Remonstrants wished to depute a few of their small body to the Hague, to make a proper representation of the manner in which they were treated by the synod; but this indulgence was invariably refused. Their only resource then was, to write to their high mightinesses an account of their proceedings, and to implore their interference and protection. But such an attempt, in that posture of their affairs, was unavailing; for their doom was already sealed. Soon after their appearance at Dort, the magistrates of that city issued a proclamation, commanding the inhabitants, all of whom were celebrated for their attachment to Calvin, to refrain from insulting any of the foreign or native professors, divines, or other persons that were called to appear at the synod, on pain of summary punishment to the offenders. This document was not required for the protection of the Calvinists; but the persecuted Remonstrants were such objects of hatred to the populace, as scarcely to be allowed to pass along the streets without being maltreated. This bad spirit was excited and encouraged by the violent sermons which were fulminated against them, from the different pulpits in the city. Whenever these good men were required to be in attendance, (and they were liable to be summoned from their lodgings at a few minutes’ notice,) they were not permitted to enter the large hall in which the synodical sessions were held, but were ordered to wait the pleasure of that venerable body in an ante-chamber, the door of which was generally locked, and the passage leading to it guarded by two or three of the police, who hindered them from holding any communication with their friends, and kept them in as strict durance as if they had been convicted of some capital offence. At the formal conclusion of the principal business of the synod, May the 6th, when the farther attendance of the foreign divines was declared to be no longer necessary, the Remonstrants were summoned from their lodgings, and waited upon the lay commissioners, at six o’clock in the evening, when the resolution and censure of the synod were read to them in Latin by Heinsius, the secretary; in which they were accused of “having corrupted the true religion, dissolved the unity of the church, given grievous cause of scandal, and shown themselves contumacious and disobedient: for these several reasons, the synod prohibited them from the farther exercise of their ministry, deprived them of their offices in the church and university, and declared them incapable of performing any ecclesiastical function, till, by sincere repentance, they should have given the church full satisfaction, and, being thus reconciled to her, should be re-admitted into her communion.” They were then required to wait at Dort till farther orders from their high mightinesses; and when they requested to have a copy of the synodical censure and sentence against them, they were as usual refused. On the 24th of May, the cited Remonstrants were summoned to appear before three new commissioners whom the States General had deputed from their body, when each of them was called into the room and separately interrogated; after which, he who had been last called in was ordered into another room, and prevented from holding any communication with those who had not been ushered into the presence of the commissioners. The proposal and questions addressed to each of them were in substance the following: “Since you have been deprived by the synod, the States General have directed us to ask you the following questions: Whether you are, notwithstanding this decision, resolved to act as ministers? Or whether you will be content in future to lead quiet and peaceable lives in obedience to the government, as private burghers, without any place or office, abstaining from all ecclesiastical ministrations in any meeting of the people of your sect, from all manner of teaching and preaching, exhorting, reading, administering the sacraments, visiting the sick, writing letters, or transmitting papers?--It is the intention of their high mightinesses to allow to those who shall conform to these requisitions such a competency as may enable them to live comfortably either in or out of these united provinces, as their own choice may determine.” In addition to these things, Episcopius was required to promise, “not to write either letters or books to confirm the people in the sentiments of the Remonstrants, or to seduce them from the doctrine of the synod.” All of them professed their willingness to obey their governors in all such matters as might be performed with a safe conscience, to live peaceably themselves, and to exhort all others to the same practice. They also expressed their readiness to refrain from the exercise of their ecclesiastical functions in the public churches; but none of them, except Leo, could reconcile it to their consciences to abstain from feeding in smaller assemblies the flock of Christ over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers. The majority of them added, “Not only those who abuse or squander away their talent will be punished, but those also who bury it in the earth, either through fear of trouble or hope of advantage. It is therefore our duty to place our lights on candlesticks, and not to hide or smother them under a bushel or an easy bed; and we hope your lordships will neither hinder us, nor be displeased with us for so doing.” In a subsequent interview with the commissioners, the Remonstrants proved, that their reasons for continuing the exercise of their ministry had formerly received the sanction of the States General themselves: for at the treaty of Cologne, in 1579, their high mightinesses had insisted, “that subjects who professed any religion different from that which was established, could not satisfy their consciences by foregoing its exercise.” But, after several unavailing conferences together, the commissioners left them in a state of suspense and confinement, about twenty days longer. During that time, several reports were brought to them from various quarters, “that some great calamity was impending;” and they were seriously advised to avoid it by a timely flight. They were likewise informed of Barneveldt’s execution, and of the perpetual imprisonment to which Grotius and Hogerbeets had been sentenced; and that several of their brethren in the ministry, who had lately attended a meeting at Rotterdam about their affairs in general, had been taken into custody, and brought to the Hague, for that offence. They thought, however, that all these reports were only intended to create an artificial alarm, and to induce them to attempt an escape,--thus delivering their enemies from the hatred to which they would be exposed by their farther rigorous proceedings. But their firmness on that occasion corresponded with all their previous conduct, and they refused to dishonour their good cause by flight, or any other act of cowardice. On the 3d of July, after having been summoned from Dort to the Hague, they appeared before the States General, and when they had been called in singly before their lordships, some time was spent to induce each of them to sign the act of cessation from the ministry. But to these renewed solicitations they separately returned the same modest answer as that which they had delivered at Dort. After allowing them two days for farther deliberation, their lordships on the fifth of the same month, having heard a repetition of their refusal, passed a resolution to banish them “out of the united provinces and the jurisdiction thereof, without ever being allowed to return till the said states be fully satisfied that they are ready to subscribe the said act of cessation, and till they have obtained special leave from their high mightinesses for that purpose, on pain, in case of non-compliance, of being treated as disturbers of the public peace, for an example to others.” Episcopius delivered a short speech, in which, among other matters, he reminded their high mightinesses, “that they had been invited to a free synod, and had received frequent verbal promises of a safe conduct.” To this speech they did not deign a reply, but ordered the Remonstrants to be conducted into another room, and to have the door locked and bolted, while the provost and his officers attended on the outside for purposes of intimidation. After being kept some time in this kind of imprisonment they were at length permitted to depute to their high mightinesses two of their body, who requested that they might have leave to adjust their domestic affairs, to collect what was owing to them, and to pay their debts, that their wives and children might not be rendered miserable and turned naked into the streets. They offered to give unexceptionable security for their return at such a period and to such places as their lordships might require. While they were preferring this request, the Heer Muis often interrupted them, and at last sarcastically told them “not to be so greatly concerned about their families; for if they had received an extraordinary call from God to serve his church, he would undoubtedly support them after an extraordinary manner.” But the only favour which the Remonstrants could obtain, was, the deferring of their departure till four o’clock the next morning, provided each of them would promise to retire to his lodgings without speaking to any body, and to be ready at the appointed early hour next day. Each of them had fifty guilders allowed for his travelling expenses, and a copy of the sentence of the States General. But it was between nine and ten o’clock the next day, before the magistrates removed them in nine wagons toward Walwick in Brabant, the place of banishment which they had desired, where they arrived after a journey of three days. The canons of Dort, as the grand test of Calvinism, were then carried triumphantly by the synodists throughout the land; and every clergyman, professor, and schoolmaster, that refused to sign them, was deprived of his benefice and compelled to lay aside his functions. Several of them, in addition to their deprivation, were also banished out of the country, to various parts on the continent. So ended these proceedings of the Synod of Dort as to these suffering men; proceedings which would have disgraced the worst age of popery!

While in a state of banishment, these excellent ministers of Christ Jesus provided for the spiritual wants of their destitute flocks; and, at the imminent hazard of life and liberty, discharged in person, as often as they found opportunity, the duties of the pastoral office. After the death of Prince Maurice, in 1631, they were permitted to return to their native country, and to resume the peaceable exercise of their ministry. But the immense literary labours in which they were compelled to engage during this troublous period have, by the admirably over-ruling acts of Divine Providence, been rendered most valuable blessings to the whole of Christendom. Such doctrines and principles were then brought under discussion, as served to enlighten every country in Europe on the grand subject of civil and religious liberty, the true nature of which has from that time been better understood, and its beneficial effects more generally appreciated and enjoyed.

We subjoin their opinions on the “Five Points” in dispute between them and the Contra-Remonstrants, translated from the Latin papers which they presented to the synod. It is, however, necessary for the reader to be apprized, that, in framing these doctrinal articles, which served them as texts or theses for some most valuable dissertations on various cognate subjects, they intended rather to expose the unguarded assertions and extravagant dogmas of their theological adversaries, than to exhibit a simple statement of their own sentiments.

I. _On predestination._ 1. God has not decreed to elect any one to eternal life or to reprobate any man from it, in an order prior to that by which he has decreed to create that man, without any insight into any antecedent obedience or disobedience, but according to his own good pleasure, to demonstrate the glory of his mercy and justice, or of his power or absolute dominion. 2. As the decree of God concerning both the salvation and the destruction of every man is not the decree of an end absolutely [_intenti_] fixed, it follows that neither are such means subordinated to that decree as through them both the elect and the reprobate may efficaciously and inevitably be brought to the destined end. 3. Wherefore, neither did God with this design in one man Adam create all men in an upright condition, nor did he ordain the fall or even its permission, nor did he withdraw from Adam necessary and sufficient grace, nor does he now cause the Gospel to be preached and men to be outwardly called, nor does he confer on them the gifts of the Holy Spirit,--[he has done none of these things with the design] that they should be means by which he might bring some of mankind to life everlasting, and leave others of them destitute of eternal life. Christ the Mediator is not only the executor of election, but also the foundation of the very decree of election itself. The reason [_causa_] why some men are efficaciously called, justified, persevere in faith, and are glorified, is not because they are absolutely elected to life eternal: nor is the reason why others are deserted and left in the fall, have not Christ bestowed upon them, or, farther, why they are inefficaciously called, are hardened and damned, because these men are absolutely reprobated from eternal life. 4. God has not decreed, without the intervening of actual sins, to leave by far the greater part of mankind in the fall, and excluded from all hope of salvation. 5. God has ordained that Christ shall be the propitiation for the sins of the whole world; and, in virtue of this decree, he has determined to justify and save those who believe in him, and to administer to men the means which are necessary and sufficient for faith, in such a manner as he knows to be befitting his wisdom and justice. But he has not in any wise determined, in virtue of an absolute decree, to give Christ as a Mediator for the elect only, and to endow them alone with faith through an effectual call, to justify them, to preserve them in the faith, and to glorify them. 6. Neither is any man by some absolute antecedent decree rejected from life eternal, nor from means sufficient to attain it: so that the merits of Christ, calling, and all the gifts of the Spirit, are capable of profiting all men for their salvation, and are in reality profitable to all men, unless by an abuse of these blessings they pervert them to their own destruction. But no man whatever is destined to unbelief, impiety, or the commission of sin, as the means and causes of his damnation. 7. The election of particular persons is [_peremptoria_] absolute, from consideration of their faith in Jesus Christ and their perseverance, but not without consideration of their faith and of their perseverance in true faith as a prerequisite condition in electing them. 8. Reprobation from eternal life is made according to the consideration of preceding unbelief and perseverance in unbelief, but not without consideration of preceding unbelief or perseverance in unbelief. 9. All the children of believers are sanctified in Christ; so that not one of them perishes who departs out of this life prior to the use of reason. But some children of believers who depart out of this life in their infancy, and before they have in their own persons committed any sin, are on no account to be reckoned in the number of the reprobate: so that neither is the sacred laver of baptism, nor are the prayers of the church, by any means capable of profiting them to salvation. 10. No children of believers who have been baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and who live in the state of their infancy, are by an absolute decree numbered among the reprobate.

II. _On the universality of the merit of Christ._ 1. The price of redemption which Christ offered to his Father is in and of itself not only sufficient for the redemption of the whole human race, but it has also, through the decree, the will, and the grace of God the Father, been paid for all men and every man; and therefore no one is by an absolute and antecedent decree of God positively excluded from all participation in the fruits of the death of Christ. 2. Christ, by the merit of his death, has [_hactenus_] thus far reconciled God the Father to the whole of mankind,--that he can and will, without injury to his justice and truth, enter into and establish a new covenant of grace with sinners and men obnoxious to damnation. 3. Though Christ has merited for all men and for every man reconciliation with God and forgiveness of sins, yet, according to [_pactum_] the tenor or terms of the new and gracious covenant, no man is in reality made a partaker of the benefits procured by the death of Christ in any other way than through faith; neither are the trespasses and offences of sinful men forgiven prior to their actually and truly believing in Christ. 4. Those only for whom Christ has died are obliged to believe that Christ has died for them. But those whom they call reprobates, and for whom Christ has not died, can neither be obliged so to believe, nor can they be justly condemned for the contrary unbelief; but if such persons were reprobates, they would be obliged to believe that Christ has not died for them.

III. & IV. _On the operation of grace in the conversion of man._ 1. Man has not saving faith from and of himself, nor has he it from the powers of his own free will; because in a state of sin he is able from and of himself to think, will, or do nothing that is good, nothing that is indeed saving good; of which description, in the first place, is saving faith. But it is necessary that, by God in Christ through his Holy Spirit, he should be regenerated and renewed in his understanding, affections, will, and in all his powers, that he may be capable of rightly understanding, meditating, willing, and performing such things as are savingly good. 2. We propound the grace of God to be the beginning, the progress, and the completion of every good thing; so that even the man who is born again is not able without this preceding and prevenient, this exciting and following, this accompanying and coöperating grace, to think, to will, or to perform any good, or to resist any temptations to evil: so that good works, and the good actions which any one is able to find out by thinking, are to be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. 3. Yet we do not believe that all the zeal, care, study, and pains, which are employed to obtain salvation, before faith and the Spirit of renovation, are vain and useless; much less do we believe that they are more hurtful to man than useful and profitable. But, on the contrary, we consider that to hear the word of God, to mourn on account of the commission of sin, and earnestly to seek and desire saving grace and the Spirit of renovation, (none of which is any man capable of doing without divine grace,) are not only not hurtful and useless, but that they are rather most useful and exceedingly necessary for obtaining faith and the Spirit of renovation. 4. The will of man in a lapsed or fallen state, and before the call of God, has not the capability and liberty of willing any good that is of a saving nature; and therefore we deny that the liberty of willing as well what is a saving good as what is an evil is present to the human will in every state or condition. 5. Efficacious grace, by which any man is converted, is not irresistible: and though God so affects the will of man by his word and the inward operation of his Spirit, as to confer upon him a capability of believing, or supernatural power, and actually [_faciat_] causes man to believe; yet man is of himself capable to spurn and reject this grace and not believe, and therefore, also, to perish through his own culpability. 6. Although, according to the most free and unrestrained will of God, there is very great disparity or inequality of divine grace, yet the Holy Spirit either bestows, or is ready to bestow, upon all and upon every one to whom the word of faith is preached, as much grace as is sufficient to promote [_suis gradibus_] in its gradations the conversion of men; and therefore grace sufficient for faith and conversion is conceded not only to those whom God is said to be willing to save according to his decree of absolute election, but likewise to those who are in reality not converted. 7. Man is able, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, to do more good than he actually does, and to omit more evil than he actually omits. Neither do we believe that God [_simpliciter_] absolutely wills that man should do no more good than that which he does, and to omit no more evil than that which he omits; nor do we believe it to have been determinately decreed from all eternity that each of such acts should be so done or omitted. 8. Whomsoever God calls he calls them seriously, that is, with a sincere and not with a dissembled intention and will of saving them. Neither do we subscribe to the opinion of those persons who assert that God outwardly calls certain men whom he does not will to call inwardly, that is, whom he is unwilling to be truly converted, even prior to their rejection of the grace of calling. 9. There is not in God a secret will of that kind which is so opposed to his will revealed in his word, that according to this same secret will he does not will the conversion and salvation of the greatest part of those whom, by the word of his Gospel, and by his revealed will, he seriously calls and invites to faith and salvation. 10. Neither [_hîc_] on this point do we admit of a holy dissimulation, as it is the manner of some men to speak, or of a twofold person in the Deity. 11. It is not true, that, through the force and efficacy of the secret will of God or of the divine decree, not only are all good things necessarily done, but likewise all evil things; so that whosoever commit sin, they are not able, in respect to the divine decree, to do otherwise than commit sin; and that God wills, decrees, and [_procurat_] is the manager of men’s sins, and of their insane, foolish, and cruel actions, also of the sacrilegious blasphemy of his own name; that he moves the tongues of men to blaspheme, &c. 12. We also consider it to be a false and horrible dogma, that God by _secret_ means impels men to the commission of those sins which he _openly_ prohibits; that those who sin do not act in opposition to the true will of God and that which is properly so called; that what is unjust, that is, what is contrary to God’s command, is agreeable to his will; nay, farther, that it is a real and capital fault to do the will of God.

V. _On the perseverance of true believers in faith._ 1. The perseverance of believers in faith is not the effect of that absolute decree of God by which he is said to have elected or chosen particular persons circumscribed with no condition of their obedience. 2. God furnishes true believers with supernatural powers or strength of grace, as much as according to his infinite wisdom he judges to suffice for their perseverance, and for their overcoming the temptations of the devil, the flesh, and the world; and on the part of God stands nothing to hinder them from persevering. 3. It is possible for true believers to fall away from true faith, and to fall into sins of such a description as cannot consist with a true and justifying faith; nor is it only possible for them thus to fall, but such lapses not unfrequently occur. 4. True believers are capable by their own fault of falling into flagrant crimes and atrocious wickedness, to persevere and die in them, and therefore finally to fall away and to perish. 5. Yet though true believers sometimes fall into grievous sins, and such as destroy the conscience, we do not believe that they immediately fall away from all hope of repentance; but we acknowledge this to be an event not impossible to occur,--that God, according to the multitude of his mercies may again call them by his grace to repentance; nay, we are of opinion that such a recalling has often occurred, although such fallen believers cannot be “most fully persuaded” about this matter that it will certainly and undoubtedly take place. 6. Therefore do we with our whole heart and soul reject the following dogmas, which are daily affirmed in various publications extensively circulated among the people: namely, (1.) “True believers cannot possibly sin with deliberate counsel and design, but only through ignorance and infirmity.” (2.) “It is impossible for true believers, through any sins of theirs, to fall away from the grace of God.” (3.) “A thousand sins, nay, all the sins of the whole world, are not capable of rendering election vain and void.” If to this be added, “Men of every description are bound to believe that they are elected to salvation, and therefore are incapable of falling from that election,” we leave men to think what a wide window such a dogma opens to carnal security. (4.) “No sins, however great and grievous they may be, are imputed to believers; nay, farther, all sins, both present and future, are remitted to them.” (5.) “Though true believers fall into destructive heresies, into dreadful and most atrocious sins, such as adultery and murder, on account of which the church, according to the institution of Christ, is compelled to testify that it cannot tolerate them in its outward communion, and that unless such persons be converted, they will have no part in the kingdom of Christ; yet it is impossible for them totally and finally to fall away from faith.” 7. As a true believer is capable at the present time of being assured concerning the integrity of his faith and conscience, so he is able and ought to be at this time assured of his own salvation and of the saving good will of God toward him. On this point we highly disapprove of the opinion of the papists. 8. A true believer, respecting the time to come, can and ought, indeed, to be assured that he is able, by means of watching, prayer, and other holy exercises, to persevere in the true faith; and that divine grace will never fail to assist him in persevering. But we cannot see how it is possible for him to be assured that he will never afterward be deficient in his duty, but that he will persevere, in this school of Christian warfare, in the performance of acts of faith, piety, and charity, as becomes believers; neither do we consider it to be a matter of necessity that a believer should be assured of such perseverance.

Under the article PELAGIANS has been shown the line of distinction which the Remonstrants drew between their doctrines and those of Pelagius; and the following are the just distinctions, which they presented to the synod of Dort, between Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism: “But we must declare, likewise, what our judgment is respecting Semi-Pelagianism. The Massilians, after the time of Pelagius, partly corrected his error and partly retained it; on which account they received from Prosper the appellation of the _relics_ or _remains of Pelagius_, and are commonly styled Semi-Pelagians. They allowed the existence of prevenient grace, but only that which precedes or goes before good works; not that also which precedes the commencement of faith and of a good will, by which they believed that man preceded God,--yet this not always, but only sometimes: On the contrary we say, that God precedes or goes before the beginning of faith and of a good will; and that it is of grace both that our will be excited to begin well, and likewise, that, being thus prepared, it be led through to the grace of regeneration. The Semi-Pelagians asserted, that man, through the previous dispositions which had been implanted in his nature, obtained grace as a reward; and, however they might sometimes decline the use of the term _merit_, they by no means excluded merit itself: But we deny, that, through the endeavours of nature, man merits grace. The opinion of the Semi-Pelagians was, that, for the preservation of the grace of the Holy Spirit, we want nothing more than that which either by nature we may have, or that which we may once obtain in conjunction with grace: But we acknowledge, that, in order to our perseverance in good, special grace is likewise required.

“Wherefore we are unjustly accused of Semi-Pelagianism by the Contra-Remonstrants, since we condemn in the Semi-Pelagians those things which the church universal formerly condemned in them. Yet these are great signs of inconstancy and consequently of a false judgment,--that while some among them fasten Pelagianism upon us and others Semi-Pelagianism, there are others who declare that we are nearly and almost Semi-Pelagians, all of them having chosen and employed these epithets only for purposes of odium. Our conclusion therefore is, that we derogate nothing from divine grace, but acknowledge its supernatural and unmerited acts, and their absolute necessity for the work of conversion. But, on the other hand, we frankly confess, that the indifferency or liberty of the will is not taken away by grace, but that it is perfected for the better; and that the will is not necessitated, or so determined toward good as not to be able to do the opposite.

