xxviii. On the north side it has an old Turkish ungarrisoned castle;

beside which, you see nothing here but a mere Babel of broken walls, pillars, vaults, &c; there being not so much as one entire house left! Its present inhabitants are only a few poor wretches harbouring themselves in the vaults, and subsisting chiefly by fishing: who seem to be preserved in this place by Divine Providence, as a visible argument how God has fulfilled his word concerning Tyre, namely, that it should be as the top of a rock; a place for fishers to dry their nets upon, Ezek. xxvi, 14.” Hasselquist, who saw it since, in A. D. 1751, observes as follows: “None of those cities which were formerly famous are so totally ruined as Tyre, now called Zur; except Troy. Zur now scarcely can be called a miserable village, though it was formerly Tyre, the queen of the sea. Here are about ten inhabitants, Turks and Christians, who live by fishing.” Bruce, who visited this country about eighty years after Maundrell, says, that “passing by Tyre from curiosity, I came to be a mournful witness of the truth of that prophecy, that Tyre, the queen of nations, should be a rock for fishers to dry their nets on.” Mr. Buckingham, who visited it in 1816, represents it as containing about eight hundred substantial stone-built houses, and from five to eight thousand inhabitants. But Mr. Jowett, on the authority of the Greek archbishop, reduces this number to less than four thousand; namely, one thousand two hundred Greek Catholics, one hundred Maronites, one hundred Greeks, one thousand Montonalis, and one hundred Turks. Mr. Jowett observed numerous and beautiful columns stretched along the beach, or standing in fragments half buried in the sand, that has been accumulating for ages: “the broken aqueduct, and the ruins which appear in its neighbourhood, exist as an affecting monument of the fragile and transitory nature of earthly grandeur.” Mr. Joliffe states, that there now exist scarcely any traces of this once powerful city. “Some miserable cabins, ranged in irregular lines, dignified with the name of streets, and a few buildings of a rather better description, occupied by the officers of government, compose nearly the whole of the town. It still makes, indeed, some languishing efforts at commerce, and contrives to export annually to Alexandria cargoes of silk and tobacco; but the amount merits no consideration. The noble dust of Alexander, traced by the imagination till found stopping a beer barrel, would scarcely afford a stronger contrast of grandeur and debasement, than Tyre, at the period of being besieged by that conqueror, and the modern town of Tsour erected on its ashes.”

As commercial cities, says Mansford, ancient Alexandria and London may be considered as approaching the nearest to Tyre. But Alexandria, during the whole of her prosperous days, was subject to foreign rule; and London, great as are her commerce and her wealth, and possessing as she does almost a monopoly of what has in all ages been the most enviable and most lucrative branch of trade, that with the east, does not centre in herself, as Tyre did, without a rival and without competition, the trade of all nations, and hold an absolute monopoly, not of one, but of every branch of commerce. For the long period of a thousand years, not a single production of the east passed to the west, or of the west to the east, but by the merchants of Tyre. Nor for many ages were any ships found but those of Tyre daring enough to pass the straits of the Red Sea on one side, or of the Mediterranean on the other. While the vessels of other countries were groping along their coasts, clinging to their landmarks, and frightened at a breeze, the ships of Tyre were found from Spain, if not from Britain, on the west, to the coast of Malabar and Sofala on the east and south. No wonder that her merchants were princes, and that they lived in a style of magnificence unknown in any other country in the same age; or that she should be considered a desirable prey by the conquerors of the times. But enterprise and wealth did not alone complete the character of the Tyrians; they had an undoubted claim to valour of no common order. Their city, which possessed scarcely any territory beyond their own walls, maintained a siege of thirteen years (the longest in history except that of Ashdod) against the whole power of Babylon; and another of seven months against Alexander, whose successes had afforded no instance of similar delay. And in neither case had the captors much to boast of, as the Tyrians had shipped off their most valuable property to Carthage; and in the former particularly, as has been already related, they so effectually secured or sacrificed the whole, that the soldiers of Nebuchadnezzar found nothing to reward them for their length of labour, during which, by excessive toil and heat, “their heads were made bald, and their very shoulders peeled,” but vacant streets, and houses already sacked. Carthage, Utica, and Cadiz, are celebrated monuments of the power of Tyre on the Mediterranean, and in the west. She extended her navigation even into the ocean, and carried her commerce beyond England to the north, and the Canaries to the south. Her connections with the east, though less known, were not less considerable; the islands of Tyrus and Aradus, (the modern Barhain,) in the Persian Gulf. The cities of Faran and Phœnicum Oppidum, on the Red Sea, in ruins even in the time of the Greeks, prove that the Tyrians had long frequented the coast of Arabia and the Indian Sea. But, through the vicissitudes of time, Tyre, reduced to a miserable village, has no other trade than the exportation of a few sacks of corn and raw cotton, nor any merchant, says Volney, but a single Greek factor in the service of the French Saide, (Sidon,) who scarcely makes sufficient profit to maintain his family. In allusion to Tyre in her better days, Forbes observes, when speaking of Surat, “The bazars, filled with costly merchandise; picturesque and interesting groups of natives on elephants, camels, horses, and mules; strangers from all parts of the globe, in their respective costume; vessels building on the stocks, others navigating the river; together with Turks, Persians, and Armenians, on Arabian chargers; European ladies in splendid carriages, the Asiatic females in hackeries drawn by oxen; and the motley appearance of the English and nabob’s troops on the fortifications, remind us of the following description of Tyre, “O thou that art situate at the entry of the sea, which art a merchant of the people for many isles,” &c, Ezek. xxvii, 3. This is a true picture of oriental commerce in ancient times; and a very exact description of the port and the bazars of Surat, at the present day.”