“This was also the judgment of all antiquity and of the church universal; and the orthodox accounted this way to be the safest, which lay between two precipices, the one that of the Manichees, the other that of the Pelagians. St. Jerom says, ‘We thus preserve free will, that we do not deny to it the help which it requires in every thing which it performs,’ _Dialog. adversus Pelagium_. And St. Augustine, who was at other times a most fierce defender of absolute election, judiciously observes, in his forty-sixth letter to Valentinus, ‘If there be no grace of God, how does he save the world? And if there be no free will, how does he judge the world?’ And, as St. Bernard says, in the commencement of his book _On Grace and Free Will_, ‘Take away free will, and there will be nothing to be saved; take away grace, and there will then be nothing from which salvation can come.’ We have had regard to both of them; lest, if we denied the existence of freedom in the will, we should encourage the sloth and listlessness of men; or if the existence of grace, we should give up the reins to pride and haughtiness.--From these quotations [and others which they give] it is evident that the opinion of the fathers was, that free will and grace so completely conspire together, that free will is perfected by grace, and not destroyed; the destruction of the will in this case being a calumny invented by the Pelagians, which was generally refuted by the patrons of grace.”

For other particulars relating to general redemption consult the articles ARMINIANISM, BAXTERIANISM, CALVINISM:CALVINISM, #CHURCH OF ENGLAND, and LUTHERANS.

SYRACUSE, a famous city of Sicily, seated on the east side of the island, Acts xxviii, 12.

SYRIA, that part of Asia which, bathed by the Mediterranean on the west, had to the north Mount Taurus, to the east the Euphrates and a small portion of Arabia, and to the south Judea, or Palestine. The orientals called it Aram. The name, which has been transmitted to us by the Greeks, is a corruption or abridgment of Assyria, which was first adopted by the Ionians, who frequented these coasts after the Assyrians of Nineveh had reduced that country to be a province of their empire, about B. C. 750. By the appellation of Syria is ordinarily meant the kingdom of Syria, of which, since the reign of the Seleucidæ, Antioch has been the capital. The government of Syria was for a long time monarchical; but some of its towns, which formed several states, were republics. With regard to religion, the Syrians were idolaters. The central place of their worship was Hieropolis, in which was a magnificent temple, and near the temple a lake that was reputed sacred. In this temple was an oracle, the credit of which the priests used every method to support. The priests were distributed into various classes, and among them were those who were denominated Galli, and who voluntarily renounced the power of transmitting the succession in their own families. The Syrians had bloody sacrifices. Among the religious ceremonies of the Syrians, one was that any one who undertook a journey to Hieropolis began with shaving his head and eye-brows. He was not allowed to bathe, except in cold water, to drink any liquor, nor to lie on any but a hard bed, before the term of his pilgrimage was finished. When the pilgrims arrived, they were maintained at the public expense, and lodged with those who engaged to instruct them in the sacred rites and ceremonies. All the pilgrims were marked on the neck and wrists. The youth consecrated to the goddess the first-fruits of their beard and hair, which was preserved in the temple, in a vessel of gold or silver, on which was inscribed the name of the person who made the offering. The sight of a dead person rendered it unfit for any one to enter into the temple during the whole day. The dynasties of Syria may be distributed into two classes; those that are made known to us in the sacred writings, or in the works of Josephus, acknowledged by the orientals; and the Seleucidan kings, successors of Alexander, with whom we are acquainted by Greek authors. The monarchy of Syria continued two hundred and fifty-seven years.

SYRO-PHENICIA, or PHENICIA PROPER, called Syro or Syrian Phenicia from being included in the kingdom of Syria. It implies that part of the coast of Canaan on the Mediterranean in which the cities of Tyre and Sidon were situated; and this same country, called Syro-Phenicia in the Acts, is in the Gospels called the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. The woman also called a Syro-Phenician in Mark vii, 26, is in Matt. xv, 22, called a Canaanitish woman, because that country was still inhabited by the descendants of Canaan, of whom Sidon was the eldest son.

TABERNACLE, in Hebrew, אהל, in Greek, σκηνἠ, a word which properly signifies _a tent_, but is particularly applied by the Hebrews to a kind of building in the form of a tent, set up by the express command of God, for the performance of religious worship, sacrifices, &c, during the journeyings of the Israelites in the wilderness; and after their settlement in the land of Canaan made use of for the same purpose, till the temple was built in Jerusalem. The tabernacle was covered with curtains and skins. It was divided into two parts, the one covered, and properly called the tabernacle, and the other open, called the court. The covered part was again divided into two parts, the one called holy, and the other called the holy of holies. The curtains which covered it were made of linen of several colours embroidered. There were ten curtains, twenty-eight cubits long, and four in breadth. Five curtains together made two coverings, which, being made fast together, enveloped all the tabernacle. Over the rest there were two other coverings, the one of goat’s hair, and the other of sheep skins. These vails or coverings were laid on a square frame of planks, resting on bases. There were forty-eight large planks, each a cubit and a half wide, and ten cubits high; twenty of them on each side, and six at one end to the westward; each plank was supported by two silver bases; they were let into one another, and held by bars running the length of the planks. The holy of holies was parted from the rest of the tabernacle by a curtain, made fast to four pillars standing ten cubits from the end. The whole length of the tabernacle was thirty-two cubits, that is, about fifty feet; and the breadth twelve cubits, or nineteen feet. The end was thirty cubits high; the upper curtain hung on the north and south sides eight cubits, and on the east and west four cubits. The court was a place a hundred cubits long, and fifty in breadth, inclosed by twenty columns, each of them twenty cubits high, and ten in breadth, covered with silver, and standing on copper bases, five cubits distant from each other, between which there were curtains drawn, and fastened with hooks. At the east end was an entrance twenty cubits wide, covered with a curtain hanging loose. In the tabernacle was the ark of the covenant, the table of shew bread, the golden candlestick, and the altar of incense; and in the court opposite to the entrance of the tabernacle, or holy place, stood the altar of burnt-offerings, and the laver or bason for the use of the priests.

The tabernacle was finished on the first day of the first month of the second year after the departure out of Egypt, A. M. 2514. When it was set up, a dark cloud covered it by day, and a fiery cloud by night. Moses went into the tabernacle to consult the Lord. It was placed in the midst of the camp, and the Hebrews were ranged in order about it, according to their several tribes. When the cloud arose from off the tabernacle, they decamped; the priests carried those things which were most sacred, and the Levites all the several parts of the tabernacle. Part of the tribes went before, and the rest followed after, and the baggage of the tabernacle marched in the centre. The tabernacle was brought into the land of Canaan by Joshua, and set up at Gilgal. Here it rested till the land was conquered. Then it was removed to Shiloh, and afterward to Nob. Its next station was Gibeah, and here it continued till the ark was removed to the temple.

The word also means a frail dwelling, Job xi, 14; and is put for our bodies, 2 Cor. v, 1.

TABERNACLES, FEAST OF, a solemn festival of the Hebrews, observed after harvest, on the fifteenth day of the month Tisri, Lev. xxiii, 34–44. It was one of the three great solemnities, wherein all the males of the Israelites were obliged to present themselves before the Lord; and it was instituted to commemorate the goodness of God, who protected them in the wilderness, and made them dwell in tents or booths after they came out of Egypt. (See _Feasts_.) This feast continued eight days, of which the first and last days were the most solemn, Lev. xxiii, 34, &c. It was not allowed to do any labour on this feast, and particular sacrifices were offered, which, together with the other ceremonies used in celebrating this festival, were as follows: The first day of the feast, they cut down branches of the handsomest trees, with their fruit, branches of palm trees, and such as were fullest of leaves, and boughs of the willow trees that grew upon the sides of brooks, Neh. viii, 16. These they brought together, and waved them toward the four quarters of the world, singing certain songs. These branches were also called hosanna, because when they carried them and waved them, they cried Hosanna; not unlike what the Jews did at our Saviour’s entry into Jerusalem, Matthew xxi, 8, 9. On the eighth day they performed this ceremony oftener, and with greater solemnity, than upon the other days of the feast. They called this day _hosanna rabba_, or “the great hosanna.”

TABLES OF THE LAW. Those that were given to Moses upon Mount Sinai were written by the finger of God, and contained the decalogue or ten commandments of the law, as they are rehearsed in Exodus xx. Many questions have been started about these tables; about their matter, their form, their number, he that wrote them, and what they contained. Some oriental authors make them amount to ten in number, others to seven; but the Hebrews reckon but two. Some suppose them to have been of wood, and others of precious stones. Moses observes, Exod. xxxii, 15, that these tables were written on both sides. Many think they were transparent, so that they might be read through; on one side toward the right, and on the other side toward the left. Others will have it, that the lawgiver only makes this observation, that the tables were written on both sides, because generally in writing tables they only wrote on one side. Others thus translate the Hebrew text: “They were written on the two parts that were contiguous to each other;” because, being shut upon one another, the two faces that were written upon touched one another, so that no writing was seen on the outside. Some think that the same ten commandments were written on each of the two tables, others that the ten were divided, and only five on one table, and five on the other. The words which intimate that the tables were written by the finger of God, some understand simply and literally; others, of the ministry of an angel; and others explain them merely to signify an order of God to Moses to write them. The expression, however, in Scripture always signifies immediate divine agency. See DECALOGUE.

TABOR, a mountain not far from Kadesh, in the tribe of Zebulun, and in the confines of Issachar and Naphtali. It has its name from its eminence, because it rises up in the midst of a wide champaign country, called the Valley of Jezreel, or the great plain. Maundrell tells us that the area at the top of this mountain is enclosed with trees, except to the south, from whence there is the most agreeable prospect in the world. Many have believed that our Lord’s transfiguration took place on this mountain. This place is mentioned, 1 Sam. x, 3. It is minutely described by both Pococke and Maundrell. The road from Nazareth lies for two hours between low hills; it then opens into the plain of Esdraelon. At about two or three furlongs within the plain, and six miles from Nazareth, rises this singular mount, which is almost entirely insulated, its figure representing a half sphere. “It is,” says Pococke, “one of the finest hills I ever beheld, being a rich soil that produces excellent herbage, and is most beautifully adorned with groves and clumps of trees. The ascent is so easy, that we rode up the north side by a winding road. Some authors mention it as near four miles high, others as about two: the former may be true, as to the winding ascent up the hill. The top of it, about half a mile long, and near a quarter of a mile broad, is encompassed with a wall, which Josephus says was built in forty days: there was also a wall along the middle of it, which divided the south part, on which the city stood, from the north part, which is lower, and is called the _meidan_, or place, being probably used for exercises when there was a city here, which Josephus mentions by the name of Ataburion. Within the outer wall on the north side are several deep fosses, out of which, it is probable, the stones were dug to build the walls; and these fosses seem to have answered the end of cisterns, to preserve the rain water, and were also some defence to the city. There are likewise a great number of cisterns under ground for preserving the rain water. To the south, where the ascent was most easy, there are fosses cut on the outside, to render the access to the walls more difficult. Some of the gates, also, of the old city remain, as _Bab-el-houah_, ‘the gate of the winds,’ to the west; and _Bab-el-kubbe_, ‘the arched gate,’ a small one to the south. Antiochus, king of Syria, took the fortress on the top of this hill. Vespasian, also, got possession of it; and, after that, Josephus fortified it with strong walls. But what has made it more famous than any thing else is the common opinion, from the time of St. Jerom, that the transfiguration of our Saviour was on this mountain.” Van Egmont and Heyman give the following account: “This mountain, though somewhat rugged and difficult, we ascended on horseback, making several circuits round it, which took us up about three quarters of an hour. It is one of the highest in the whole country, being thirty stadia, or about four English miles, a circumstance that rendered it more famous. And it is the most beautiful I ever saw, with regard to verdure, being every where decorated with small oak trees, and the ground universally enamelled with a variety of plants and flowers, except on the south side, where it is not so fully covered with verdure. On this mountain are great numbers of red partridges, and some wild boars; and we were so fortunate as to see the Arabs hunting them. We left, but not without reluctancy, this delightful place, and found at the bottom of it a mean village, called Deboura, or Tabour, a name said to be derived from the celebrated Deborah mentioned in Judges.”

Pococke notices this village, which stands on a rising ground at the foot of Mount Tabor westward; and the learned traveller thinks, that it may be the same as the Daberath, or Daberah mentioned in the book of Joshua, as on the borders of Zabulon and Issachar. “Any one,” he adds, “who examines the fourth chapter of Judges, may see that this is probably the spot where Barak and Deborah met at Mount Tabor with their forces, and went to pursue Sisera; and on this account, it might have its name from that great prophetess, who then judged and governed Israel; for Josephus relates, that Deborah and Barak gathered the army together at this mountain.”

“From the top of Tabor,” says Maundrell, “you have a prospect which, if nothing else, will reward the labour of ascending it. It is impossible for man’s eyes to behold a higher gratification of this nature. On the northwest you discern at a distance the Mediterranean, and all round you have the spacious and beautiful plains of Esdraelon and Galilee. Turning a little southward, you have in view the high mountains of Gilboa, fatal to Saul and his sons. Due east you discover the sea of Tiberias, distant about one day’s journey. A few points to the north appears that which they call the mount of Beatitudes. Not far from this little hill is the city Saphet: it stands upon a very eminent and conspicuous mountain, and is seen far and near.” Beyond this is seen a much higher mountain, capped with snow, a part of the chain of Antilibanus. To the south-west is Carmel, and on the south the hills of Samaria.

TADMOR, a city built by Solomon, 1 Kings ix, 18, afterward called Palmyra; situated in a wilderness of Syria, upon the borders of Arabia Deserta, inclining toward the Euphrates. Josephus places it two days’ journey from the Euphrates, and six days’ journey from Babylon. He says there is no water any where else in the wilderness, but in this place. At the present day there are to be seen vast ruins of this city. There was nothing more magnificent in the whole east. There are still found a great number of inscriptions, the most of which are Greek, and the other in the Palmyrenian character. Nothing relating to the Jews is seen in the Greek inscriptions; and the Palmyrenian inscriptions are entirely unknown, as well as the language and the character of that country. The city of Tadmor preserved this name to the time of the conquest by Alexander the Great: then it had the name of Palmyra given to it, which it preserved for several ages. About the middle of the third century, it became famous, because Odenatus and Zenobia, his queen, made it the seat of their empire. When the Saracens became masters of the east, they restored its ancient name of Tadmor to it again, which it has always preserved since. It is surrounded by sandy deserts on all sides. It is not known when, nor by whom, it was reduced to the ruinous condition in which it is now found. It may be said to consist at present of a forest of Corinthian pillars, erect and fallen. So numerous are these, consisting of many thousands, that the spectator is at a loss to connect or arrange them in any order or symmetry, or to conceive what purpose or design they could have answered. “In the space covered by these ruins,” says Volney, “we sometimes find a palace of which nothing remains but the court and walls; sometimes a temple, whose peristyle is half thrown down; and now a portico, a gallery, or triumphal arch. Here stand groups of columns, whose symmetry is destroyed by the fall of many of them; there we see them ranged in rows of such length, that, similar to rows of trees, they deceive the sight, and assume the appearance of continued walls. If from this striking scene we cast our eyes upon the ground, another almost as varied presents itself On all sides we behold nothing but subverted shafts, some whole, others shattered to pieces or dislocated in their joints; and on which side soever we look, the earth is strewed with vast stones half buried, with broken entablatures, mutilated friezes, disfigured reliefs, effaced sculptures, violated tombs, and altars defiled by dust.”

It is probable, says Mansford, that, although Tadmor is said to have been built by Solomon, or, in other words, to have been erected by him into a city, it was a watering station between Syria and Mesopotamia before; with perhaps accommodations suited to the mode of travelling in those times, as we read of palm-trees being found there, which are not trees that come by chance in these desert regions. The mere circumstance of wholesome water being afforded by any spot in such a country was sufficient to give it importance, and to draw toward it the stream of communication, for whatever purpose. This was probably the condition of Tadmor long before it received its name and its honours from Solomon. But, after all, what motive could there be to induce a peaceable king, like Solomon, to undertake a work so distant, difficult, and dangerous? There is but one which at all accords with his character, or the history of the times,--commercial enterprise. Solomon was at great pains to secure himself in the possession of the ports of Elath and Ezion-Geber on the Red Sea, and to establish a navy for his Indian commerce, or trade to Ophir,--in all ages the great source of wealth. The riches of India, thus brought into Judea, were from thence disseminated over those countries of the north and west at that time inhabited or known; while the same country, Judea, became, for a season, like Tyre, the point of return and exchange of the money and the commodities of those countries, the centre of communication between the east and the west.

TALENT, a measure of weight among the ancients, equivalent to sixty maneh, or one hundred and thirteen pounds ten ounces one pennyweight and ten grains. The value of a talent of silver was three hundred and forty-two pounds three shillings and nine-pence, and a talent of gold was equal to five thousand four hundred and seventy-five pounds sterling. In the writings of the evangelists, the term is employed to denote the various gifts or opportunities for usefulness which the Lord of heaven confers upon his servants, and for which he will call them to give in their account at the last day, Matt. xxv, 15; Luke xix, 12.

TALITHA-CUMI, the words that Jesus Christ made use of when he raised up the daughter of Jairus, chief of the synagogue of Capernaum. They are not pure Hebrew, but Syriac, and signify, “My daughter, arise,” Mark v, 41.

TALMUD. See JEWS.

TARE, Matt. xiii, 25–27, 29, 30, 36, 38, 40. It is not easy to determine what plant or weed is here intended, as the word _zizania_ is neither mentioned in any other part of Scripture, nor in any ancient Greek writer. Some Greek and Latin fathers have made use of it, as have also Suidas and Phavorinus: but it is probable that they have all derived it from this text. As this Gospel was first written in Syriac, it is probably a word belonging to that language. Buxtorf gives several interpretations, but at last concludes with submitting it to the decision of others. In a treatise in the Mishna, called “Kilayim,” which treats expressly of different kinds of seeds, a bastard or degenerate wheat is mentioned by the name of זונים, which the very sound, in pronouncing, proves to be the same as the _zizanion_; and which may lead to the true derivation of the word, that is, from the Chaldee זן, “a kind,” or “species” of grain, namely, whence the corrupt Hebrew or Syriac זניא, which in the ancient Syriac version answers to the Greek ζιζονια, Matt. xiii, 25, &c. In Psalm cxliv, 13, the words מזן אל־זן, are translated, “all manner of store;” but they properly signify “from species to species.” Might not the Chaldee word זונין, and the Greek word ζιζάνιον, come from the psalmist’s זנ־זן, which might have signified a “mixture” of grain of any kind, and be here used to point out the mixing bastard or degenerate wheat among the good seed-wheat? Mintert says, that “it is a kind of plant, not unlike corn or wheat, having at first the same sort of stalk, and the same viridity, but bringing forth no fruit, at least none good:” and he adds, from John Melchior, “ζιζάνιον does not signify every weed in general which grows among corn, but a particular seed, known in Canaan, which was not unlike wheat, but, being put into the ground, degenerated, and assumed another nature and form.” Parkhurst, and Dr. Campbell, render it “the darnel,” “_lolium temulentum_.” The same plant is called “_zizana_” by the Spaniards; as it appears to be _zuvan_, by the Turks and Arabs. “It is well known to the people at Aleppo,” says M. Forskal; “it grows among corn. If the seeds remain mixed with the meal, they occasion dizziness to those who eat of the bread. The reapers do not separate the plant; but after the threshing, they reject the seeds by means of a van or sieve.” Other travellers mention, that in some parts of Syria, the plant is drawn up by the hand in the time of harvest, along with the wheat, and is then gathered out, and bound up in separate bundles. In the parable of the tares, our Lord states the very same circumstances. They grew among the grain; they were not separated by the tillers, but suffered to grow up together till the harvest; they were then gathered from among the wheat with the hand, and bound up in bundles.

TARGUM. See JEWS.

TARSHISH, a country of this name, whither Solomon sent his fleets, 1 Kings x, 22; 2 Chron. ix, 11. There is a multitude of different opinions concerning this country. Josephus, and the Chaldee and Arabic paraphrasts, explain it of Tarsus, a city of Cilicia; the Septuagint, St. Jerom, and Theodoret, understand it of Carthage. The Arabian geographer will have it to be Tunis in Africa. Bochart makes it to be Tartessus, an island in the Straits of Gades. By Tarshish, M. Le Clerc understands Thassus, an island and city in the Ægean sea. Grotius thinks that the whole ocean was called Tarshish, because of the famous city of Tartessus, now mentioned. Sanctius believes the sea in general to be called Tarshish, and that the ships of Tarshish were those that are employed in voyages at sea, in opposition to the small vessels that are used only in most navigable rivers. The LXX. translate Tarshish sometimes by “the sea;” and the Scripture gives the names of ships of Tarshish to those that were fitted out at Ezion-Geber, on the Red Sea, and which sailed upon the ocean, as well as to those that were fitted out at Joppa, and in the ports of the Mediterranean. Therefore, when we see ships fitted out upon the Red Sea, or at Ezion-Geber, in order to go to Tarshish, we must conclude one of these two things, either that there were two countries called Tarshish, one upon the ocean, and another upon the Mediterranean, or that ships of Tarshish in general signifies nothing else but ships able to bear a long voyage; large merchant ships, in opposition to the small craft intended for a home trade in navigable rivers.

TARSUS, the capital of Cilicia, and the native city of St. Paul, Acts ix, 11; xxi, 39. Some think it obtained the privileges of a Roman colony because of its firm adherence to Julius Cæsar; and this procured the inhabitants the favour of being acknowledged citizens of Rome, which St. Paul enjoyed by being born in it. Others maintain that Tarsus was only a free city, but not a Roman colony, in the time of St. Paul, and that his privilege as a Roman citizen was founded upon some other right, perhaps gained by his ancestors.