Dr. Vincent has given the following able illustration of the trade of Tyre as described in Ezek. xxvii, which must be considered as one of the most ample and early accounts extant. The learned author has rendered the Hebrew names into others better known in the geography of more recent times:--Tyre produced from Hermon, and the mountains near it, fir for planking; and from Libanus, cedars for masts. From Bashan, east of the sea of Galilee, oaks for oars. From Greece, or the Grecian isles, ivory to adorn the benches or the waists of the galleys. From Egypt, linen, ornamented with different colours, for sails, or flags, or ensigns. From Peloponnesus, blue and purple cloths for awnings. From Sidon and Aradus, mariners; but Tyre itself furnished pilots and commanders. From Gebal, or Biblos, on the coast between Tripolis and Berytus, caulkers. From Persia and Africa, mercenary troops. From Aradus, the troops that garrisoned Tyre with the Gamadim. From Tarshish, or by distant voyages toward the west, and toward the east, great wealth, iron, tin, lead, and silver. Tin implies Britain or Spain, or at least a voyage beyond the Straits of Hercules. From Greece, and the countries bordering on Pontus, slaves, and brass ware. From Armenia, horses, horsemen, and mules. From the Gulf of Persia, and the isles within that gulf, horns (tusks) of ivory, and ebony. The export to these isles was the manufacture of Tyre. From Syria, emeralds, purple, broidered work, fine linen, coral, and agate. The exports to Syria were the manufactures of Tyre in great quantities. From Judah and Israel, the finest wheat, honey, oil, and balsam. From Damascus, wine of Chalybon, (the country bordering on the modern Aleppo,) and wool in the fleece. The exports to Damascus were costly and various manufactures. From the tribe of Dan, situated nearest to the Philistines, the produce of Arabia, bright or wrought iron, cassia or cinnamon, and the calamus aramaticus. In conducting the transport of these articles, Dan went to and fro, that is, formed or conducted the caravans. By one interpretation, they are said to come from Uzal; and Uzal is said to be Sana, the capital of Yemen, or Arabia Felix. From the Gulf of Persia, rich cloth for the decoration of chariots or horsemen. From Arabia Petræa and Hedjaz, lambs, and rams, and goats. From Sabea and Oman, the best of spices. From India, gold, and precious stones. From Mesopotamia, from Carrhæ, and Babylonia, the Assyrians brought all sorts of exquisite things; that is, fine manufacture, blue cloth, and broidered work, or fabric of various colours, in chests of cedar bound with cords, containing rich apparel. If these articles were obtained farther from the east, may they not be the fabrics of India, first brought to Assyria by the Gulf of Persia, or by caravans from Karmania and the Indus, and then conveyed by the Assyrians, in other caravans, to Tyre and Syria? In this view, the care of package, the chests of cedar, and the cording of the chests, are all correspondent to the nature of such a transport. From Tarshish the ships came that rejoiced in the markets of Tyre: they replenished the city, and made it glorious in the midst of the sea, Ezek. xxvii, 5–25. Dr. Vincent observes, that from the Tarshish last mentioned the ships returned to the ports in the Red Sea; as from the nineteenth to the twenty-fourth verse every particular relates to the east, while that referred to in the twelfth implies the west--Spain, or beyond. We have here some light thrown on the obscurity which surrounds the situation of this distant and unknown place. There is, indeed, a clear reference to two distinct places, or parts of the world, denominated Tarshish; perhaps from those very circumstances, their distance, and the little that was known respecting them. That one was situated westward, and reached by a passage across the Mediterranean, is certain from other parts of Scripture; that the other was eastward, or southward, on the coast of Arabia, India, or Africa, is equally certain. See TARSHISH, and OPHIR.