TEARS. The prayer of David, “Put my tears into thy bottle,” is unintelligible without an acquaintance with ancient customs. “This passage,” says Burder, “seems to intimate that the custom of putting tears into the ampullæ, or urnal lachrymales, so well known among the Romans, was more anciently in use among the eastern nations, and particularly the Hebrews. These urns were of different materials, some of glass, some of earth; as may be seen in the work of Montfaucon, where also may be seen the various forms or shapes of them. These urns were placed on the sepulchres of the deceased, as a memorial of the distress and affection of their surviving relations and friends. It will be difficult to account for this expression of the psalmist, but upon this supposition. If this be allowed, the meaning will be, ‘Let my distress, and the tears I shed in consequence of it, be ever before thee, excite thy kind remembrance of me, and plead with thee to grant the relief I stand in need of.’”

TEMPLE, the house of God; properly the temple of Solomon. David first conceived the design of building a house somewhat worthy of the divine majesty, and opened his mind to the Prophet Nathan, 2 Sam. vii; 1 Chron. xvii; xxii, 8, &c. God accepted of his good intentions, but refused him the honour. Solomon laid the foundation of the temple, A. M. 2992, completed it in 3000, and dedicated it in 3001, 1 Kings viii, 2; 2 Chron. v, vi, vii. According to the opinion of some writers, there were three temples, namely, the first, erected by Solomon; the second, by Zerubbabel, and Joshua the high priest; and the third, by Herod, a few years before the birth of Christ. But this opinion is, very properly, rejected by the Jews; who do not allow the third to be a new temple, but only the second temple repaired and beautified: and this opinion corresponds with the prophecy of Haggai, ii, 9, “that the glory of this latter house,” the temple built by Zerubbabel, “should be greater than that of the former;” which prediction was uttered with reference to the Messiah’s honouring it with his presence and ministry. The first temple is that which usually bears the name of Solomon; the materials for which were provided by David before his death, though the edifice was raised by his son. It stood on Mount Moriah, an eminence of the mountainous ridge in the Scriptures termed Mount Zion, Psalm cxxxii, 13, 14, which had been purchased by Araunah, or Ornan, the Jebusite, 2 Sam. xxiv, 23, 24; 1 Chron. xxi, 25. The plan, and the whole model of this superb structure, were formed after that of the tabernacle, but of much larger dimensions. It was surrounded, except at the front or east end, by three stories of chambers, each five cubits square, which reached to half the height of the temple; and the front was ornamented with a magnificent portico, which rose to the height of one hundred and twenty cubits: so that the form of the whole edifice was not unlike that of some ancient churches, which have a lofty tower in the front, and a low aisle running along each side of the building. The utensils for the sacred service were the same; excepting that several of them, as the altar, candlestick, &c, were larger, in proportion to the more spacious edifice to which they belonged. Seven years and six months were occupied in the erection of the superb and magnificent temple of Solomon, by whom it was dedicated, A. M. 3001, B. C. 999, with peculiar solemnity, to the worship of the Most High; who on this occasion vouchsafed to honour it with the Shechinah, or visible manifestation of his presence. Various attempts have been made to describe the proportions and several parts of this structure; but as scarcely any two writers agree on this subject, a minute description of it is designedly omitted. It retained its pristine splendour only thirty-three or thirty-four years, when Shishak, king of Egypt, took Jerusalem, and carried away the treasures of the temple; and after undergoing subsequent profanations and pillages, this stupendous building was finally plundered and burnt by the Chaldeans under Nebuchadnezzar, A. M. 3416, or B. C. 584, 2 Kings xxv, 13–15; 2 Chron. xxxvi, 17–20.

After the captivity, the temple emerged from its ruins being rebuilt by Zerubbabel, but with vastly inferior and diminished glory; as appears from the tears of the aged men who had beheld the former structure in all its grandeur, Ezra iii, 12. The second temple was profaned by order of Antiochus Epiphanes, A. M. 3837, B. C. 163, who caused the daily sacrifices to be discontinued, and erected the image of Jupiter Olympus on the altar of burnt-offering. In this condition it continued three years, 1 Mac. iv, 42, when Judas Maccabæus purified and repaired it, and restored the sacrifices and true worship of Jehovah. Some years before the birth of our Saviour, the repairing and beautifying of this second temple, which had become decayed in the lapse of five centuries, was undertaken by Herod the Great, who for nine years employed eighty thousand workmen upon it, and spared no expense to render it equal, if not superior, in magnitude, splendour, and beauty, to any thing among mankind. Josephus calls it a work the most admirable of any that had ever been seen or heard of, both for its curious structure and its magnitude, and also for the vast wealth expended upon it, as well as for the universal reputation of its sanctity. But though Herod accomplished his original design in the time above specified, yet the Jews continued to ornament and enlarge it, expending the sacred treasure in annexing additional buildings to it; so that they might with great propriety assert, that their temple had been forty and six years in building, John ii, 20.

Before we proceed to describe this venerable edifice, it may be proper to remark, that by the temple is to be understood not only the fabric or house itself, which by way of eminence is called the temple, namely, the holy of holies, the sanctuary, and the several courts both of the priests and Israelites, but also all the numerous chambers and rooms which this prodigious edifice comprehended; and each of which had its respective degree of holiness, increasing in proportion to its contiguity to the holy of holies. This remark it will be necessary to bear in mind, lest the reader of Scripture should be led to suppose, that whatever is there said to be transacted in the temple was actually done in the interior of that sacred edifice. To this infinite number of apartments, into which the temple was disposed, our Lord refers, John xiv, 2; and by a very striking and magnificent simile, borrowed from them, he represents those numerous seats and mansions of heavenly bliss which his Father’s house contained, and which were prepared for the everlasting abode of the righteous. The imagery is singularly beautiful and happy, when considered as an allusion to the temple, which our Lord not unfrequently called his Father’s house.

The second temple, originally built by Zerubbabel after the captivity, and repaired by Herod, differed in several respects from that erected by Solomon, although they agreed in others.

The temple erected by Solomon was more splendid and magnificent than the second temple, which was deficient in five remarkable things that constituted the chief glory of the first: these were, the ark and the mercy seat; the shechinah, or manifestation of the divine presence, in the holy of holies; the sacred fire on the altar, which had been first kindled from heaven; the urim and thummim; and the spirit of prophecy. But the second temple surpassed the first in glory; being honoured by the frequent presence of our divine Saviour, agreeably to the prediction of Haggai, ii, 9. Both, however, were erected upon the same site, a very hard rock, encompassed by a very frightful precipice; and the foundation was laid with incredible expense and labour. The superstructure was not inferior to this great work: the height of the temple wall, especially on the south side, was stupendous. In the lowest places it was three hundred cubits, or four hundred and fifty feet, and in some places even greater. This most magnificent pile was constructed with hard white stones of prodigious magnitude. The temple itself, strictly so called, which comprised the portico, the sanctuary, and the holy of holies formed only a small part of the sacred edifice on Mount Moriah, being surrounded by spacious courts, making a square of half a mile in circumference. It was entered through nine gates, which were on every side thickly coated with gold and silver; but there was one gate without the holy house, which was of Corinthian brass, the most precious metal in ancient times, and which far surpassed the others in beauty. For while these were of equal magnitude, the gate composed of Corinthian brass was much larger; its height being fifty cubits, and its doors forty cubits, and its ornaments both of gold and silver being far more costly and massive. This is supposed to have been the “gate called Beautiful” in Acts iii, 2, where Peter and John, in the name of Christ, healed a man who had been lame from his birth. The first or outer court, which encompassed the holy house and the other courts, was named the court of the Gentiles; because the latter were allowed to enter into it, but were prohibited from advancing farther. It was surrounded by a range of porticoes, or cloisters, above which were galleries, or apartments, supported by pillars of white marble, each consisting of a single piece, and twenty-five cubits in height. One of these was called Solomon’s porch, or piazza, because it stood on a vast terrace, which he had originally raised from a valley beneath, four hundred cubits high, in order to enlarge the area on the top of the mountain, and make it equal to the plan of his intended building; and as this terrace was the only work of Solomon that remained in the second temple, the piazza which stood upon it retained the name of that prince. Here it was that our Lord was walking at the feast of dedication, John x, 23; and that the lame man, when healed by Peter and John, glorified God before all the people, Acts iii, 11. This superb portico is termed the royal portico by Josephus, who represents it as the noblest work beneath the sun, being elevated to such a prodigious height, that no one could look down from its flat roof to the valley below, without being seized with dizziness; the sight not reaching to such an immeasurable depth. The south-east corner of the roof of this portico, where the height was the greatest, is supposed to have been the ϖτερύγιον, pinnacle, or extreme angle, whence Satan tempted our Saviour to precipitate himself, Matt, iv, 5; Luke iv, 9. This also was the spot where it was predicted that the abomination of desolation, or the Roman ensigns, should stand, Daniel ix, 27; Matt, xxiv, 15. Solomon’s portico was situated in the eastern front of the temple, opposite to the mount of Olives, where our Saviour is said to have sat when his disciples came to show him the grandeur of its various buildings, of which, grand as they were, he said, the time was approaching when one stone should not be left upon another, Matt, xxiv, 1–3. This outer court being assigned to the Gentile proselytes, the Jews, who did not worship in it themselves, conceived that it might lawfully be put to profane uses: for here we find that the buyers and sellers of animals for sacrifices, and also the moneychangers, had stationed themselves; until Jesus Christ, awing them into submission by the grandeur and dignity of his person and behaviour, expelled them; telling them that it was the house of prayer for all nations, and was not to be profaned, Matt. xxi, 12, 13; Mark xi, 15–17. Within the court of the Gentiles stood the court of the Israelites, divided into two parts, or courts; the outer one being appropriated to the women, and the inner one to the men. The court of the women was separated from that of the Gentiles by a low stone wall, or partition, of elegant construction, on which stood pillars at equal distances, with inscriptions in Greek and Latin, importing that no alien should enter into the holy place. To this wall St. Paul most evidently alludes in Eph. ii, 13, 14: “But now in Christ Jesus, ye, who sometimes were far off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ: for he is our peace, who hath made both one, (united both Jews and Gentiles into one church,) and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;” having abolished the law of ordinances, by which, as by the wall of separation, both Jews and Gentiles were not only kept asunder, but also at variance. In this court was the treasury, over against which Christ sat, and beheld how the people threw their voluntary offerings into it, for furnishing the victims and other things necessary for the sacrifices, Mark xii, 41; John viii, 20. From the court of the women, which was on higher ground than that of the Gentiles, there was an ascent of fifteen steps into the inner or men’s court: and so called because it was appropriated to the worship of the male Israelites. In these two courts, collectively termed the court of the Israelites, were the people praying, each apart by himself, for the pardon of his sins, while Zacharias was offering incense within the sanctuary, Luke i, 10. Within the court of the Israelites was that of the priests, which was separated from it by a low wall, one cubit in height. This enclosure surrounded the altar of burnt-offerings, and to it the people brought their oblations and sacrifices; but the priests alone were permitted to enter it. From this court twelve steps ascended to the temple, strictly so called; which was divided into three parts, the portico, the outer sanctuary, and the holy place. In the portico was suspended the splendid votive offerings made by the piety of various individuals. Among other treasures, there was a golden table given by Pompey, and several golden vines of exquisite workmanship, as well as of immense size; for Josephus relates, that there were clusters as tall as a man. And he adds, that all around were fixed up and displayed the spoils and trophies taken by Herod from the barbarians and Arabians. These votive offerings, it should seem, were visible at a distance; for when Jesus Christ was sitting on the mount of Olives, and his disciples called his attention to the temple, they pointed out to him the gifts with which it was adorned, Luke xxi, 5. This porch had a very large portal or gate, which, instead of folding doors, was furnished with a costly Babylonian veil, of many colours, that mystically denoted the universe. From this the sanctuary, or holy place, was separated from the holy of holies by a double veil, which is supposed to have been the veil that was rent in twain at our Saviour’s crucifixion; thus emblematically pointing out that the separation between Jews and Gentiles was abolished; and that the privilege of the high priest was communicated to all mankind, who might henceforth have access to the throne of grace through the one great Mediator, Jesus Christ, Heb. x, 19–22. The holy of holies was twenty cubits square: into it no person was admitted but the high priest, who entered it once a year on the great day of atonement, Exod. xxx, 10; Lev. xvi, 2, 15, 34; Heb. ix, 2–7.

Magnificent as the rest of the sacred edifice was, it was infinitely surpassed in splendour by the inner temple, or sanctuary. Its appearance, according to Josephus, had every thing that could strike the mind, or astonish the sight: for it was covered on every side with plates of gold; so that when the sun rose upon it, it reflected so strong and dazzling an effulgence, that the eye of the spectator was obliged to turn away, being no more able to sustain its radiance than the splendour of the sun. To strangers who were approaching, it appeared at a distance like a mountain covered with snow; for where it was not decorated with plates of gold, it was extremely white and glistering. On the top it had sharp-pointed spikes of gold, to prevent any bird from resting upon it, and polluting it. There were, continues the Jewish historian, in that building, several stones which were forty-five cubits in length, five in height, and six in breadth. “When all these things are considered,” says Harwood, “how natural is the exclamation of the disciples, when viewing this immense building at a distance: ‘Master, see what manner of stones’ (ϖοταποὶ λίθοι, ‘what very large ones’) ‘and what buildings are here!’ Mark xiii, 1: and how wonderful is the declaration of our Lord upon this, how unlikely to be accomplished before the race of men who were then living should cease to exist! ‘Seest thou these great buildings? There shall not be left one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down.’ Improbable as this prediction must have appeared to the disciples at that time, in the short space of about thirty years after it was exactly accomplished; and this most magnificent temple, which the Jews had literally turned into a den of thieves, through the righteous judgment of God upon that wicked and abandoned nation, was utterly destroyed by the Romans A. D. 70, or 73 of the vulgar era, on the same month, and on the same day of the month, when Solomon’s temple had been razed to the ground by the Babylonians!”

Both the first and second temples were contemplated by the Jews with the highest reverence. Of their affectionate regard for the first temple, and for Jerusalem, within whose walls it was built, we have several instances in those Psalms which were composed during the Babylonish captivity; and of their profound veneration for the second temple we have repeated examples in the New Testament. They could not bear any disrespectful or dishonourable thing to be said of it. The least injurious slight of it, real or apprehended, instantly awakened all the choler of a Jew, and was an affront never to be forgiven. Our Saviour, in the course of his public instructions, having said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again,” John ii, 19, it was construed into a contemptuous disrespect, designedly thrown out against the temple; his words instantly descended into the heart of the Jews, and kept rankling there for some years; for, upon his trial, this declaration, which it was impossible for a Jew ever to forget or to forgive, was immediately alleged against him, as big with the most atrocious guilt and impiety: they told the court they had heard him publicly assert, “I am able to destroy this temple,” Matt. xxvi, 61. The rancour and virulence they had conceived against him for this speech, was not softened by all the affecting circumstances of that wretched death they saw him die; even as he hung upon the cross, with triumph, scorn, and exultation, they upbraided him with it, contemptuously shaking their heads, and saying, “Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself! If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross!” Matt. xxvii, 40. It only remains to add, that it appears, from several passages of Scripture, that the Jews had a body of soldiers who guarded the temple, to prevent any disturbances during the ministration of such an immense number of priests and Levites. To this guard Pilate referred, when he said to the chief priests and Pharisees who waited upon him to desire he would make the sepulchre secure, “Ye have a watch, go your way, and make it as secure as ye can,” Matt. xxvii, 65. Over these guards one person had the supreme command, who in several places is called the captain of the temple, or officer of the temple guard. “And as they spake unto the people, the priests and the captain of the temple and the Sadducees came upon them,” Acts iv, 1; v, 25, 26; John xviii, 12. Josephus mentions such an officer.

TENT MAKER. St. Paul, according to the practice of the Jews, who, however opulent, always taught their children some trade, appears to have been a tent maker. This, however, is understood by some moderns to mean a maker of tent cloth, St. Paul being a Cilician, a country which produced a species of rough-haired goats, from which the Cilicians manufactured a thick and coarse cloth, much used for tents. The fathers, however, say that he made military tents, the material of which was skins.

TERAPHIM. It is said, Gen. xxxi, 19, that Rachel had stolen the images (_teraphim_) of her father. What then were these _teraphim_? The Septuagint translate this word by “oracle,” and sometimes by “vain figures.” Aquila generally translates it by “figures.” It appears, indeed, from all the passages in which this word is used, that they were idols or superstitious figures. Some Jewish writers tell us the _teraphim_ were human heads placed in niches, and consulted by way of oracles. Others think they were talismans or figures of metal cast and engraven under certain aspects of the planets, to which they ascribed extraordinary effects. All the eastern people are much addicted to this superstition, and the Persians still call them _telefin_, a name nearly approaching to teraphim. M. Jurieu supposes them to have been a sort of _dii penates_, or household gods; and this appears to be, perhaps, the most probable opinion.

TESTAMENT. The property or estate of the father fell, after his decease, into the possession of his sons, who divided it among themselves equally, with this exception, that the eldest son had two portions. The father expressed his last wishes or will in the presence of witnesses, and probably in the presence of the heirs, 2 Kings xx, 1. At a more recent period the will was made out in writing. The portion that was given to the sons of concubines depended altogether upon the feelings of the father. Abraham gave presents to what amount is not known, both to Ishmael and to the sons whom he had by Keturah, and sent them away before his death. It does not appear that they had any other portion in the estate. But Jacob made the sons whom he had by his concubines heirs as well as the others, Gen. xxi, 8–21; xxv, 1–6; xlix, 1–27. Moses laid no restrictions upon the choice of fathers in this respect; and we should infer that the sons of concubines, for the most part, received an equal share with the other sons, from the fact, that Jephtha, the son of a concubine, complained that he was excluded without any portion from his father’s house, Judg. xi, 1–7. The daughters not only had no portion in the estate, but, if they were unmarried, were considered as making a part of it, and were sold by their brothers into matrimony. If they had no brothers, or if they had died, the daughters then took the estate, Num. xxvii, 1–8. If any one died intestate, and without offspring, the property was disposed of according to Num. xxvii, 8–11. The servants or the slaves in a family could not claim any share in the estate as a right; but the person who made a will, might, if he chose, make them his heirs, Gen. xv, 3. Indeed, in some instances, those who had heirs, recognized as such by law, did not deem it unbecoming to bestow the whole or a portion of their estates on faithful and deserving servants, Prov. xvii, 2. The widow of the deceased, like his daughters, had no legal right to a share in the estate. The sons, however, or other relations, were bound to afford her an adequate maintenance, unless it had been otherwise arranged in the will. She sometimes returned back again to her father’s house, particularly if the support which the heirs gave her was not such as had been promised, or was not sufficient, Gen. xxxviii, 11. See also the story of Ruth. The prophets very frequently, and undoubtedly not without cause, exclaim against the neglect and injustice shown to widows, Isa. i, 17; x, 2; Jer. vii, 6; xxii, 3; Ezek. xxii, 7; Exod. xxii, 22–24; Deut. x, 18; xxiv, 17.

TESTIMONY, a witnessing, evidence, or proof, Acts xiv, 3. The whole Scripture or word of God, which declares what is to be believed, practised, and expected by us, is called God’s “testimony,” and sometimes in the plural “testimonies,” Psalm xix, 7. The two tables of stone on which the law or ten commandments were written, which were witnesses of that covenant made between God and his people, and testified what it was that God had required of them, have the same title, Exod. xxv, 16, 21; xxxi, 18.

TETRARCH, a sovereign prince that has the fourth part of a state, province, or kingdom under his dominion, without wearing the diadem, or bearing the title of king, Matt, xiv, 1; Luke iii, 1, 19; ix, 7; Acts xiii, 1.

THEOPHILUS, one to whom St. Luke addresses the books of his Gospel and Acts of the Apostles, which he composed, Acts i, 1; Luke i, 3. It is doubted whether the name Theophilus be here the proper name of a man, or an appellative or common name, which, according to its etymology, may stand for any good man, or a lover of God. Some think this name is generic, and that St. Luke’s design here is to address his work to those that love God; but it is much more probable that this Theophilus was a Christian to whom the evangelist has dedicated those two works; and the epithet of “most excellent,” which is given to him, shows him to have been a man of great quality. Œcumenius concludes from thence that he was governor or intendant of some province, because such a personage had generally the title of “most excellent” given to him. Grotius conjectures he might be a magistrate of Achaia, converted by St. Luke.

THERAPEUTÆ. One particular phenomenon which resulted from the theosophico-ascetic spirit among the Alexandrian Jews, was the sect of the Therapeutæ. Their head quarters were at no great distance from Alexandria, in a quiet pleasant spot on the shores of the Lake Mœris, where they lived, like the anchorites in later periods, shut up in separate cells, and employed themselves in nothing but prayer, and the contemplation of divine things. An allegorical interpretation of Scripture was the foundation of their speculations; and they had old theosophical writings which gave them this turn. They lived only on bread and water, and accustomed themselves to fasting. They only ate in the evening, and many fasted for several days together. They met together every Sabbath day, and every seven weeks they held a still more solemn assembly, because the number seven was peculiarly holy in their estimation. They then celebrated a simple love-feast, consisting of bread with salt and hyssop; theosophical discussions were held, and the hymns which they had from their old traditions were sung; and mystical dances, bearing reference to the wonderful works of God with the fathers of their people, were continued, amidst choral songs, to a late hour in the night. Many men of distinguished learning have considered this sect as nothing but a scion of the Essenes, trained up under the peculiar influence of the Egyptian spirit.

THESSALONIANS, Christians of Thessalonica, to whom St. Paul sent two epistles. It is recorded in the Acts, that St. Paul, in his first journey upon the continent of Europe, preached the Gospel at Thessalonica, at that time the capital of Macedonia, with considerable success; but that after a short stay he was driven thence by the malice and violence of the unbelieving Jews. From Thessalonica St. Paul went to Berea, and thence to Athens, at both which places he remained but a short time. From Athens he sent Timothy to Thessalonica, to confirm the new converts in their faith, and to inquire into their conduct. Timothy, upon his return, found St. Paul at Corinth. Thence, probably in A. D. 52, St. Paul wrote the First Epistle to the Thessalonians; and it is to be supposed that the subjects of which it treats, were suggested by the account which he received from Timothy. It is now generally believed that this was written the first of all St. Paul’s epistles, but it is not known by whom it was sent to Thessalonica. The church there consisted chiefly of Gentile converts, 1 Thess. i, 9. St. Paul, after saluting the Thessalonian Christians in the name of himself, Silas, and Timothy, assures them that he constantly returned thanks to God on their account, and mentioned them in his prayers; he acknowledges the readiness and sincerity with which they embraced the Gospel, and the great reputation which they had acquired by turning from idols to serve the living God, 1 Thess. i; he reminds them of the bold and disinterested manner in which he had preached among them; comforts them under the persecutions which they, like other Christians, had experienced from their unbelieving countrymen, and informs them of two ineffectual attempts which he had made to visit them again, 1 Thess. ii; and that, being thus disappointed, he had sent Timothy to confirm their faith, and inquire into their conduct; he tells them that Timothy’s account of them had given him the greatest consolation and joy in the midst of his affliction and distress, and that he continually prayed to God for an opportunity of seeing them again, and for their perfect establishment in the Gospel, 1 Thess. iii; he exhorts to purity, justice, love, and quietness, and dissuades them against excessive grief for their deceased friends, 1 Thess. iv; hence he takes occasion to recommend preparation for the last judgment, the time of which is always uncertain; and adds a variety of practical precepts. He concludes with his usual benediction. This epistle is written in terms of high commendation, earnestness, and affection.

It is generally believed that the messenger who carried the former epistle into Macedonia, upon his return to Corinth, informed St. Paul that the Thessalonians had inferred, from some expressions in it, that the coming of Christ and the final judgment were near at hand, and would happen in the time of many who were then alive, 1 Thess. iv, 15, 17; v, 6. The principal design of the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians was to correct that error, and prevent the mischief which it would naturally occasion. It was written from Corinth, probably at the end of A. D. 52. St. Paul begins with the same salutation as in the former epistle, and then expresses his devout acknowledgments to God for the increasing faith and mutual love of the Thessalonians in the midst of persecution; he represents to them the rewards which will be bestowed upon the faithful, and the punishment which will be inflicted upon the disobedient, at the coming of Christ, 2 Thess. i; he earnestly entreats them not to suppose, as upon authority from him, or upon any other ground, that the last day is at hand; he assures them, that before that awful period a great apostasy will take place, and reminds them of some information which he had given them upon that subject when he was at Thessalonica; he exhorts them to steadfastness in their faith, and prays to God to comfort their hearts, and establish them in every good word and work, 2 Thess. ii; he desires their prayers for the success of his ministry, and expresses his confidence in their sincerity; he cautions them against associating with idle and disorderly persons, and recommends diligence and quietness. He adds a salutation in his own hand, and concludes with his usual benediction.

THESSALONICA, a celebrated city in Macedonia, and capital of that kingdom, standing upon the Thesmaic Sea. Stephen of Byzantium says that it was improved and beautified by Philip, king of Macedon, and called Thessalonica in memory of the victory that he obtained over the Thessalians. Its old name was Thesma. The Jews had a synagogue here, and their number was considerable, Acts xvii.

THIEF. Among the Hebrews theft was not punished with death: “Men do not despise a thief if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry. But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house,” Prov. vi, 30, 31. The law allowed the killing of a night-robber, because it was supposed his intention was to murder as well as to rob, Exod. xxii, 2. It condemned a common thief to make double restitution, Exod. xxii, 4. If he stole an ox he was to restore it fivefold; if a sheep, only fourfold, Exod. xxii, 1; 2 Sam. xii, 6. But if the animal that was stolen was found alive in his house he only rendered the double of it. If he did not make restitution, they seized what was in his house, put it up to sale, and even sold the person himself if he had not wherewithal to make satisfaction, Exod. xxii, 3.

THOMAS, the Apostle, otherwise called Didymus, which in Greek signifies _a twin_, Matt. x, 3; Luke vi, 15. We know no particulars of his life till A. D. 33, John xi, 16; xiv, 5, 6; xx, 24–29; xxi, 1–13. Ancient tradition says, that in the distribution which the Apostles made of the several parts of the world, wherein they were to preach the Gospel, the country of the Parthians fell to the share of St. Thomas. It is added, that he preached to the Medes, Persians, Carmanians, Hircanians, Bactrians, &c. Several of the fathers inform us that he also preached in the East Indies, &c.

THORN. A general name for several kinds of prickly plants. 1. In the curse denounced against the earth, Gen. iii, 18, its produce is threatened to be “thorns and thistles,” קוץ ודרדר, in the Septuagint ἀκάνθας καὶ τριϐόλους. St. Paul uses the same words, Heb. vi, 8, where the last is rendered “briers;” they are also found Hos. x, 8. The word _kutz_ is put for “thorns,” in other places, as Exod. xxii, 6; Judges viii, 7; Ezek. ii, 6; xxviii, 24; but we are uncertain whether it means a specific kind of thorn, or may be a generic name for all plants of a thorny kind. In the present instance it seems to be general for all those obnoxious plants, shrubs, &c, by which the labours of the husbandman are impeded, and which are only fit for burning. If the word denotes a particular plant, it maybe the “rest-harrow,” a pernicious prickly weed, which grows promiscuously with the large thistles in the uncultivated grounds, and covers entire fields and plains, in Egypt and Palestine. From the resemblance of the Hebrew _dardar_, to the Arabic word _dardargi_, Scheuchzer supposes the _cnicus_ to be intended. 2. תות, from its etymology, must be a kind of thorn, with incurvated spines, like fish hooks, similar to those of the North American “witch hazel.” Celsius says that the same word, and of the same original in Arabic, is the “black thorn,” or “sloe tree,” the _prunus spinosa_ of Linnæus. 3. סירים. It is impossible to determine what plants are intended by this word. Meninski says that _serbin_, in the Persic language, is the name of a tree bearing thorns. In Eccles. vii, 6, and Nahum i, 10, they are mentioned as fuel which quickly burns up; and in Hosea ii, 6, as obstructions or hedges; it may be the _lycium Afrum_. 4. סלון, mentioned Josh. xxiii, 13; Ezek. ii, 6, xxviii, 24. From the vexatious character ascribed to this thorn in the places just referred to, compared with Num. xxxiii, 55; Judges ii, 3; it is probably the _kantuffa_, as described by Bruce. 5. By שבים, Num. xxxiii, 55, may be intended goads, or sharp-pointed sticks, like those with which cattle were driven. 6. The שית, Isa. v, 6; x, 17, must mean some noxious plant that overruns waste grounds. 7. The word צנים, Num. xxxiii, 55; Josh. xxiii, 13; Isa. v, 5. It seems, from its application, to describe a bad kind of thorn. Hiller supposes it to be the _vepris_. Perhaps it is the _rhamnus paliurus_, a deciduous plant or tree, a native of Palestine, Spain, and Italy. It will grow nearly to the height of fourteen feet, and is armed with sharp thorns, two of which are at the insertion of each branch, one of them straight and upright, the other bent backward. 8. כרקנים, translated “briers,” Judges viii, 16. “There is no doubt but this word means a sharp, jagged kind of plant: the difficulty is to fix on one, where so many offer themselves. The Septuagint preserves the original word. We should hardly think Gideon went far to seek these plants. The thorns are expressly said to be from the wilderness, or common hard by; probably the _barkanim_ were from the same place. In our country this would lead us to the blackberry bushes on our commons; but it might not be so around Succoth. There is a plant mentioned by Hasselquist, whose name and properties somewhat resemble those which are required in the _barkanim_ of this passage: “_Nabka paliurus Athenæi_, is the _nabka_ of the Arabs. There is every appearance that this is the tree which furnished the crown of thorns which was put on the head of our Lord. It is common in the east. A plant more proper for this purpose could not be selected; for it is armed with thorns, its branches are pliant, and its leaf of a deep green like that of ivy. Perhaps the enemies of Christ chose this plant, in order to add insult to injury by employing a wreath approaching in appearance that which was used to crown emperors and generals.” In the New Testament, the Greek word translated “thorn,” is ἄκανθα; Matt. vii, 16, xiii, 7, xxvii, 29, John xix, 2. The note of Bishop Pearce on Matt. xxvii, 29, is this: “The word ἀκανθῶν may as well be the plural genitive case of the word ἄκανθος, as of ἄκανθα; if of the latter, it is rightly translated ‘of thorns,’ but the former would signify what we call ‘bear’s foot,’ and the French _branche ursine_. This is not of the thorny kind of plants, but is soft and smooth. Virgil calls it _mollis acanthus_. So does Pliny: and Pliny the elder says that it is _lævis_, “smooth;” and that it is one of those plants that are cultivated in gardens. I have somewhere read, but cannot at present recollect where, that this soft and smooth herb was very common in and about Jerusalem. I find nothing in the New Testament concerning this crown which Pilate’s soldiers put on the head of Jesus, to incline one to think that it was of thorns, and intended, as is usually supposed, to put him to pain. The reed put into his hand, and the scarlet robe on his back, were meant only as marks of mockery and contempt. One may also reasonably judge by the soldiers being said to plat this crown, that it was not composed of such twigs and leaves as were of a thorny nature. I do not find that it is mentioned by any of the primitive Christian writers as an instance of the cruelty used toward our Saviour before he was led to crucifixion, till the time of Tertullian, who lived after Jesus’ death at the distance of above one hundred and sixty years. He indeed seems to have understood ἀκανθῶν in the sense of thorns, and says, ‘_Quale oro te, Jesus Christus sertum pro utrogue sexu subiit? Ex spinis, opinor, et tribulis._’ [What kind of a crown, I beseech you, did Jesus Christ sustain? One made of thorns and thistles, I think.] The total silence of Polycarp, Barnabas, Clemens Romanus, and all the other Christian writers whose works are now extant, and who wrote before Tertullian, in particular, will give some weight to incline one to think that this crown was not platted with thorns. But as this is a point on which we have not sufficient evidence, I leave it almost in the same state of uncertainty in which I found it.” See GARDEN.

THRESHING FLOORS, among the ancient Jews, were only, as they are to this day in the east, round level plats of ground in the open air, where the corn was trodden out by oxen, the _libycæ areæ_ of Horace. Thus, Gideon’s floor, Judges vi, 37, appears to have been in the open air; as was likewise that of Araunah the Jebusite; else it would not have been a proper place for erecting an altar and offering sacrifice. In Hosea xiii, 3, we read of the chaff which is driven by the whirlwind from the floor. This circumstance of the threshing floor’s being exposed to the agitation of the wind seems to be the principal reason of its Hebrew name; which may be farther illustrated by the direction which Hesiod gives his husbandman to thresh his corn in a place well exposed to the wind. From the above account it appears that a threshing floor (rendered in our textual translation “a void place”) might well be near the entrance of the gate of Samaria, and that it might afford no improper place in which the kings of Israel and Judah could hear the prophets, 1 Kings xxii, 10; 2 Chron. xviii, 9; Psalm i, 4.

THRONE is used for that magnificent seat on which sovereign princes usually sit to receive the homage of their subjects, or to give audience to ambassadors; where they appear with pomp and ceremony, and from whence they dispense justice; in a word, the throne, the sceptre, the crown, are the ordinary symbols of royalty and regal authority. The Scripture commonly represents the Lord as sitting upon a throne; sometimes it is said that the heaven is his throne, and the earth his footstool, Isaiah lxvi, 1. The Son of God is also represented as sitting upon a throne, at the right hand of his Father, Psalm cx, 1; Heb. i, 8; Rev. iii, 21. And Jesus Christ assures his Apostles that they should sit upon twelve thrones, to judge the twelve tribes of Israel, Luke xxii, 30. Though a throne and royal dignity seem to be correlatives, or terms that stand in reciprocal relation to each other, yet the privilege of sitting on a throne has been sometimes granted to those that were not kings, particularly to some governors of important provinces. We read of the throne of the governor of this side the river; the throne, in other words, of the governor for the king of Persia of the provinces belonging to that empire on the west of the Euphrates. So D’Herbelot tells us that a Persian monarch of aftertimes gave the governor of one of his provinces permission to seat himself in a gilded chair, when he administered justice; which distinction was granted him on account of the importance of that post, to which the guarding a pass of great consequence was committed. This province, he tells us, is now called Shirvan, but was formerly named Serir-aldhahab, which signifies, in Arabic, “the throne of gold.” To which he adds, that this privilege was granted to the governor of this province, as being the place through which the northern nations used to make their way into Persia; on which account, also, a mighty rampart or wall was raised there.

In the Revelation of St. John, we find the twenty-four elders sitting upon as many thrones in the presence of the Lord; “and they fall down before him that sat on the throne, &c, and cast their crowns before the throne.” Many of the travellers in eastern countries have given descriptions highly illustrative of this mode of adoration. Thus Bruce, in his Travels, says, “The next remarkable ceremony in which these two nations (of Persia and Abyssinia) agreed is that of adoration, inviolably observed in Abyssinia to this day, as often as you enter the sovereign’s presence. This is not only kneeling, but absolute prostration; you first fall upon your knees, then upon the palms of your hands, then incline your head and body till your forehead touches the ground; and, in case you have an answer to expect, you lie in that posture till the king, or somebody from him, desires you to rise.” And Stewart observes, “We marched toward the emperor with our music playing, till we came within about eighty yards of him, when the old monarch, alighting from his horse, prostrated himself on the earth to pray, and continued some minutes with his face so close to the earth, that, when we came up to him, the dust remained upon his nose.”

The circumstance of “casting their crowns before the throne” may be illustrated by several cases which occur in history. That of Herod, in the presence of Augustus, has been already mentioned. (See _Herod_.) Tiridates, in this manner, did homage to Nero, laying the ensigns of his royalty at the statue of Cæsar, to receive them again from his hand. Tigranes, king of Armenia, did the same to Pompey. In the inauguration of the Byzantine Cæsars, when the emperor comes to receive the sacrament, he puts off his crown. “This short expedition,” says Malcolm, “was brought to a close by the personal submission of Abool Fyze Khan, who, attended by all his court, proceeded to the tents of Nadir Shah, and laid his crown, and other ensigns of royalty, at the feet of the conqueror, who assigned him an honourable place in his assembly, and in a few days afterward restored him to his throne.”

THYATIRA, a city of Lydia, in Asia Minor, and the seat of one of the seven churches in Asia. It was situated nearly midway between Pergamos and Sardis, and is still a tolerable town, considering that it is in the hands of the Turks, and enjoys some trade, chiefly in cottons. It is called by that people Ak-hisar, or White Castle.

TIBERIAS, a city situated in a small plain, surrounded by mountains, on the western coast of the sea of Galilee, which, from this city, was also called the sea of Tiberias. Tiberias was erected by Herod Antipas, and so called in honour of Tiberius Cæsar. He is supposed to have chosen, for the erection of his new city, a spot where before stood a more obscure place called Chenereth or Cinnereth, which also gave its name to the adjoining lake or sea.

TIMBRELS. See MUSIC.

TIMOTHEUS, commonly called Timothy, a disciple of St. Paul. He was a native of Lystra in Lycaonia. His father was a Gentile; but his mother, whose name was Eunice, was a Jewess, Acts xvi, 1, and educated her son with great care in her own religion, 2 Tim. i, 5; iii, 15. To this young disciple St. Paul addressed two epistles; in the first of which he calls him his “own son in the faith,” 1 Tim. i, 2; from which expression it is inferred that St. Paul was the person who converted him to the belief of the Gospel; and as, upon St. Paul’s second arrival at Lystra, Timothy is mentioned as being then a disciple, and as having distinguished himself among the Christians of that neighbourhood, his conversion, as well as that of Eunice his mother, and Lois his grandmother, must have taken place when St. Paul first preached at Lystra, A. D. 46. Upon St. Paul’s leaving Lystra, in the course of his second apostolical journey, he was induced to take Timothy with him, on account of his excellent character, and the zeal which, young as he was, he had already shown in the cause of Christianity; but before they set out, St. Paul caused him to be circumcised, not as a thing necessary to his salvation, but to avoid giving offence to the Jews, as he was a Jew by the mother’s side, and it was an established rule among the Jews that _partus sequitur ventrem_. Timothy was regularly appointed to the ministerial office by the laying on of hands, not only by St. Paul himself, but also by the presbytery, 1 Tim. iv, 14; 2 Tim. i, 6. From this time Timothy acted as a minister of the Gospel; he generally attended St. Paul, but was sometimes employed by him in other places; he was very diligent and useful, and is always mentioned with great esteem and affection by St. Paul, who joins his name with his own in the inscription of six of his epistles. He is sometimes called bishop of Ephesus, and it has been said that he suffered martyrdom in that city, some years after the death of St. Paul.

The principal design of St. Paul’s First Epistle to Timothy was to give him instructions concerning the management of the church of Ephesus; and it was probably intended that it should be read publicly to the Ephesians, that they might know upon what authority Timothy acted. After saluting him in an affectionate manner, and reminding him of the reason for which he was left at Ephesus, the Apostle takes occasion, from the frivolous disputes which some Judaizing teachers had introduced among the Ephesians, to assert the practical nature of the Gospel, and to show its superiority over the law; he returns thanks to God for his own appointment to the apostleship, and recommends to Timothy fidelity in the discharge of his sacred office; he exhorts that prayers should be made for all men, and especially for magistrates; he gives directions for the conduct of women, and forbids their teaching in public; he describes the qualifications necessary for bishops and deacons, and speaks of the mysterious nature of the Gospel dispensation; he foretels that there will be apostates from the truth, and false teachers in the latter times, and recommends to Timothy purity of manners and improvement of his spiritual gifts; he gives him particular directions for his behaviour toward persons in different situations in life, and instructs him in several points of Christian discipline; he cautions him against false teachers, gives him several precepts, and solemnly charges him to be faithful to his trust.

That the Second Epistle to Timothy was written while St. Paul was under confinement at Rome, appears from the two following passages: “Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner,” 2 Timothy i, 8. “The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain; but when he was at Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me,” 2 Tim. i, 16, 17. The epistle itself will furnish us with several arguments to prove that it could not have been written during St. Paul’s first imprisonment. 1. It is universally agreed that St. Paul wrote his epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, and to Philemon, while he was confined the first time at Rome. In no one of these epistles does he express any apprehension for his life; and in the two last mentioned we have seen that, on the contrary, he expresses a confident hope of being soon liberated; but in this epistle he holds a very different language: “I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day,” 2 Tim. iv, 6, &c. The danger in which St. Paul now was, is evident from the conduct of his friends, when he made his defence: “At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me,” 2 Tim. iv, 16. This expectation of death, and this imminent danger, cannot be reconciled either with the general tenor of his epistles written during his first confinement at Rome, with the nature of the charge laid against him when he was carried thither from Jerusalem, or with St. Luke’s account of his confinement there; for we must remember that in A. D. 63, Nero had not begun to persecute the Christians; that none of the Roman magistrates and officers who heard the accusations against St. Paul at Jerusalem thought that he had committed any offence against the Roman government; that at Rome St. Paul was completely out of the power of the Jews; and, so little was he there considered as having been guilty of any capital crime, that he was suffered to dwell “two whole years,” that is, the whole time of his confinement, “in his own hired house, and to receive all that came in unto him, preaching the word of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all confidence, no man forbidding him,” Acts xxviii, 30, 31. 2. From the inscriptions of the epistles to the Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon, it is certain that Timothy was with St. Paul in his first imprisonment at Rome; but this epistle implies that Timothy was absent. 3. St. Paul tells the Colossians that Mark salutes them, and therefore he was at Rome with St. Paul in his first imprisonment; but he was not at Rome when this epistle was written, for Timothy is directed to bring him with him, 2 Tim. iv, 11. 4. Demas, also, was with St. Paul when he wrote to the Colossians: “Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you,” Col. iv, 14. In this epistle he says, “Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed into Thessalonica,” 2 Tim. iv, 10. It may be said that this epistle might have been written before the others, and that in the intermediate time Timothy and Mark might have come to Rome, more especially as St. Paul desires Timothy to come shortly, and bring Mark with him. But this hypothesis is not consistent with what is said of Demas, who was with St. Paul when he wrote to the Colossians, and had left him when he wrote this second epistle to Timothy; consequently the epistle to Timothy must be posterior to that addressed to the Colossians. The case of Demas seems to have been, that he continued faithful to St. Paul during his first imprisonment, which was attended with little or no danger; but deserted him in the second, when Nero was persecuting the Christians, and St. Paul evidently considered himself in great danger. 5. St. Paul tells Timothy, “Erastus abode at Corinth, but Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick,” 2 Tim. iv, 20. These were plainly two circumstances which had happened in some journey which St. Paul had taken not long before he wrote this epistle, and since he and Timothy had seen each other; but the last time St. Paul was at Corinth and Miletum, prior to his first imprisonment at Rome, Timothy was with him at both places; and Trophimus could not have been then left at Miletum, for we find him at Jerusalem immediately after St. Paul’s arrival in that city; “for they had seen before with him in the city Trophimus, an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple,” Acts xxi, 29. These two facts must therefore refer to some journey subsequent to the first imprisonment; and, consequently, this epistle was written during St. Paul’s second imprisonment at Rome, and probably in A. D. 65, not long before his death. It is by no means certain where Timothy was when this epistle was written to him. It seems most probable that he was somewhere in Asia Minor, since St. Paul desires him to bring the cloak with him which he had left at Troas, 2 Tim. iv, 13; and also at the end of the first chapter, he speaks of several persons whose residence was in Asia. Many have thought that he was at Ephesus; but others have rejected that opinion, because Troas does not lie in the way from Ephesus to Rome, whither he was directed to go as quickly as he could. St. Paul, after his usual salutation, assures Timothy of his most affectionate remembrance; he speaks of his own apostleship and of his sufferings; exhorts Timothy to be steadfast in the true faith, to be constant and diligent in the discharge of his ministerial office, to avoid foolish and unlearned questions, and to practise and inculcate the great duties of the Gospel; he describes the apostasy and general wickedness of the last days, and highly commends the Holy Scriptures; he again solemnly exhorts Timothy to diligence; speaks of his own danger, and of his hope of future reward; and concludes with several private directions, and with salutations.

TIN, בדיל, Num. xxxi, 22; Isa. i, 25; Ezek. xxii, 18, 20; xxvii, 12; a well-known coarse metal, harder than lead. Mr. Parkhurst observes, that Moses, in Num. xxxi, 22, enumerates all the six species of metals. The Lord, by the Prophet Isaiah, having compared the Jewish people to silver, declares, “I will turn my hand upon thee, and purge away thy dross, and remove all בדיליך, _thy particles of tin_:” where Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion have κασσίτερον σου, and the Vulgate _stannum tuum_, “thy tin;” but the LXX. ἀνόμους, _wicked ones_. This denunciation, by a comparison of the preceding and following context, appears to signify that God would, by a process of judgment, purify those among the Jews who were capable of purification, as well as destroy the reprobate and incorrigible, Jer. vi, 29, 30; ix, 7; Mal. iii, 3; Ezek. xii, 18, 20. In Ezek. xxvii, 12, Tarshish is mentioned as furnishing כדיל; and Bochart proves from the testimonies of Diodorus, Pliny, and Stephanus, that Tartessus in Spain, which he supposes the ancient Tarshish, anciently furnished tin. As Cornwall in very ancient times was resorted to for this metal, and probably first by the Phenicians, some have thought that peninsula to be the Tarshish of the Scriptures; a subject which, however, from the vague use of the word, is involved in much uncertainty. See TARSHISH.

TITHES. We have nothing more ancient concerning tithes, than what we find in Gen. xiv, 20, that Abraham gave tithes to Melchisedec, king of Salem, at his return from his expedition against Chedorlaomer, and the four kings in confederacy with him. Abraham gave him tithe of all the booty he had taken from the enemy. Jacob imitated this piety of his grandfather, when he vowed to the Lord the tithe of all the substance he might acquire in Mesopotamia, Gen. xxviii, 22. Under the law, Moses ordained, “All the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord’s; it is holy unto the Lord. And if a man will at all redeem aught of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof. And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be wholly unto the Lord,” Lev. xxvii, 30–32. The Pharisees, in the time of Jesus Christ, to distinguish themselves by a more scrupulous observance of the law, did not content themselves with paying the tithe of the grain and fruits growing in the fields; but they also paid tithe of the pulse and herbs growing in their gardens, which was more than the law required of them. The tithes were taken from what remained, after the offerings and first fruits were paid. They brought the tithes to the Levites in the city of Jerusalem, as appears from Josephus and Tobit, i, 6. The Levites set apart the tenth part of their tithes for the priest; because the priests did not receive them immediately from the people, and the Levites were not to meddle with the tithes they had received, before they had given the priests such a part as the law assigned them. Of those nine parts that remained to the proprietors, after the tithe was paid to the Levites, they took still another tenth part, which was either sent to Jerusalem in kind, or, if it was too far, they sent the value in money; adding to it a fifth from the whole as the rabbins inform us. This tenth part was applied toward celebrating the festivals in the temple, which bore a near resemblance to the _agapæ_, or love feasts of the first Christians. Thus are those words of Deuteronomy understood by the rabbins: “Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year. And thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thy oil, and of the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks: that thou mayest learn to fear the Lord thy God always,” Deut. xiv, 22, 23. Tobit i, 6, says, that every three years he punctually paid his tithe to strangers and proselytes. This was probably because there were neither priests nor Levites in the city where he dwelt. Moses speaks of this last kind of tithe: “At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates. And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest,” Deut. xiv, 28; xxvi, 12. It is thought that this tithe was not different from the second kind before noticed, except that in the third year it was not brought to the temple, but was used upon the spot by every one in the city of his habitation. So, properly speaking, there were only two sorts of tithes, that which was given to the Levites and priests, and that which was applied to making feasts of charity, either in the temple of Jerusalem, or in other cities. Samuel tells the children of Israel, that the king they had a mind to have over them would “take the tenth of their seed, and of their vineyards, and give to his officers, and his servants. He will take the tenth of your sheep, and ye shall be his servants,” 1 Sam. viii, 15, 17. Yet it does not clearly appear from the history of the Jews, that they regularly paid any tithe to their princes. But the manner in which Samuel expresses himself, seems to insinuate that it was looked upon as a common right among the kings of the cast. At this day, the Jews no longer pay any tithe; at least they do not think themselves obliged to do it, except it be those who are settled in the territory of Jerusalem, and the ancient Judea. For there are few Jews now that have any lands of their own, or any flocks. They only give something for the redemption of the first-born, to those who have any proofs of their being descended from the race of the priests or Levites. However, we are assured, that such among the Jews as would be thought to be very strict and religious give the tenth part of their whole income to the poor.

TITUS. It is remarkable that Titus is not mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. The few particulars which are known of him, are collected from the epistles of St. Paul. We learn from them that he was a Greek, Gal. ii, 3; but it is not recorded to what city or country he belonged. From St. Paul’s calling him “his own son according to the common faith,” Titus i, 4, it is concluded that he was converted by him; but we have no account of the time or place of his conversion. He is first mentioned as going from Antioch to the council at Jerusalem, A. D. 49, Gal. ii, 1, &c; and upon that occasion St. Paul says that he would not allow him to be circumcised, because he was born of Gentile parents. He probably accompanied St. Paul in his second apostolical journey, and from that time he seems to have been constantly employed by him in the propagation of the Gospel; he calls him his partner and fellow-helper, 2 Cor. viii, 23. St. Paul sent him from Ephesus with his First Epistle to the Corinthians, and with a commission to inquire into the state of the church at Corinth; and he sent him thither again from Macedonia with his Second Epistle, and to forward the collections for the saints in Judea. From this time we hear nothing of Titus till he was left by St. Paul in Crete, after his first imprisonment at Rome, to “set in order the things that were wanting, and to ordain elders in every city,” Titus i, 5. It is probable that he went thence to join St. Paul at Nicopolis, Titus iii, 12; that they went together to Crete to visit the churches there, and thence to Rome. During St. Paul’s second imprisonment at Rome Titus went into Dalmatia, 2 Tim. iv, 10; and after the apostle’s death, he is said to have returned into Crete, and to have died there in the ninety-fourth year of his age: he is often called bishop of Crete by ecclesiastical writers. St. Paul always speaks of Titus in terms of high regard, and intrusted him, as we have seen, with commissions of great importance. It is by no means certain from what place St. Paul wrote this epistle; but as he desires Titus to come to him at Nicopolis, and declares his intention of passing the winter there, some have supposed that, when he wrote it he was in the neighbourhood of that city, either in Greece or Macedonia; others have imagined that he wrote it from Colosse, but it is difficult to say upon what ground. As it appears that St. Paul, not long before he wrote this epistle, had left Titus in Crete for the purpose of regulating the affairs of the church, and at the time he wrote it had determined to pass the approaching winter at Nicopolis, and as the Acts of the Apostles do not give any account of St. Paul’s preaching in that island, or of visiting that city, it is concluded that this epistle was written after his first imprisonment at Rome, and probably in A. D. 64. It may be considered as some confirmation of that opinion, that there is a great similarity between the sentiments and expressions of this epistle and of the First Epistle to Timothy, which was written in that year. It is not known at what time a Christian church was first planted in Crete; but as some Cretans were present at the first effusion of the Holy Ghost at Jerusalem, Acts ii, 11, it is not improbable that, upon their return home, they might be the means of introducing the Gospel among their countrymen. Crete is said to have abounded with Jews; and from the latter part of the first chapter of this epistle it appears that many of them were persons of very profligate lives, even after they had embraced the Gospel. The principal design of this epistle was to give instructions to Titus concerning the management of the churches in the different cities of the island of Crete, and it was probably intended to be read publicly to the Cretans, that they might know upon what authority Titus acted. St. Paul, after his usual salutation, intimates that he was appointed an apostle by the express command of God, and reminds Titus of the reason of his being left in Crete; he describes the qualifications necessary for bishops, and cautions him against persons of bad principles, especially Judaizing teachers, whom he directs Titus to reprove with severity; he informs him what instructions he should give to people in different situations of life, and exhorts him to be exemplary in his own conduct; he points out the pure and practical nature of the Gospel, and enumerates some particular virtues which he was to inculcate, avoiding foolish questions and frivolous disputes; he instructs him how he is to behave toward heretics and concludes with salutations.

TIZRI, or TISRI, the first Hebrew month of the civil year, and the seventh of the sacred year, answering to the moon of September. On the first day of this month was kept the feast of trumpets, because the beginning of the civil year was proclaimed with the sound of trumpets.

TOB, a country of Palestine, lying beyond Jordan, in the northern part of the portion of Manasseh. To this district Jephthah retired, when he was driven away by his brethren, Judges xi, 3, 5. It is also called Tobie, or Tubin, 1 Mac. v, 13; and the inhabitants of this canton were called Tubieni. It is supposed to be the same as Ishtob, one of the small principalities of Syria, which appears, like the other little kingdoms in its neighbourhood, to have been swallowed up in the kingdom of Damascus. This principality furnished twelve thousand men to the confederacy formed by the Syrians and Ammonites against David, 2 Sam. x.

TOBIAH, an Ammonite, an enemy to the Jews. He was one of those who strenuously opposed the rebuilding of the temple, after the return from the captivity of Babylon, Neh. ii, 10; iv, 3; v, 1, 12, 14. This Tobiah is called “the servant,” or “slave,” in some parts of Nehemiah; probably because he was of a servile condition. However, he was of great consideration in the land of the Samaritans, of which he was governor with Sanballat. This Tobiah married the daughter of Shechaniah, one of the principal Jews of Jerusalem, Neh. vi, 18, and had a powerful party in Jerusalem itself, who were opposed to that of Nehemiah. He maintained a correspondence by letter with this party against the interest of Nehemiah, vi, 17–19; but that prudent governor, by his wisdom and moderation, defeated all their machinations. After some time, Nehemiah was obliged to return to Babylon, subsequent to having repaired the walls of Jerusalem. Tobiah took this opportunity to come and dwell at Jerusalem; and even obtained of Eliashib, who had the care of the house of the Lord, to have an apartment in the temple. But at Nehemiah’s return from Babylon, some years after, he drove Tobiah out of the courts of the temple, and threw his goods out of the holy place, Neh. xiii, 4–8. From this time the Scripture makes no farther mention of Tobiah. It is probable he retired to Sanballat at Samaria.

TOGARMAH, the third son of Gomer, Gen. x, 4. The learned are divided as to what country he peopled. Josephus and St. Jerom were of opinion, that Togarmah was the father of the Phrygians: Eusebius, Theodoret, and Isidorus of Seville, that he peopled Armenia: the Chaldee and the Talmudists are for Germany. Several moderns believe that the children of Togarmah peopled Turcomania in Tartary and Scythia. Bochart is for Cappadocia: he builds upon what is said in Ezekiel xxvii, 14, “They of the house of Togarmah traded in thy fairs,” that is, at Tyre, “with horses and horsemen and mules.” He proves that Cappadocia was famous for its excellent horses and its asses. He observes also, that certain Gauls, under the conduct of Trocmus, made a settlement at Cappadocia, and were called Trocmi, or Throgmi. The opinion, says Calmet, which places Togarmah in Scythia and Turcomania, seems to stand upon the best foundation.

TOKENS, TESSERÆ, or TICKETS, were written testimonials to character, much in use in the primitive church. By means of letters, and of brethren who travelled about, even the most remote churches of the Roman empire were connected together. When a Christian arrived in a strange town, he first inquired for the church; and he was here received as a brother, and provided with every thing needful for his spiritual or corporeal sustenance. But since deceivers, spies with evil intentions, and false teachers abused the confidence and the kindness of Christians, some measure of precaution became necessary, in order to avert the many injuries which might result from this conduct. An arrangement was therefore introduced, that only such travelling Christians should be received as brethren into churches where they were strangers, as could produce a testimonial from the bishop of the church from which they came. They called these church letters, which were a kind of _tesseræ hospitales_, [tickets of hospitality,] by which the Christians of all quarters of the world were brought into connection, _epistolæ_, or _literæ_ _formatæ_, [formal letters,] γράμματα τετυπώμενα, because, in order to avoid forgery, they were made after a certain _schema_, (τυπὸς, _forma_,) or else, _epistolæ communicatoriæ_, [epistles of fellowship,] γράμματα κοινωνικά, because they contained a proof that those who brought them were in the communion of the church, as well as that the bishops, who mutually sent and received such letters, were in connection together by the communion of the church; and afterward these church letters, _epistolæ clericæ_, were divided into different classes, according to the difference of their purposes.

TONGUE. This word is taken in three different senses. 1. For the material tongue, or organ of speech, James iii, 5. 2. For the tongue or language that is spoken in any country, Deut. xxviii, 49. (See _Language_.) 3. For good or bad discourses, Prov. xii, 18; xvii, 20. Tongue of the sea signifies a gulf. To gnaw the tongue, Rev. xvi, 10, is a token of fury, despair, and torment. The gift of tongues was that which God granted to the apostles and disciples assembled at Jerusalem on the day of pentecost, Acts ii. The tongue of angels, a kind of hyperbole made use of by St. Paul, 1 Cor. xiii, 1.

TOOTH. It was ordered by the law of retaliation, that they should give tooth for tooth, Exod. xxi, 24. The opinion that it is every man’s right and duty to do himself justice, and to revenge his own injuries, is by no means eradicated from among the Afghans, a people of India, to the southward of Cashmere, and according to a paper in the Asiatic Researches, supposed to be descended from the Jews; and the right of society, even to restrain the reasonable passions of individuals, and to take the redress of wrongs and the punishment of crimes into its own hands, is still very imperfectly understood; or, if it is understood, is seldom present to the thoughts of the people; for although, in most parts of their country, justice might now be obtained by other means, and though private revenge is every where preached against by the _mollahs_, priests, and forbidden by the government, yet it is still lawful, and even honourable in the eyes of the people, to seek that mode of redress. The injured party is considered to be entitled to strict retaliation on the aggressor. If the offender be out of his power, he may wreak his vengeance on a relation, and, in some cases, on any man in the tribe. If no opportunity of exercising this right occurs, he may defer his revenge for years; but it is disgraceful to neglect or abandon it entirely; and it is incumbent on his relations, and sometimes on his tribe, to assist him in his retaliation. To gnash the teeth is a token of sorrow, rage, despair, Psalm xxxv, 16, &c. God breaks the teeth of the wicked, Psalm iii, 7. Cleanness of teeth denotes famine, Amos iv, 6. The wicked complain, that the “fathers have eaten sour grapes, and their children’s teeth are set on edge,” Ezek. xviii, 2, to signify, that the children have suffered for their transgressions.

TOPAZ, הטדה, Exod. xxviii, 17; xxxix, 10; Job xxviii, 19; Ezek. xxviii, 13; τοπάζιον, Rev. xxi, 20; a precious stone of a pale dead green, with a mixture of yellow; and sometimes of fine yellow, like gold. It is very hard, and takes a fine polish. We have the authority of the Septuagint and Josephus for ascertaining this stone. The oriental topazes are most esteemed. Those of Ethiopia were celebrated for their wonderful lustre, Job xxviii, 19.

TOPHET. It is thought that Tophet was the butchery, or place of slaughter, at Jerusalem, lying to the south of the city, in the valley of the children of Hinnom. It is also said, that a large fire was constantly kept there for burning carcasses, garbage, and other filth brought thither from the city. It was the place where they burned the remains of images and false gods, &c, Isa. xxx, 33. Others think the name Tophet was given to the valley of Hinnom, from the beating of drums, (the word toph signifying a drum,) which accompanied the sacrifices of infants that were offered there to the god Moloch. For the manner of performing those sacrifices in Tophet, see MOLOCH.

TOWER. “The tower of the flock,” or the tower of Ader, Micah iv, 8. It is said this tower was in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem, Gen. xxxv, 21, and that the shepherds, to whom the angel revealed the birth of our Saviour, were near to this tower, Luke ii, 8, 15. Many interpreters assert, that the passage of Micah, in which mention is made of the tower of the flock: “And thou tower of the flock, the strong hold of the daughter of Zion,” is to be understood of the city of Bethlehem, out of which our Saviour was to come. Others maintain, that the prophet speaks of the city of Jerusalem, in which there was a tower of this name, through which the flocks of sheep were driven to the sheep-market. “From the tower of the watchmen to the fenced city,” 2 Kings xvii, 9. This form of speaking expresses in general all the places of the country, from the least to the greatest. The towers of the watchmen, or of the shepherds, stood alone in the midst of the plain, in which the shepherds and herdsmen who looked after the flocks, or watchmen, might lodge. King Uzziah caused several towers to be built for the shepherds in the desert, and made many cisterns there, because he had a great number of flocks, 2 Chronicles xxvi, 10. The tower of the flock, and that which Isaiah, v, 2, notices, which was built in the midst of a vineyard, were of the same kind.

TOWER OF BABEL. See BABEL.

TOWER OF SHECHEM was a citadel, or fortress, standing upon a higher ground than the rest of the city, and capacious enough to contain above a thousand persons. This tower, filled with the inhabitants of Shechem, was burned by Abimelech down to the very ground, together with those who had taken refuge in it.

TRACHONITIS, Luke iii, 1. This province had Arabia Deserta to the east, Batanea to the west, Iturea to the south, and the country of Damascus to the north. It belonged rather to Arabia than Palestine; was a rocky province, and served as a shelter for thieves and depredators.

TRADITION. See CABBALA.

TRANSFIGURATION OF CHRIST. This event relates to a very remarkable occurrence in the history of our Lord’s life, which is recorded by three of the evangelists, Matthew xvii; Mark ix; Luke ix. The substance of what we learn from their accounts is, that upon a certain occasion Jesus took Peter, James, and John, into a high mountain apart from all other society, and that he was there transfigured before them; his face shining as the sun, and his raiment white as the light; that moreover there appeared unto them Moses and Elias, conversing with him; and that while they spake together on the subject of his death, which was soon afterward to take place at Jerusalem, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice out of the cloud proclaimed, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” The Apostle Peter, adverting to this memorable occurrence, says, “We have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount,” 2 Peter i, 16–18. This event is to be considered: 1. As a solemn confirmation of the prophetic office of Christ. 2. As designed to support the faith of the disciples, which was to be deeply tried by his approaching humiliations; and to afford consolation to the human nature of our Lord himself, by giving him a foretaste of “the joy set before him.” 3. As an emblem of humanity glorified at the resurrection. 4. As declaring Christ to be superior to Moses and Elias, the giver and the restorer of the law. 5. As an evidence to the disciples of the existence of a separate state, in which good men consciously enjoy the felicity of heaven. 6. As a proof that the bodies of good men shall be so refined and changed, as, like Elias, to live in a state of immortality, and in the presence of God. 7. As exhibiting the sympathy which exists between the church in heaven and the church on earth, and the instruction which the former receives from the events which take place in the latter:--Moses and Elias conversed with our Lord on his approaching death, doubtless to receive, not to convey information. 8. As maintaining the grand distinction, the infinite difference, between Christ and all other prophets: he is “THE SON.” “_This is my beloved Son, hear him._” It has been observed, with much truth, that the condition in which Jesus Christ appeared among men, humble, weak, poor, and despised, was a true and continual transfiguration; whereas, the transfiguration itself, in which he showed himself in the real splendour of his glory, was his true and natural condition.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION. The Lord’s Supper being observed in commemoration of the death of Christ, which was the sacrifice offered for the sins of men, the idea of a sacrifice was early conjoined with it; and finally, it came to be regarded not merely as the symbol of a sacrifice, but in some sense a sacrifice itself. There was also another cause which contributed to this belief. It was the anxious wish of some of the fathers to give to their religion a degree of splendour, which might make a powerful impression upon the senses. Under the Jewish economy, the numerous sacrifices that were offered, in a remarkable degree riveted the attention; and, with reference to this, it became customary to hold forth the Lord’s Supper as the great sacrifice in the Christian church. This mode of speaking quickly gained ground; it is often used by Cyprian, although he plainly understood it in a mystical sense; and the ordinance of the supper was not unfrequently styled the eucharistical sacrifice. It was very early the practice to hold up the elements, previous to their being distributed, to the view of the people, probably to excite in them more effectually devout and reverential feelings; and this laid the foundation for that adoration of them which was, at a subsequent period, as we shall soon find, extensively introduced.

For several ages, says Dr. Cook, the state of opinion respecting the sacramental elements was, that they were memorials of Christ’s death, but that, agreeably to his own declaration, his body and blood were, in some sense, present with them. The questions, however, what was the nature of that presence? and what were the physical consequences as to the bread and the wine? however much we may conceive these points to have been involved in the opinion actually held, or the language actually used, seem not to have been for a long period much agitated, or, at all events, not authoritatively decided, although the Roman Catholic writers gladly and triumphantly bring forward the expressions that were so often used from the earliest age, in support of the tenet which their church at length espoused. But it was not to be supposed that the curiosity of man would be permanently arrested at the threshold of this most mysterious inquiry; and accordingly a definite theory, with respect to it, was, in the ninth century, avowed, and zealously defended. Pascasius Radbert, a monk, and afterward abbot of Corbey in Picardy, published a treatise concerning the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, in which he did not hesitate to maintain the following most extraordinary positions: “That after the consecration of the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper, nothing remained of these symbols but the outward form or figure under which the body and blood of Christ were really and locally present; and that this body so present was the identical body that had been born of the Virgin Mary, had suffered on the cross, and had been raised from the dead.” The publication of notions so decidedly at war with all which human beings must credit, excited, as might have been expected, astonishment and indignation; and, accordingly, many writers exerted their talents against it. Among these was the celebrated Johannes Scotus, who laid the axe to the root of the tree, and, shaking off all that figurative language which had been so sadly abused, distinctly and powerfully stated, that the bread and wine used in the eucharist were the signs or symbols of the absent body and blood of Christ. The light of reason and truth was, however, too feeble to penetrate through the darkness which during this age was spread over the minds and understandings of men. No public declaration, indeed, as to the nature of the sacramental elements was made; and even the popes did not interpose their high and revered authority with regard to it; but there seems little doubt that the opinion of Pascasius was adopted by the greater part of the western church, although it is not likely that much deference was paid to his explanations of it. The question was again agitated, and attracted more notice than it had ever before done, in the course of the eleventh century. Several theologians, distinguished for the period at which they lived, shocked with the grossness and absurdity of the conversion which had been defended, strenuously opposed it. Among these Berenger holds the most conspicuous place, both on account of the zeal and ability which he displayed, and the cruel and unchristian manner in which he was resisted. About the commencement of the century, he began to inculcate that the bread and wine of the eucharist were not truly and actually, but only figuratively, and by similitude, the body and blood of Christ; and a doctrine so rational obtained many adherents in France, Italy, and England. He was, however, encountered by a host of opponents, numbers of whom possessed the highest situations in the church; and the church itself, either from having perceived that the doctrine which he laboured to confute was grateful to the people, or, what is more likely, tended to exalt the powers and to increase the influence and wealth of the priesthood, declared against him, various councils having been assembled, and having pronounced their solemn decrees in condemnation of what he taught. The councils did not rest their hope of overcoming Berenger upon the strength of the reasoning which they could urge against him: they took a much more summary method, and threatened to put him to death if he did not recant. At one synod held at Rome, under the immediate eye of the pope, the fathers of whom it consisted so successfully alarmed Berenger, that, not having sufficient vigour of mind to stand firm against their cruelty, he confessed that he had been in error, and subscribed the following declaration composed by one of the cardinals: “The bread and wine which are placed on the altar are, after consecration, not merely a sacrament, symbol, or figure, but even the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is handled by the hands of the priests, and broken and chewed by the teeth of the faithful.” He had no sooner escaped from the violence which he had dreaded, than he shrunk from the tenet to which he had been forced to give his assent, and he again avowed his original sentiments; but he was afterward turned aside from his integrity by the arts and the infamous persecution of new councils, although he died adhering to the spirituality of Christ’s presence in the eucharist. From this time the strange opinion of Pascasius rapidly gained ground, being supported by all the influence of popes and councils; but there had not yet been devised a term which clearly expressed what was really implied in that opinion. In the next century, the ingenuity of some theologian invented what was wanting; the change that takes place on the elements after consecration having been denominated by him transubstantiation. Still, however, some latitude was afforded to those who interpreted the epithet; but this in the thirteenth century was taken away, a celebrated council of the Lateran, attended by no fewer than four hundred and twelve bishops, and eight hundred abbots and priors, having, at the instigation of Innocent the Third, one of the most arrogant and presumptuous of the pontiffs, explicitly adopted transubstantiation as an article of faith, in the monstrous form in which it is now held in the popish church, and denounced anathemas against all who hesitated to give their assent. The opposition which after this was made to a doctrine so revolting to the senses and the reason, was very feeble, insomuch that it may, in consequence of the decree of the Lateran council, be considered as having become the established faith of the western church. In the Greek church it was long resisted, and, indeed, was not embraced till the seventeenth century, a time at which it might have been thought that it could not have extended the range of its influence.

After transubstantiation was thus sanctioned, a change necessarily took place with respect to various parts of the service used in administering the eucharist. That solemn service was now viewed as an actual sacrifice or offering of the body of Christ for the sins of men, and the elevation of the host was held forth as calling for the adoration and worship of believers; so that an ordinance mercifully designed to preserve the pure influence of the most spiritual and elevated religion, became the instrument, in the hands of ignorant or corrupt men, of introducing the most senseless and degrading idolatry. When the Reformation shook the influence of the church, and brought into exercise the intellectual faculties of man, the subject of the eucharist demanded and received the closest and most anxious attention. It might have been naturally supposed, that when Luther directed his vigorous mind to point out and to condemn the abuses which had been sanctioned in the popish church, he would not have spared a doctrine the most irrational and objectionable which that church avows, and that he would have vindicated the holy ordinance of the Lord’s Supper from the abomination with which it had been associated. He did, indeed, object to transubstantiation, but he did so with a degree of hesitation truly astonishing, although that hesitation was displayed by many of the first reformers. He declared that he saw no warrant for believing that the bread and wine were actually changed into the body and blood of Christ; but he adhered to the literal import of our Saviour’s words, teaching that his body and blood were received, and that they were in some incomprehensible manner conjoined or united with the bread and wine. It is quite evident, that although this system got rid of one difficulty by leaving the testimony of the senses as to the bread and wine unchallenged, yet it is just as incomprehensible as the other, assumes as a fact what the senses cannot discern, and involves in it difficulties equally repugnant to the plainest dictates of reason. Powerful accordingly as most deservedly was his ascendency, and great as was the veneration with which he was contemplated, he was upon this point happily opposed; his colleague, the celebrated Carlostadt, openly avowing, that when our Lord said of the bread, “This is my body,” he pointed to his own person, and thus taught that the bread was merely the sign or emblem of it. Luther warmly resisted this opinion; Carlostadt was obliged, surely in little consistency with the fundamental principle of Protestantism, in consequence of having professed it, to leave Wirtemberg; and although it procured some adherents, yet as it rested upon an assertion of which there could be no proof, it was never extensively disseminated, and was ultimately abandoned by Carlostadt himself. The discussion, however, which he had commenced stimulated others to the consideration of the subject, and led Zuinglius, who had previously often meditated upon it, and Œcolampadius, two of the most distinguished reformers, to submit to the public the doctrine, that the bread and wine are only symbols of Christ’s body and blood, but that the body of our Lord was in heaven, to which after his resurrection he had ascended. Luther composed several works to confute the opinions of Zuinglius. At the commencement of the controversy respecting the eucharist among the defenders of the Protestant faith, there seem to have been only two opinions, that of Luther, asserting that the body and blood of Christ were actually with the bread and wine, and that of Zuinglius, Œcolampadius, and Bucer, that the bread and wine were the emblems or signs of Christ’s body and blood, no other advantage being derived from partaking of them than the moral effect naturally resulting from the commemoration of an event so awful and so deeply interesting as the crucifixion of our Redeemer. Calvin soon published what may be regarded as a new view of the subject. Admitting the justness of the interpretation of our Lord’s words given by Zuinglius, he maintained that spiritual influence was conveyed to worthy partakers of the Lord’s Supper, insomuch that Christ may be said to be spiritually present with the outward elements. The sentiments of this most eminent theologian made a deep impression upon the public mind; and although the churches of Zurich and Berne long adhered to the creed of Zuinglius, yet, through the perseverance and dexterity of Calvin, the Swiss Protestant churches at length united with that of Geneva in assenting to the spiritual presence of Christ in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. In other countries, too, he saw many adhering to what he had taught, and carrying to as great length as it could be carried what, under his system, must be termed the allegorical language which he recommended. The French Protestants in their confession thus express themselves: “We affirm that the holy supper of our Lord is a witness to us of our union with the Lord Jesus Christ, because that he is not only once dead and raised up again from the dead for us, but also he doth indeed feed and nourish us with his flesh and blood. And although he be now in heaven, and shall remain there till he come to judge the world, yet we believe that, by the secret and incomprehensible virtue of his Spirit, he doth nourish and quicken us with the substance of his body and blood. But we say that this is done in a spiritual manner; nor do we hereby substitute in place of the effect and truth an idle fancy and conceit of our own; but rather, because this mystery of our union with Christ is so high a thing that it surmounteth all our senses, yea and the whole order of nature, and in short, because it is celestial, it cannot be comprehended but by faith.” Knox, who revered Calvin, carried into Scotland the opinions of that reformer; and in the original Scottish confessions, similar language, though somewhat more guarded than that which has been just quoted, is used: “We assuredly believe that in the supper rightly used, Christ Jesus is so joined with us, that he becometh the very nourishment and food of our souls. Not that we imagine any transubstantiation,--but this union and communion which we have with the body and blood of Christ Jesus in the right use of the sacrament, is wrought by the operation of the Holy Ghost, who by true faith carrieth us above all things that are visible, carnal, and earthly, and maketh us to feed upon the body and blood of Christ Jesus. We most assuredly believe that the bread which we break is the communion of Christ’s body, and the cup which we bless is the communion of his blood; so that we confess and undoubtedly believe, that the faithful in the right use of the Lord’s table so do eat the body and drink the blood of the Lord Jesus, that he remaineth in them and they in him; yea, that they are so made flesh of his flesh, and bones of his bones, that as the eternal Godhead hath given to the flesh of Christ Jesus life and immortality, so doth Christ Jesus’s flesh and blood, eaten and drunken by us, give to us the same prerogatives.” The church of Scotland, which did not long use this first confession, seems to have seen, in the course of the following century, the propriety, if not of relinquishing, yet of more cautiously employing the phraseology now brought into view; for in the Westminster confession, which is still the standard of faith in that church, there is unquestionably a great improvement in the style which has been adopted in treating of this subject. In it the compilers declare, that “the outward elements in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent; namely the body and blood of Christ, albeit in substance and nature they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.” Then after most powerfully exposing the absurdity of transubstantiation, representing it as repugnant not to Scripture alone, but to reason and common sense, they proceed: “Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine, yet as really but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.” The church of England was in its first reformation from popery inclined to adhere to the Lutherans; but in the time of Edward the Sixth, a more correct and Scriptural view seems to have been taken. In the thirty-nine articles, the present creed of the English church, it is said of this ordinance: “The supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ’s death; insomuch that, to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup is a partaking of the blood of Christ.” This strong language is, however, in the same article, so modified, as to show that all which was intended by it was to represent the spiritual influence conveyed through the Lord’s Supper; for it is taught, “that the body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner.” The idea of Zuinglius, that the Lord’s Supper is merely a commemoration of Christ’s death, naturally producing a moral effect upon the serious and considerate mind, has been held by members of both the established churches in Great Britain. It was vigorously defended, about the beginning of last century, by Bishop Hoadly, in a work which he entitled, “A plain Account of the Nature and Ends of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper;” and it has more recently been supported by Dr. Bell, in a treatise denominated “An Attempt to ascertain the Authority, Nature, and Design of the Lord’s Supper.” The ingenuity of particular individuals has been exerted in giving other peculiar illustrations of the subject. Cudworth and Bishop Warburton, for example, represented the sacrament of the supper under the view of a feast upon a sacrifice; but such speculations have not influenced the faith of any large denomination of Christians.

TRAVELLING. The mode in which the patriarchs performed their pastoral migrations will be illustrated, with several differences in circumstances, by the following extract from Parsons’ Travels: “It was entertaining enough to see the horde of Arabs decamp, as nothing could be more regular. First went the sheep and goat herds, each with their flocks in divisions, according as the chief of each family directed; then followed the camels and asses, loaded with the tents, furniture, and kitchen utensils; these were followed by the old men, women, boys, and girls, on foot. The children that cannot walk are carried on the backs of the young women, or the boys and girls; and the smallest of the lambs and kids are carried under the arms of the children. To each tent belong many dogs, among which are some greyhounds; some tents have from ten to fourteen dogs, and from twenty to thirty men, women, and children, belonging to it. The procession is closed by the chief of the tribe, whom they call emir and father, (emir means prince,) mounted on the very best horse, and surrounded by the heads of each family, all on horses, with many servants on foot. Between each family is a division or space of one hundred yards, or more, when they migrate; and such great regularity is observed, that neither camels, asses, sheep, nor dogs, mix, but each keeps to the division to which it belongs, without the least trouble. They had been here eight days, and were going four hours’ journey to the north-west, to another spring of water. This tribe consisted of about eight hundred and fifty men, women, and children. Their flocks of sheep and goats were about five thousand, beside a great number of camels, horses, and asses. Horses and greyhounds they breed and train up for sale: they neither kill nor sell their ewe lambs. At set times a chapter in the Koran is read by the chief of each family, either in or near each tent, the whole family being gathered round, and very attentive.” Instead of the Koran of modern times, let us conceive of Abraham, and other patriarchal emirs, collecting their numerous dependents and teaching them the true religion, and we then see with what truth they are called the Lord’s “prophets.”

TREASURE. The Hebrew word signifies any thing collected together, provisions, or magazines. So they say, a treasure of corn, of wine, of oil, of honey, Jer. xli, 8; treasures of gold, silver, brass, Ezek. xxviii, 4; Dan. xi, 43. Snow, winds, hail, rain, waters, are in the treasuries of God, Psalm cxxxv, 7; Jer. li, 16. The wise men opened their treasures, Matt. ii, 11, that is, their packets, or bundles, to offer presents to our Saviour. Joseph acquainted his brethren, when they found their money returned in their sacks, that God had given them treasures, Genesis xliii, 23. The treasures of the house of God, whether in silver, corn, wine, or oil, were under the care of the Levites. The kings of Judah had also keepers of the treasures both in city and country, 1 Chron. xxvii, 25; and the places where these magazines were laid up were called treasure cities. Pharaoh compelled the Hebrews to build him treasure cities, or magazines.

TREE is the first and largest of the vegetable kind, consisting of a single trunk, out of which spring forth branches and leaves. Heat is so essential to the growth of trees, that we see them grow larger and smaller in a sort of gradation as the climates in which they stand are more or less hot. The hottest countries yield, in general, the largest and tallest trees, and those, also, in much greater beauty and variety than the colder do; and even those plants which are common to both arrive at a much greater bulk in the southern than in the northern climates; nay, there are some regions so bleak and chill, that they raise no vegetables at all to any considerable height. Greenland, Iceland, and similar places, afford no trees at all; and the shrubs which grow in them are always little and low. In the warmer climates, where trees grow to a moderate size, any accidental diminution of the common heat is found very greatly to impede vegetation; and even in England the cold summers we sometimes have give us an evident proof of this in the scarcity of produce from all our large fruit trees. Heat, whatever be the producing cause, acts as well upon vegetation one way as another. Thus the heat of manure, and the artificial heat of coal fires in stoves, are found to supply the place of the sun. Great numbers of the eastern trees, in their native soil, flower twice in a year, and some flower and bear ripe fruit all the year round; and it is observed of these last, that they are at once the most frequent and the most useful to the inhabitants; their fruits, which always hang on them in readiness, containing cool juices, which are good in fevers, and other of the common diseases of hot countries. The umbrageous foliage, with which the God of providence has generally furnished all trees in warm climates, affords a most refreshing and grateful shade to those who seek relief from the direct and hurtful rays of a tropical sun.

The Land of Promise cannot boast, like many other countries, of extensive woods; but considerable thickets of trees and of reeds sometimes arise to diversify and adorn the scene. Between the Lake Samochonites and the sea of Tiberias, the river Jordan is almost concealed by shady trees from the view of the traveller. When the waters of the Jordan are low, the Lake Samochonites is only a marsh, for the most part dry and overgrown with shrubs and reeds. In these thickets, among other ferocious animals, the wild boar seeks a covert from the burning rays of the sun. Large herds of them are sometimes to be seen on the banks of the river, near the sea of Tiberias, lying among the reeds, or feeding under the trees. Such moist and shady places are in all countries the favourite haunts of these fierce and dangerous animals. Those marshy coverts are styled woods in the sacred Scriptures; for the wild boar of the wood is the name which that creature receives from the royal psalmist: “The boar out of the wood doth waste it; and the wild beast of the field doth devour it,” Psalm lxxx, 13. The wood of Ephraim, where the battle was fought between the forces of Absalom and the servants of David, was probably a place of the same kind; for the sacred historian observes, that the wood devoured more people that day than the sword, 2 Sam. xviii, 8. Some have supposed the meaning of this passage to be, that the soldiers of Absalom were destroyed by the wild beasts of the wood; but it can scarcely be supposed, that in the reign of David, when the Holy Land was crowded with inhabitants, the wild beasts could be so numerous in one of the woods as to cause such a destruction. But, supposing the wood of Ephraim to have been a morass covered with trees and bushes, like the haunts of the wild boar near the banks of Jordan, the difficulty is easily removed. It is certain that such a place has more than once proved fatal to contending armies, partly by suffocating those who in the hurry of flight inadvertently venture over places incapable of supporting them, and partly by retarding them till their pursuers come up and cut them to pieces. In this manner a greater number of men than fell in the heat of battle may be destroyed. It is probable, however, that nothing more is intended by the sacred historian, than the mention of a fact familiar to military men in all ages, and whatever kind of weapons were then employed in warfare,--that forests, especially such thick and impassable forests as are common in warm countries, constitute the very worst ground along which a discomfited army can be compelled to retreat. Their orderly ranks are broken; the direction which each warrior for his own safety must take is uncertain; and while one tumultuous mass is making a pass for itself through intervening brushwood and closely matted jungle, and another is hurrying along a different path and encountering similar or perhaps greater impediments, the cool and deliberate pursuers, whether archers or sharp shooters, enjoy an immense advantage in being able to choose their own points of annoyance, and by flank or cross attacks to kill their retreating foes, with scarcely any risk to themselves, but with immense carnage to the routed army.

Several critics imagine that by עץ חדר, rendered “goodly trees,” Lev. xxiii, 40, the citron tree is intended. עץ-עבת, rendered “thick trees” in the same verse, and in Neh. viii, 15; Ezek. xx, 28, is the myrtle, according to the rabbins, the Chaldee paraphrase, Syriac version, and Deodatus. The word אשל, translated “grove” in Gen. xxi, 33, has been variously translated. Parkhurst renders it an oak, and says, that from this word may be derived the name of the famous asylum, opened by Romulus between two groves of oak at Rome. On the other hand, Celsius, Michaēlis, and Dr. Geddes render it the tamarisk, which is a lofty and beautiful tree, and grows abundantly in Egypt and Arabia. The same word in 1 Sam. xxii, 6; xxxi, 13, is rendered “a tree.” It must be noted too, that in the first of these places, the common version is equally obscure and contradictory, by making _ramah_ a proper name: it signifies hillock or bank. Of the trees that produced precious balsams there was one in particular that long flourished in Judea, having been supposed to have been an object of great attention to Solomon, which was afterward transplanted to Matarea, in Egypt, where it continued till about two hundred and fifty years ago, according to Maillet, who gives a description of it, drawn, it is supposed, from the Arabian authors, in which he says, “This shrub had two very differently coloured barks, the one red, the other perfectly green; that they tasted strongly like incense and turpentine, and when bruised between the fingers they smelt very nearly like cardamoms. This balsam, which was extremely precious and celebrated, and was used by the Coptic church in their chrism, was produced by a very low shrub; and it is said, that all those shrubs that produced balsams are every where low, and do not exceed two or three cubits in height.”

Descriptions of the principal trees and shrubs mentioned in Holy Writ the reader will find noticed in distinct articles under their several denominations.

TRIBE. Jacob having twelve sons, who were the heads of so many great families, which altogether formed a great nation; every one of these families was called a tribe. But Jacob on his death bed adopted Ephraim and Manasseh, the sons of Joseph, and would have them also to constitute two tribes of Israel, Gen. xlviii, 5. Instead of twelve tribes, there were now thirteen, that of Joseph being divided into two. However, in the distribution of lands to each which Joshua made by the order of God, they counted but twelve tribes, and made but twelve lots. For the tribe of Levi, which was appointed to the service of the tabernacle of the Lord, had no share in the distribution of the land, but only some cities in which to dwell, and the first fruits, tithes, and oblations of the people, which was all their subsistence. The twelve tribes continued united under one head, making but one state, one people, and one monarchy, till after the death of Solomon. Then ten of the tribes of Israel revolted from the house of David, and received for their king Jeroboam, the son of Nebat; and only the tribes of Judah and Benjamin continued under the government of Rehoboam. This separation may be looked upon as the chief cause of those great misfortunes that afterward happened to those two kingdoms, and to the whole Hebrew nation. For, first, it was the cause of the alteration and change of the old religion, and of the ancient worship of their forefathers. Jeroboam the son of Nebat substituted the worship of golden calves for the worship of the true God; which was the occasion of the ten tribes forsaking the temple of the Lord. Secondly, this schism caused an irreconcilable hatred between the ten tribes, and those of Judah and Benjamin, and created numerous wars and disputes between them. The Lord, being provoked, delivered them up to their enemies. Tiglath-Pileser first took away captive the tribes of Reuben, Gad, Naphtali, and the half tribe of Manasseh, which were beyond Jordan, and carried them beyond the Euphrates, 2 Kings xv, 29; 1 Chron. v, 26; A. M. 3264. Some years after, Shalmaneser king of Assyria took the city of Samaria, destroyed it, took away the rest of the inhabitants of Israel, carried them beyond the Euphrates, and sent other inhabitants into the country to cultivate and possess it, 2 Kings xvii, 6; xviii, 10, 11. Thus ended the kingdom of the ten tribes of Israel, A. M. 3283. As to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, who remained under the government of the kings of the family of David, they continued a much longer time in their own country. But at last, after they had filled up the measure of their iniquity, God delivered them all into the hands of their enemies. Nebuchadnezzar took the city of Jerusalem, entirely ruined it, and took away all the inhabitants of Judah and Benjamin to Babylon, and the other provinces of his empire, A. M. 3416. The return from this captivity is stated in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. See JEWS.

TRIBUTE. The Hebrews acknowledged none for sovereign over them but God alone; whence Josephus calls their government a theocracy, or divine government. They acknowledged the sovereign dominion of God by a tribute, or capitation tax, of half a shekel a head, which every Israelite paid yearly, Exod. xxx, 13. Our Saviour, in the Gospel, thus reasons with St. Peter: “What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?” Matt. xvii, 25, meaning, that as he was the Son of God, he ought to be exempt from this capitation tax. We do not find that either the kings or the judges of the Hebrews, when they were themselves Jews, demanded any tribute of them. Solomon, at the beginning of his reign, 1 Kings xi, 22, 33; 2 Chron. viii, 9, compelled the Canaanites, who were left in the country, to pay him tribute, and to perform the drudgery of the public works he had undertaken. As to the children of Israel, he would not suffer one of them to be employed upon them, but made them his soldiers, ministers, and chief officers, to command his armies, his chariots, and his horsemen. Yet, afterward, toward the end of his reign, he imposed a tribute upon them, and made them work at the public buildings, 1 Kings v, 13, 14; ix, 15; xi, 27; which much alienated their minds from him, and sowed the seeds of that discontent which afterward appeared in an open revolt, by the rebellion of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat; who was at first indeed obliged to take shelter in Egypt. But afterward the defection became general, by the total revolt of the ten tribes. Hence it was, that the Israelites said to Rehoboam the son of Solomon, “Thy father made our yoke grievous; now therefore, make thou the grievous service of thy father, and the heavy yoke which he put upon us, lighter, and we will serve thee,” 1 Kings xii, 4. It is needless to observe, that the Israelites were frequently subdued by foreign princes, who laid great taxes and tribute upon them, to which fear and necessity compelled them to submit. Yet in the latter times, that is, after Archelaus had been banished to Vienne in France, in the sixth year of the vulgar era, and after Judea was reduced to a province, Augustus sent Quirinius into this country to take a new poll of the people, and to make a new estimate of their substance, that he might thereby regulate the tribute that every one was to pay to the Romans. Then Judas, surnamed the Galilean, formed a sedition, and made an insurrection, to oppose the levying of this tribute. See in St. Matthew xxii, 16, 17, &c, the answer that Jesus Christ returned to the Pharisee, who came with an insidious design of tempting him, and asked him, whether or not it was lawful to pay tribute to Cæsar? and in John viii, 33, where the Jews boast of having never been slaves to any body, of being a free nation, that acknowledged God only for master and sovereign.

TRINITY. That nearly all the Pagan nations of antiquity, says Bishop Tomline, in their various theological systems, acknowledged a kind of Trinity, has been fully evinced by those learned men who have made the Heathen mythology the subject of their elaborate inquiries. The almost universal prevalence of this doctrine in the Gentile kingdoms must be considered as a strong argument in favour of its truth. The doctrine itself bears such striking internal marks of a divine original, and is so very unlikely to have been the invention of mere human reason, that there is no way of accounting for the general adoption of so singular a belief, but by supposing that it was revealed by God to the early patriarchs, and that it was transmitted by them to their posterity. In its progress, indeed, to remote countries, and to distant generations, this belief became depraved and corrupted in the highest degree; and he alone who brought “life and immortality to light,” could restore it to its original simplicity and purity. The discovery of the existence of this doctrine in the early ages, among the nations whose records have been the best preserved, has been of great service to the cause of Christianity, and completely refutes the assertion of infidels and skeptics, that the sublime and mysterious doctrine of the Trinity owes its origin to the philosophers of Greece. “If we extend,” says Mr. Maurice, “our eye through the remote region of antiquity, we shall find this very doctrine, which the primitive Christians are said to have borrowed from the Platonic school, universally and immemorially flourishing in all those countries where history and tradition have united to fix those virtuous ancestors of the human race, who, for their distinguished attainments in piety, were admitted to a familiar intercourse with Jehovah and the angels, the divine heralds of his commands.” The same learned author justly considers the first two verses of the Old Testament as containing very strong, if not decisive, evidence in support of the truth of this doctrine: Elohim, a noun substantive of the plural number, by which the Creator is expressed, appears as evidently to point toward a plurality of persons in the divine nature, as the verb in the singular, with which it is joined, does to the unity of that nature: “In the beginning God created;” with strict attention to grammatical propriety, the passage should be rendered, “In the beginning Gods created,” but our belief in the unity of God forbids us thus to translate the word Elohim. Since, therefore, Elohim is plural, and no plural can consist of less than two in number, and since creation can alone be the work of Deity, we are to understand by this term so particularly used in this place, God the Father, and the eternal Logos, or Word of God; that Logos whom St. John, supplying us with an excellent comment upon this passage, says, was in the beginning with God, and who also was God. As the Father and the Son are expressly pointed out in the first verse of this chapter, so is the Third Person in the blessed Trinity not less decisively revealed to us in Gen. i, 2: “And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters:” “brooded upon” the water, _incubavit_, as a hen broods over her eggs. Thus we see the Spirit exerted upon this occasion an active effectual energy, by that energy agitating the vast abyss, and infusing into it a powerful vital principle.

Elohim seems to be the general appellation by which the Triune Godhead is collectively distinguished in Scripture; and in the concise history of the creation only, the expression, _bara Elohim_, “the Gods created,” is used above thirty times. The combining this plural noun with a verb in the singular would not appear so remarkable, if Moses had uniformly adhered to that mode of expression; for then it would be evident that he adopted the mode used by the Gentiles in speaking of their false gods in the plural number, but by joining with it a singular verb or adjective, rectified a phrase that might appear to give a direct sanction to the error of polytheism. But, in reality, the reverse is the fact; for in Deut. xxxii, 15, 17, and other places, he uses the singular number of this very noun to express the Deity, though not employed in the august work of creation: “He forsook God,” _Eloah_; “they sacrificed to devils not to God,” _Eloah_. But farther, Moses himself uses this very word Elohim with verbs and adjectives in the plural. Of this usage Dr. Allix enumerates many other striking instances that might be brought from the Pentateuch; and other inspired writers use it in the same manner in various parts of the Old Testament, Job xxxv, 10; Joshua xxiv, 19; Psalm cix, 1; Ecclesiastes xii, 3; 2 Samuel vii, 23. It must appear, therefore, to every reader of reflection, exceedingly singular, that when Moses was endeavouring to establish a theological system, of which the unity of the Godhead was the leading principle, and in which it differed from all other systems, he should make use of terms directly implicative of a plurality in it; yet so deeply was the awful truth under consideration impressed upon the mind of the Hebrew legislator, that this is constantly done by him; and, indeed, as Allix has observed, there is scarcely any method of speaking from which a plurality in Deity may be inferred, that is not used either by himself in the Pentateuch, or by the other inspired writers in various parts of the Old Testament. A plural is joined with a verb singular, as in the passage cited before from Genesis i, 1; a plural is joined with a verb plural, as in Gen. xxxv, 7, “And Jacob called the name of the place El-beth-el, because the Gods there appeared to him;” a plural is joined with an adjective plural, Joshua xxiv, 19, “You cannot serve the Lord; for he is the holy Gods.” To these passages, if we add that remarkable one from Ecclesiastes, “Remember thy Creators in the days of thy youth,” and the predominant use of the terms, Jehovah Elohim, or, the “Lord thy Gods,” which occur a hundred times in the law, (the word Jehovah implying the unity of the essence, and Elohim a plurality in that unity,) we must allow that nothing can be more plainly marked than this doctrine in the ancient Scriptures.

Though the august name of Jehovah in a more peculiar manner belongs to God the Father, yet is that name, in various parts of Scripture, applied to each person in the holy Trinity. The Hebrews considered that name in so sacred a light, that they never pronounced it, and used the word Adonai instead of it. It was, indeed, a name that ranked first among their profoundest cabala; a mystery, sublime, ineffable, incommunicable. It was called tetragrammaton, or the name of four letters, and these letters are _jod_, _he_, _vau_, _he_, the proper pronunciation of which, from long disuse, is said to be no longer known to the Jews themselves. This awful name was first revealed by God to Moses from the centre of the burning bush; and Josephus, who, as well as Scripture, relates this circumstance, evinces his veneration for it, by calling it the name which his religion did not permit him to mention. From this word the Pagan title of Iao and Jove is, with the greatest probability, supposed to have been originally formed; and in the Golden Verses of Pythagoras, there is an oath still extant to this purpose, “By Him who has the four letters.” As the name Jehovah, however, in some instances applied to the Son and the Holy Spirit, was the proper name of God the Father, so is Logos in as peculiar a manner the appropriated name of God the Son. The Chaldee Paraphrasts translate the original Hebrew text by _Mimra da Jehovah_, literally, “the Word of Jehovah,” a term totally different, as Bishop Kidder has incontestably proved, in its signification, and in its general application among the Jews, from the Hebrew _dabar_, which simply means a discourse or decree, and is properly rendered by _pithgam_. In the Septuagint translation of the Bible, a work supposed by the Jews to have been undertaken by men immediately inspired from above, the former term is universally rendered Λόγος, and it is so rendered and so understood by Philo and all the more ancient rabbins. The name of the third person in the ever blessed Trinity has descended unaltered from the days of Moses to our own time; for, as well in the sacred writings as by the Targumists, and by the modern doctors of the Jewish church, he is styled Ruach Hakhodesh, the Holy Spirit. He is sometimes, however, in the rabbinical books, denominated by Shechinah, or glory of Jehovah; in some places he is called Sephirah, or Wisdom; and in others the Binah, or Understanding. From the enumeration of these circumstances, it must be sufficiently evident to the mind which unites piety and reflection, that so far from being silent upon the subject, the ancient Scriptures commence with an avowal of this doctrine, and that, in fact, the creation was the result of the joint operations of the Trinity.

If the argument above offered should still appear inconclusive, the twenty-sixth verse of the first chapter of Genesis contains so pointed an attestation to the truth of it, that, when duly considered, it must stagger the most hardened skeptic; for in that text not only the plurality is unequivocally expressed, but the act which is the peculiar prerogative of Deity is mentioned together with that plurality, the one circumstance illustrating the other, and both being highly elucidatory of this doctrine: “And God (Elohim) said, Let _us_ make man in our image, after our likeness.” Why the Deity should speak of himself in the plural number, unless that Deity consisted of more than one person, it is difficult to conceive; for the answer given by the modern Jews, that this is only a figurative mode of expression, implying the high dignity of the speaker, and that it is usual for earthly sovereigns to use this language by way of distinction, is futile, for two reasons. In the first place it is highly degrading to the Supreme Majesty to suppose he would take his model of speaking and thinking from man, though it is highly consistent with the vanity of man to arrogate to himself, as doubtless was the case in the licentiousness of succeeding ages, the style and imagined conceptions of Deity; and it will be remembered, that these solemn words were spoken before the creation of any of those mortals, whose false notions of greatness and sublimity the Almighty is thus impiously supposed to adopt. In truth, there does not seem to be any real dignity in an expression, which, when used by a human sovereign in relation to himself, approaches very near to absurdity. The genuine fact, however, appears to be this. When the tyrants of the east first began to assume divine honours, they assumed likewise the majestic language appropriated to, and highly becoming, the Deity, but totally inapplicable to man. The error was propagated from age to age through a long succession of despots, and at length Judaic apostasy arrived at such a pitch of profane absurdity, as to affirm that very phraseology to be borrowed from man which was the original and peculiar language of the Divinity. It was, indeed, remarkably pertinent when applied to Deity; for, in a succeeding chapter, we have more decisive authority for what is thus asserted, where the Lord God himself says, “Behold, the man is become as one of us;” a very singular expression, which some Jewish commentators, with equal effrontery, contend was spoken by the Deity to the council of angels, that, according to their assertions, attended him at the creation. From the name of the Lord God being used in so emphatical a manner, it evidently appears to be addressed to those sacred persons to whom it was before said, “Let us make man;” for would indeed the omnipotent Jehovah, presiding in a less dignified council, use words that have such an evident tendency to place the Deity on a level with created beings?

The first passage to be adduced from the New Testament in proof of this important doctrine of the Trinity, is, the charge and commission which our Saviour gave to his apostles, to “go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” Matt. xxviii, 19. The Gospel is every where in Scripture represented as a covenant or conditional offer of eternal salvation from God to man; and baptism was the appointed ordinance by which men were to be admitted into that covenant, by which that offer was made and accepted. This covenant being to be made with God himself, the ordinance must of course be performed in his name; but Christ directed that it should be performed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and therefore we conclude that God is the same as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Since baptism is to be performed in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, they must be all three persons; and since no superiority or difference whatever is mentioned in this solemn form of baptism, we conclude that these three persons are all of one substance, power, and eternity. Are we to be baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and is it possible that the Father should be self-existent, eternal, the Lord God Omnipotent; and that the Son, in whose name we are equally baptized, should be a mere man, born of a woman, and subject to all the frailties and imperfections of human nature? or, is it possible that the Holy Ghost, in whose name also we are equally baptized, should be a bare energy or operation, a quality or power, without even personal existence? Our feelings, as well as our reason, revolt from the idea of such disparity.

This argument will derive great strength from the practice of the early ages, and from the observations which we meet with in several of the ancient fathers relative to it. We learn from Ambrose, that persons at the time of their baptism, declared their belief in the three persons of the Holy Trinity, and that they were dipped in the water three times. In his Treatise upon the Sacraments he says, “Thou wast asked at thy baptism, Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty? and thou didst reply, I believe, and thou wast dipped; and a second time thou wast asked, Dost thou believe in Jesus Christ the Lord? thou didst answer again, I believe, and thou wast dipped; a third time the question was repeated, Dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost? and the answer was, I believe, then thou wast dipped a third time.” It is to be noticed, that the belief, here expressed separately, in the three persons of the Trinity, is precisely the same in all. Tertullian, Basil, and Jerom, all mention this practice of trine immersion as ancient; and Jerom says, “We are thrice dipped in the water, that the mystery of the Trinity may appear to be but one. We are not baptized in the names of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but in one name, which is God’s; and, therefore, though we be thrice put under water to represent the mystery of the Trinity, yet it is reputed but one baptism.” Thus the mysterious union of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as one God, was, in the opinion of the purer ages of the Christian church, clearly expressed in this form of baptism. By it the primitive Christians understood the Father’s gracious acceptance of the atonement offered by the Messiah; the peculiar protection of the Son, our great High Priest and Intercessor; and the readiness of the Holy Ghost to sanctify, to assist, and to comfort all the obedient followers of Christ, confirmed by the visible gift of tongues, of prophecy, and divers other gifts to the first disciples. And as their great Master’s instructions evidently distinguished these persons from each other, without any difference in their authority or power, all standing forth as equally dispensing the benefits of Christianity, as equally the objects of the faith required in converts upon admission into the church, they clearly understood that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, were likewise equally the objects of their grateful worship: this fully appears from their prayers, doxologies, hymns, and creeds, which are still extant.

The second passage to be produced in support of the doctrine now under consideration, is, the doxology at the conclusion of St. Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with you.” The manner in which Christ and the Holy Ghost are here mentioned, implies that they are persons, for none but persons can confer grace or fellowship; and these three great blessings of grace, love, and fellowship, being respectively prayed for by the inspired apostle from Jesus Christ, God the Father, and the Holy Ghost, without any intimation of disparity, we conclude that these three persons are equal and Divine. This solemn benediction may therefore be considered as another proof of the Trinity, since it acknowledges the divinity of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Ghost. The third passage is the following salutation or benediction in the beginning of the Revelation of St. John: “Grace and peace from Him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven spirits which are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ.” Here the Father is described by a periphrasis taken from his attribute of eternity; and “the seven spirits” is a mystical expression for the Holy Ghost, used upon this occasion either because the salutation is addressed to seven churches, every one of which had partaken of the Spirit, or because seven was a sacred number among the Jews, denoting both variety and perfection, and in this case alluding to the various gifts, administrations, and operations of the Holy Ghost. Since grace and peace are prayed for from these three persons jointly and without discrimination, we infer an equality in their power to dispense those blessings; and we farther conclude that these three persons together constitute the Supreme Being, who is alone the object of prayer, and is alone the Giver of every good and of every perfect gift. It might be right to remark, that the seven spirits cannot mean angels, since prayers are never in Scripture addressed to angels, nor are blessings ever pronounced in their name. It is unnecessary to quote any of the numerous passages in which the Father is singly called God, as some of them must be recollected by every one, and the divinity of the Father is not called in question by any sect of Christians; and those passages which prove the divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost separately, will be more properly considered under those heads. In the mean time we may observe, that if it shall appear from Scripture, that Christ is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, it will follow, since we are assured that there is but one God, that the three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, by a mysterious union, constitute the one God, or, as it is expressed in the first article of the church of England: “There is a Trinity in Unity; and in the unity of this Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.”

The word Trinity does not occur in Scripture, nor do we find it in any of the early confessions of faith; but this is no argument against the doctrine itself, since we learn from the fathers of the first three centuries, that the divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost was, from the days of the Apostles, acknowledged by the catholic church, and that those who maintained a contrary opinion were considered as heretics; and as every one knows that neither the divinity of the Father, nor the unity of the Godhead, was ever called in question at any period, it follows that the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity has been in substance, in all its constituent parts, always known among Christians. In the fourth century it became the subject of eager and general controversy; and it was not till then that this doctrine was particularly discussed. While there was no denial or dispute, proof and defence were unnecessary: _Nunquid enim perfecté de Trinitate tractatum est, antequam oblatrarent Ariani?_ But this doctrine is positively mentioned as being admitted among catholic Christians, by writers who lived long before that age of controversy. Justin Martyr, in refuting the charge of atheism urged against Christians, because they did not believe in the gods of the Heathen, expressly says, “We worship and adore the Father, and the Son who came from him and taught us these things, and the prophetic Spirit;” and soon after, in the same apology, he undertakes to show the reasonableness of the honour paid by Christians to the Father in the first place, to the Son in the second, and to the Holy Ghost in the third; and says, that their assigning the second place to a crucified man, was, by unbelievers, denominated madness, because they were ignorant of the mystery, which he then proceeds to explain. Athenagoras, in replying to the same charge of atheism urged against Christians, because they refused to worship the false gods of the Heathen, says, “Who would not wonder, when he knows that we, who call upon God the Father, and God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, showing their power in the unity, and their distinction in order, should be called atheists?” Clement of Alexandria not only mentions three divine persons, but invokes them as one only God. Praxeas, Sabellius, and other Unitarians, accused the orthodox Christians of tritheism, which is of itself a clear proof that the orthodox worshipped the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and though in reality they considered these three persons as constituting the one true God, it is obvious that their enemies might easily represent that worship as an acknowledgment of three Gods. Tertullian, in writing against Praxeas, maintains, that a Trinity rationally conceived is consistent with truth, and that unity irrationally conceived forms heresy. He had before said, in speaking of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, that “there are three of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, because there is one God:” and he afterward adds, “The connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Comforter, makes three united together, the one with the other; which three are one thing, not one person; as it is said, I and the Father are one thing, with regard to the unity of substance, not to the singularity of number:” and he also expressly says, “The Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God;” and again, “The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, believed to be three, constitute one God.” And in another part of his works he says, “There is a Trinity of one Divinity, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” And Tertullian not only maintains these doctrines, but asserts that they were prior to any heresy, and had, indeed, been the faith of Christians from the first promulgation of the Gospel. To these writers of the second century, we may add Origen and Cyprian in the third; the former of whom mentions baptism (alluding to its appointed form) as “the source and fountain of graces to him who dedicates himself to the divinity of the adorable Trinity.” And the latter, after reciting the same form of baptism, says that “by it Christ delivered the doctrine of the Trinity, unto which mystery or sacrament the nations were to be baptized.” It would be easy to multiply quotations upon this subject; but these are amply sufficient to show the opinions of the early fathers, and to refute the assertion that the doctrine of the Trinity was an invention of the fourth century. To these positive testimonies may be subjoined a negative argument: those who acknowledged the divinity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost, are never called heretics by any writer of the first three centuries; and this circumstance is surely a strong proof that the doctrine of the Trinity was the doctrine of the primitive church; more especially, since the names of those who first denied the divinity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost, are transmitted to us as of persons who dissented from the common faith of Christians.

But while we contend that the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity is founded in Scripture, and supported by the authority of the early Christians, we must acknowledge that it is not given to man to understand in what manner the three persons are united, or how, separately and jointly, they are God. It would, perhaps, have been well, if divines, in treating this awful and mysterious subject, had confined themselves to the expressions of Scripture; for the moment we begin to explain it beyond the written word of God, we plunge ourselves into inextricable difficulties. And how can it be otherwise? Is it to be expected that our finite understandings should be competent to the full comprehension of the nature and properties of an infinite Being? “Can we find out the Almighty to perfection,” Job xi, 7; or penetrate into the essence of the Most High? “God is a Spirit,” John iv, 24, and our gross conceptions are but ill-adapted to the contemplation of a pure and spiritual Being. We know not the essence of our own mind, nor the precise distinction of its several faculties; and why then should we hope to comprehend the personal characters which exist in the Godhead? “If I tell you earthly things, and you understand them not, how shall ye understand if I tell you heavenly things?” When we attempt to investigate the nature of the Deity, whose existence is commensurate with eternity, by whose power the universe was created, and by whose wisdom it is governed; whose presence fills all space, and whose knowledge extends to the thoughts of every man in every age, and to the events of all places, past, present, and to come, the mind is quickly lost in the vastness of these ideas, and, unable to find any sure guide to direct its progress, it becomes, at every step, more bewildered and entangled in the endless mazes of metaphysical abstraction. “God is a God that hideth himself.” “We cannot by searching find out God.” “Behold, God is great, and we know him not,” Job xxiii, 9; xi, 7; xxxvi, 26. “Such knowledge is too wonderful and excellent for us; it is high; we cannot attain unto it,” Psalm cxxxix, 6. It is for us, simply and in that docile spirit which becomes us, to receive the testimony of God as to himself, and to fix ourselves upon that firmest of all foundations, and most rational of all evidence, “Thus saith the Lord.”

TRIUMPHS, MILITARY. The Hebrews, under the direction of inspired prophets, celebrated their victories by triumphal processions, the women and children dancing, and playing upon musical instruments, and singing hymns and songs of triumph to the living and true God. The song of Moses at the Red Sea, which was sung by Miriam and the women of Israel to the dulcet beat of the timbrel, is a majestic example of the triumphal hymns of the ancient Hebrews. The song of Deborah and Barak, after the decisive battle in which Sisera lost his life, and Jabin his dominion over the tribes of Israel, is a production of the same sort, in which the spirit of genuine heroism and of true religion are admirably combined. But the song which the women of Israel chanted when they went out to meet Saul and his victorious army, after the death of Goliath, and the discomfiture of the Philistines, possesses somewhat of a different character, turning chiefly on the valorous exploits of Saul and the youthful champion of Israel: “And it came to pass, as they came, when David was returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, that the women came out of all the cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet King Saul with tabrets, with joy, and with instruments of music: and the women answered one another as they played, and said, Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands,” 1 Sam. xviii, 6, 7. But the most remarkable festivity, perhaps, on the records of history, was celebrated by Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, in a succeeding age. When that religious prince led forth his army to battle against a powerful confederacy of his neighbours, he appointed a band of sacred music to march in front, praising the beauty of holiness as they went before the army, “and to say, Praise the Lord, for his mercy endureth for ever.” After the discomfiture of their enemies, he assembled his army in the valley of Beracha, near the scene of victory, where they resumed the anthem of religious praise: “Then they returned, every man of Judah and Jerusalem, and Jehoshaphat in the fore front of them, to go again to Jerusalem with joy; for the Lord had made them to rejoice over their enemies. And they came to Jerusalem with psalteries, and harps, and trumpets, unto the house of the Lord,” 2 Chron. xx, 21, 27. Instead of celebrating his own heroism, or the valour of his troops, on this memorable occasion, that excellent prince sung with his whole army the praises of the Lord of hosts, who disposes of the victory according to his pleasure. This conduct was becoming the descendant and successor of David, the man according to God’s own heart, and a religious people, the peculiar inheritance of Jehovah.

The Roman conquerors used to carry branches of palm in their hands when they went in triumph to the capitol; and sometimes wore the _toga palmata_, a garment with the figures of palm trees upon it, which were interwoven in the fabric. In the same triumphant attitude, the Apostle John beheld in vision those who had overcome by the blood of the lamb, standing “before the throne, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands,” Rev. vii, 9. The highest military honour which could be obtained in the Roman state, was a triumph, or solemn procession, in which a victorious general and his army advanced through the city to the capitol. He set out from the Campus Martius, and proceeded along the Via Triumphalis, and from thence through the most public places of the city. The streets were strewed with flowers, and the altars smoked with incense. First went a numerous band of music, singing and playing triumphal songs; next were led the oxen to be sacrificed, having their horns gilt, and their heads adorned with fillets and garlands; then, in carriages, were brought the spoils taken from the enemy; also golden crowns sent by the allied and tributary states. The titles of the vanquished nations were inscribed on wooden frames; and images or representations of the conquered countries and cities were exhibited. The captive leaders followed in chains, with their children and attendants; after the captives came the lictors, having their faces wreathed with laurel, followed by a great company of musicians and dancers, dressed like satyrs, and wearing crowns of gold; in the midst of whom was a pantomime, clothed in a female garb, whose business it was, with his looks and gestures, to insult the vanquished; a long train of persons followed, carrying perfumes; after them came the general, dressed in purple, embroidered with gold, with a crown of laurel on his head, a branch of laurel in his right hand, and in his left an ivory sceptre, with an eagle on the top, his face painted with vermilion, and a golden ball hanging from his neck on his breast; he stood upright in a gilded chariot, adorned with ivory, and drawn by four white horses, attended by his relations, and a great crowd of citizens, all in white. His children rode in the chariot along with him; his lieutenants and military tribunes, commonly by his side. After the general followed the consuls and senators, on foot; and the whole procession was closed by the victorious army drawn up in order, crowned with laurel, and decorated with the gifts which they had received for their valour, singing their own and their general’s praises. The triumphal procession was not confined to the Romans; the Greeks had a similar custom; for the conquerors used to make a procession through the middle of their city, crowned with garlands, repeating hymns and songs, and brandishing their spears; the captives followed in chains, and all their spoils were exposed to public view.

The great Apostle of the Gentiles alludes to these splendid triumphal scenes in his Epistle to the Ephesians, where he mentions the glorious ascension of his Redeemer into heaven: “When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men,” Eph. iv, 8. These words are a quotation from the sixty-eighth Psalm, where David in spirit describes the ascension of Messiah in very glowing colours: “The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels: the Lord is among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place. Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive,” or an immense number of captives; “thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also; that the Lord God might dwell among them. Blessed be the Lord, who daily loadeth us with his benefits, even the God of our salvation. Selah,” Psalm lxviii, 17–19. Knowing the deep impression which such an allusion is calculated to make on the mind of a people familiarly acquainted with triumphal scenes, the Apostle returns to it in his Epistle to the Colossians, which was written about the same time: “Having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it,” Col. ii, 15. After obtaining a complete victory over all his enemies, he ascended in splendour and triumph into his Father’s presence on the clouds of heaven, the chariots of the Most High, thousands of holy angels attending in his train; he led the devil and all his angels, together with sin, the world, and death, as his spoils of war, and captives in chains, and exposed them to open contempt and shame, in the view of all his angelic attendants, triumphing like a glorious conqueror over them, in virtue of his cross, upon which he made complete satisfaction for sin, and by his own strength, without the assistance of any creature, destroyed him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. And as mighty princes were accustomed to scatter largesses among the people, and reward their companions in arms with a liberal hand, when, laden with the spoils of vanquished nations, they returned in triumph to their capital; so the Conqueror of death and hell, when he ascended far above all heavens, and sat down in the midst of the throne, shed forth blessings of his grace and Holy Spirit, upon people of every tongue and of every nation.

The officers and soldiers, also, were rewarded according to their merit. Among the Romans, the noblest reward which a soldier could receive, was the crown, made of leaves. Alluding to this high distinction, the Apostle says to his son Timothy, “I have fought a good fight; henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give me at that day; and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing,” 2 Tim. iv, 7, 8. And lest any one should imagine that the Christian’s crown is perishable in its nature, and soon fades away, like a crown of oak leaves, the Apostle Peter assures the faithful soldier of Christ that his crown is infinitely more valuable and lasting: “Ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away,” 1 Peter v, 4. And this account is confirmed by St. James: “Blessed is the man that endureth temptation; for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him,” James i, 12. The military crowns were conferred by the general in presence of his army; and such as received them, after a public eulogium on their valour, were placed next his person. The Christian also receives his unmerited reward from the hand of the Captain of his salvation: “Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life,” Rev. ii, 10. And, like the brave veteran of ancient times, he is promoted to a place near his Lord: “To him that overcometh, will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father on his throne,” Rev. iii, 21.

TROAS, a city of Phrygia, or of Mysia, upon the Hellespont, having the old city of Troy to the north, and that of Assos to the south. Sometimes the name of Troas is put for the province, wherein the city of Troy stood. St. Paul was at Troas, when he had the vision of the Macedonian inviting him to come and preach in that kingdom, Acts xvi, 8. Beside this, the Apostle was several times at Troas; but we know nothing particular of his transactions there, Acts xx, 5, 6; 2 Cor. ii, 14; 2 Tim. iv, 13.

TROPHIMUS, a disciple of St. Paul, and an Ephesian by birth. He came from Ephesus to Corinth with the Apostle, and kept him company in his whole journey from Corinth to Jerusalem, A. D. 58, Acts xx, 4. When St. Paul was in the temple there, the Jews laid hold of him, crying out, “Men of Israel, help; this is the man that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place; and farther, brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place,” Acts xxi, 28, 29. And this they said, because certain Jews of Ephesus having seen Trophimus with St. Paul in the city, whom they looked upon as a Gentile, imagined that St. Paul had introduced him into the temple. The whole city was immediately in an uproar, and St. Paul was secured. Trophimus afterward accompanied St. Paul; for that Apostle writes to Timothy, that he had left Trophimus sick at Miletus, 2 Tim. iv, 20.

TRUMPET. The Lord commanded Moses to make two trumpets of beaten silver, to be employed in calling the people together when they were to decamp, Num. x, 2, 3, &c. They also chiefly made use of these trumpets, to proclaim the beginning of the civil year, the beginning of the Sabbatical year, and the beginning of the jubilee, Lev. xxv, 9, 10. Josephus says, that these trumpets were near a cubit long; and had a tube, or pipe, of the thickness of a common flute. Their mouths were only wide enough to be blown into, and their ends were like those of a modern trumpet. At first there were but two in the camp, but afterward a greater number were made. Even in the time of Joshua there were seven of them, Joshua vi, 4. At the dedication of the temple of Solomon six-score priests sounded as many trumpets, 2 Chron. v, 12. Beside the sacred trumpets of the temple, the use of which was restrained to the priests only, in war there were others, which the generals sometimes employed for gathering their troops together. For example, Ehud sounded the trumpet, to assemble the Israelites against the Moabites, who oppressed them, and whose king Eglon he had lately slain, Judg. vi, 27. Gideon took a trumpet in his hand, and gave every one of his people one, when he assaulted the Midianites, Judges vii, 2, 16. Joab sounded the trumpet, to give the signal of retreat to his soldiers, in the battle against those of Abner’s party, and in that against Absalom; and lastly, in the pursuit of Sheba the son of Bichri, 2 Sam. ii, 28; xviii, 16; xx, 22. The feast of trumpets was kept on the first day of the seventh month of the sacred year, the first of the civil year. See MUSIC.

TRUTH is used, 1. In opposition to falsehood, lies, or deceit, Prov. xii, 17, &c. 2. It signifies fidelity, sincerity, and punctuality in keeping promises; and to truth taken in this sense is generally joined mercy or kindness, as in Gen. xxiv, 27, and other places of Scripture. 3. Truth is put for the true doctrine of the Gospel, Galatians iii, 1. 4. Truth is put for the substance of the types and ceremonies of the law, John i, 17.

TUBAL, the fifth son of Japheth. The Scripture commonly joins together Tubal and Meshech, which makes it thought that they peopled countries bordering upon each other. The Chaldee interpreters, by Tubal and Meshech understand Italy and Asia, or rather Ausonia. Josephus accounts them to be Iberia and Cappadocia. St. Jerom affirms that Tubal represents the Spaniards, heretofore called Iberians. Bochart is very copious in proving, that by Meshech and Tubal are intended the Muscovites and the Tibarenians.

TUBAL-CAIN, or THUBAL-CAIN, son of Lamech the bigamous, and of Zillah, Gen. ix, 29. The Scriptures tell us, that he was the father and inventor, or master, of the art of forging and managing iron, and of making all kinds of iron-work. There is great reason to believe that this was the Vulcan of the Heathens.

TURTLE, תזו, τρυγὼν, Gen. xv, 9; Lev. i, 14; v, 7, 11; xii, 6, 8; xiv, 22, 30; xv, 14, 29; Num. vi, 10; Psalm lxxiv, 19; Cant. ii, 12; Jer. viii, 7; τρυγὼν, Luke ii, 24. We have the authority of the Septuagint, the Targum, and of all the ancient interpreters, for understanding this of the turtle. Indeed, it is one of those evident instances in which the name of the bird is by _onomatopœia_ formed from its note or cry. The turtle is mentioned among migratory birds by Jeremiah viii, 7, and in this sense differs from the rest of its family, which are all stationary. The fact to which the prophet alludes is attested by Aristotle in these words: “The pigeon and the dove are always present, but the turtle only in summer: that bird is not seen in winter.” And in another part of his work, he asserts that the dove remains, while the turtle migrates. Varro, and other ancient writers, make the like statement. Thus Solomon, Cant. ii, 12, mentions the return of this bird as one of the indications of spring: “The voice of the turtle is heard in the land.” See DOVE.

TYCHICUS, a disciple of St. Paul, whom the Apostle often employed to carry his letters to the several churches. He was of the province of Asia, and accompanied St. Paul, when, in A. D. 58, he made his journey from Corinth to Jerusalem, Acts xx, 4. It was he that carried the epistle to the Colossians, that to the Ephesians, and the first to Timothy. St. Paul did not send him merely to carry his letters, but also to learn the state of the churches, and to bring him an account of them. Wherefore he calls him his dear brother, a faithful minister of the Lord, and his companion in the service of God, Eph. vi, 21, 22; Col. iv, 7, 8. He had thoughts also of sending him into Crete, to preside over that church in the absence of Titus, iii, 12.

TYPE. This word is not frequently used in Scripture; but what it signifies is supposed to be very frequently implied. We usually consider a type as an example, pattern, or general similitude to a person, event, or thing which is to come: and in this it differs from a representation, memorial, or commemoration of an event, &c, which is past. The Spirit of God has adopted a variety of means to indicate his perfect foreknowledge of all events, and his power to control them. This is sometimes declared by express verbal prophecy; sometimes by specific actions performed by divine command; and sometimes by those peculiar events, in the lives of individuals, and the history or religious observances of the Israelites, which were caused to bear a designed reference to some parts of the Gospel history. The main point, says Chevallier, in an inquiry into these historical types, is to establish the fact of a preconcerted connection between the two series of events. No similarity, in itself, is sufficient to prove such a correspondence. Even those recorded in Scripture are recorded under very different circumstances. If the first event be declared to be typical, at the time when it occurs, and the second correspond with the prediction so delivered, there can be no doubt that the correspondence was designed. If, before the occurrence of the second event, there be delivered a distinct prophecy, that it will happen, and will correspond with some previous event; the fulfilment of the prophecy furnishes an intrinsic proof, that the person who gave it spake by divine inspiration. It may not, from this fact, follow, that the two events were connected by a design formed before either of them occurred: but it certainly does follow, that the second event, in some measure, had respect to the first; and that whatever degree of connection was, by such a prophet, assumed to exist, did really exist. If, again, no specific declaration be made, respecting the typical character of any event or person, until after the second event has occurred, which is then declared to have been prefigured; the fact of preconcerted connection will rest solely upon the authority of the person who advances the assertion. But, if we know, from other sources, that his words are the words of truth, our only inquiry will be, if he either distinctly asserts, or plainly infers, the existence of a designed correspondence. The fact, then, of a preconcerted connection between two series of events, is capable of being established in three ways: and the historical types may be accordingly arranged in three principal divisions. Some of them afford intrinsic evidence, that the Scriptures, which record them, are given by inspiration of God; the others can be proved to exist only by assuming that fact: but all, when once established, display the astonishing power and wisdom of God; and the importance of that scheme of redemption, which was ushered into the world with such magnificent preparations. In contemplating this wonderful system, we discern one great intention interwoven, not only into the verbal prophecies and extraordinary events of the history of the Israelites, but into the ordinary transactions of the lives of selected individuals, even from the creation of the world. Adam was “the figure of him that was to come,” Romans v, 14. Melchisedec was “made like unto the Son of God,” Heb. vii, 3. Abraham, in the course of events in which he was engaged by the especial command of Heaven, was enabled to see Christ’s day, John viii, 56; and Isaac was received from the dead “in a figure,” Heb. xi, 19. At a later period, the paschal lamb was ordained to be sacrificed, not only as a memorial of the immediate deliverance, which it was instituted to procure and to commemorate, but also as a continued memorial of that which was to be “fulfilled in the kingdom of God,” Luke xxii, 16. Moses was raised up to deliver the people of Israel; to be to them a lawgiver, a prophet, a priest; and to possess the regal authority, if not the title of king. But, during the early period of his life, he was himself taught, that one great prophet should be raised up like unto him: before his death he delivered the same prophecy to the people: and, after that event, the Israelites continually looked for that faithful prophet, who should return answer to their inquiries, 1 Macc. iv, 46; xiv, 41. Their prophets all pointed to some greater lawgiver, who should introduce a new law into their hearts, and inscribe them upon their minds, Jer. xxxi, 33. The whole people of Israel were also made, in some instances, designedly representative of Christ: and the events, which occurred in their national history, distinctly referred to him. During their wanderings in the wilderness, God left not himself without witness, which should bear reference to the great scheme of the Gospel. They ate spiritual meat. It was an emblem of the true bread of life, which came down from heaven, John vi, 32. “They drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ,” 1 Cor. x, 4. They were destroyed of serpents; and a brazen serpent was lifted up on a pole, that whosoever looked might live. It was a sensible figure of the Son of man, who was, in like manner to be lifted up; “that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life,” John iii, 15. Beside, their religious ordinances were only “a figure for the time then present,” Heb. ix, 9. Their tabernacle was made after the pattern of heavenly things, Heb. viii, 5; Exod. xxv, 9, 40; and was intended to prefigure the “greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands,” Heb. ix, 11. The high priest was a living representative of the great “High Priest of our profession,” Heb. iii, 1: and the Levitical sacrifices plainly had respect to the one great sacrifice for sins. Joshua the son of Nun represented Jesus in name: and by his earthly conquests in some measure prefigured the heavenly triumphs of his Lord. In a subsequent period, David was no indistinct type of “the Messiah the Prince,” Dan. ix, 25, for a long time humbled, and at length triumphant over his enemies. And the peaceable dominion of Solomon prefigured that eternal rest and peace, which remaineth to the people of God. In a still later age, the miraculous preservation of the Prophet Jonah displayed a sign, which was fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ. And when the temple was rebuilt, Joshua, the son of Josedech, the high priest, and his fellows, were set forth as “men of sign,” representatives of the Branch, which should, in the fulness of time, be raised up to the stem of Jesse, Zech. iii, 8; Isa. xi, 1. The illustration, then, to be derived from the historical types of the Old Testament, is found diffused over the whole period, which extends from the creation of the world, to the time when vision and prophecy were sealed. And all the light, which emanates from so many various points, is concentrated in the person of Christ.

TYRANNUS. It is said in Acts xix, 9, that St. Paul being at Ephesus, and seeing that the Jews to whom he preached, instead of being converted, were rather more hardened and obstinate, he withdrew from their society, nor went to preach in their synagogue, but taught every day in the school of one Tyrannus. It is inquired, Who was this Tyrannus? Some think him to have been a prince or great lord, who accommodated the Apostle with his house, in which to receive and instruct his disciples. But the generality conclude, that Tyrannus was a converted Gentile, a friend of St. Paul, to whom he withdrew.

TYRE, or TYRUS, was a famous city of Phenicia. Its Hebrew name is צור or צר, which signifies a rock. The city of Tyre was allotted to the tribe of Asher, Joshua xix, 29, with the other maritime cities of the same coast; but it does not appear that the Asherites ever drove out the Canaanites. Isaiah, xxiii, 12, calls Tyre the daughter of Sidon, that is, a colony from it. Homer never speaks of Tyre, but only of Sidon. Josephus says, that Tyre was built not above two hundred and forty years before the temple of Solomon; which would be in A. M. 2760, two hundred years after Joshua. Tyre was twofold, insular and continental. Insular Tyre was certainly the most ancient; for this it was which was noticed by Joshua: the continental city, however, as being more commodiously situated, first grew into consideration, and assumed the name of Palætyrus, or Old Tyre. Want of sufficient attention to this distinction, has embarrassed both the Tyrian chronology and geography. Insular Tyre was confined to a small rocky island, eight hundred paces long, and four hundred broad, and could never exceed two miles in circumference. But Tyre, on the opposite coast, about half a mile from the sea, was a city of vast extent, since many centuries after its demolition by Nebuchadnezzar, the scattered rains measured nineteen miles round, as we learn from Pliny and Strabo. Of these, the most curious and surprising are, the cisterns of Roselayne, designed to supply the city with water; of which there are three still entire; about one or two furlongs from the sea, so well described by Maundrell, for their curious construction and solid masonry. Old Tyre withstood the mighty Assyrian power, having been besieged in vain, by Shalmaneser, for five years; although he cut off their supplies of water from the cisterns; which they remedied by digging wells within the city. It afterward held out thirteen years against Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and was at length taken; but not until the Tyrians had removed their effects to the insular town, and left nothing but the bare walls to the victor, which he demolished. What completed the destruction of the city was, that Alexander afterward made use of these materials to build a prodigious causeway, or isthmus, above half a mile long, to the insular city, which revived, as the phœnix, from the ashes of the old, and grew to great power and opulence, as a maritime state; and which he stormed after a most obstinate siege of five months. Pococke observes, that “there are no signs of the ancient city; and as it is a sandy shore, the face of every thing is altered, and the great aqueduct is in many parts almost buried in the sand.” Thus has been fulfilled the prophecy of Ezekiel: “Thou shalt be built no more: though thou be sought for, yet shalt thou never be found again,” Ezek. xxvi, 21. The fate of insular Tyre has been no less remarkable. When Alexander stormed the city, he set fire to it. This circumstance was foretold. “Tyre did build herself a strong hold, and heaped up silver as the dust, and fine gold as the mire of the streets. Behold, the Lord will cast her out, and he will smite her power in the sea, and she shall be devoured with fire,” Zech. ix, 3, 4. After this terrible calamity, Tyre again retrieved her losses. Only eighteen years after, she had recovered such a share of her ancient commerce and opulence, as enabled her to stand a siege of fourteen months against Antigonus, before he could reduce the city; but after this, Tyre fell alternately under the dominion of the kings of Syria and Egypt, and then of the Romans, until it was taken by the Saracens, about A. D. 639, retaken by the Crusaders, A. D. 1124; and at length sacked and razed by the Mamelukes of Egypt, with Sidon, and other strong towns, that they might no longer harbour the Christians, A. D. 1289.

The final desolation of Tyre was thus foretold: “I will scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock: it shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord God.” “I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon: thou shalt be built no more; for I the Lord have spoken it, saith the Lord God.” Nothing can be more literally and astonishingly executed than this sentence. Huetius relates of one Hadrianus Parvillerius, that “when he approached the ruins of Tyre, and beheld the rocks stretched forth to the sea, and the great stones scattered up and down on the shore, made clean and smooth by the sun and waves and wind, and useful only for the drying of fishermen’s nets, many of which happened at that time to be spread thereon, it brought to his memory the prophecy of Ezekiel concerning Tyre, that such should be its fate.” Maundrell, who visited the Holy Land, A. D. 1697, describes it thus: “This city, standing in the sea upon a peninsula, promises at a distance, something very magnificent; but when you come to it, you find no similitude of that glory for which it was so renowned in ancient times, and which the Prophet Ezekiel describes, xxvi, xxvii,