UNBELIEF or INFIDELITY is a want of credence in the word of God; or it may be defined, a calling in question the divine veracity, in what God hath either testified, promised, or threatened; and thus it is the opposite of faith, which consists in crediting what God hath said, John iii, 18, 33. It is said that the Jews could not enter into the promised land, “because of their unbelief,” Heb. iii, 18, 19. And the Apostle, teaching the believing Hebrews what instruction they should deduce from that portion of the history of their forefathers, says, as the words literally translated would run, “We are evangelized as well as they were; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it,” Heb. iv, 2. The meaning is, We Christians are favoured with the good news of the heavenly rest, as well as Israel in the wilderness were with the good news of the earthly rest in Canaan; but the word which they heard concerning that rest did not profit them, because they did not believe it. Hence it appears that faith and unbelief are not confined to the spiritual truths and promises of the Gospel of Christ, but respect any truth which God may reveal, or any promise which he may make even concerning temporal things. It is a crediting or discrediting God in what he says, whatever be the subject. Christ could not do many mighty works in his own country, because of their unbelief, Matt. vi, 5, 6; their mean opinion of him, and contempt of his miracles, rendered them unfit objects to have miracles wrought upon or among them. The Apostles’ distrust of Christ’s promises, of enabling them to cast out devils, rendered them incapable of casting one out, Mark xvii, 16; and St. Peter’s distrust of his Master’s power occasioned his sinking in the water, Matt. xiv, 30, 31. The unbelief for which the Jews were broken off from their being a church was their denial of Christ’s Messiahship, their contempt and refusal of him, and their violent persecution of his cause and members, Rom. xi, 20.

Adverting to the infidelity which prevailed among the educated class of Heathens when Christianity first appeared in the world, Dr. Neander observes:--It was Christianity which first presented religion under the form of objective truth, as a system of doctrines perfectly independent of all individual conceptions of man’s imagination, and calculated to meet the moral and religious wants of man’s nature, and in that nature every where to find some point on which it might attach itself. The religions of antiquity, on the contrary, consist of many elements of various kinds, which, either by the skill of the first promulgator, or, in the length of years, by the impress of national peculiarities, were moulded together into one whole. By the transmission of tales, half mythical, and half historical, by forms and statutes bearing the impress of religious feelings or ideas, mingled with multifarious poems, which showed a powerful imaginative spirit, rugged indeed, or, if animated by the spirit of beauty, at least devoid of that of holiness,--all these varied materials were interwoven so completely into all the characters, customs, and relations of social life, that the religious matter could no longer be separated from the mixed mass, nor be disentangled from the individual nature of the life and political character of each people with which it was interwoven. There was no religion generally adapted to human nature, only religions fitted to each people. The Divinity appeared here, not as free and elevated above nature; not as that which, overruling nature, might form and illuminate the nature of man; but was lowered to the level of nature, and made subservient to it. Through this principle of deifying the powers of nature, by which every exertion of bare power, even though immoral, might be received among the objects of religious veneration, the idea of holiness which beams forth from man’s conscience must continually have been thrown into the back ground and overshadowed. The old lawgivers were well aware how closely the maintenance of an individual state religion depends on the maintenance of the individual character of the people, and their civil and domestic virtues. They were well aware that when once this union is dissolved no power can restore it again. Therefore we find, especially in Rome, where politics were the ruling passion, a watchfulness after the most punctilious observance of traditional religious ceremonies, and a jealous aversion to any innovations in religion. The belief of a divine origin of all existence is a first principle in man’s nature, and he is irresistibly impelled to ascend from many to One. This very feeling showed itself even in the polytheism of national religions, under the idea of a highest God, or a father of the gods. Among those who gave themselves up to the consideration of divine things, and to reflection upon them, this idea of an original unity must have been more clearly recognized, and must have formed the centre point of all their inward religious life and thought. The imagination of the people was to be engaged with the numerous powers and energies flowing forth from that one highest Being, while to the contemplation of that unity, only a small number of exalted spirits, the initiated leaders of the multitude, could elevate themselves. The one God was the God of philosophers alone. The ruling opinion of all the thinking men of antiquity, from which all religious legislation proceeded, was, that pure religious truth could not be proposed to the multitude, but only such a mixture of fiction, poetry, and truth, as would serve to represent religious notions in such a manner that they might make an impression on men, whose only guide was their senses. The principle of a so called _fraus pia_ [pious fraud] was prevalent in all the legislation of antiquity. But how miserable would be the case of mankind, if the higher bond, connecting human affairs with heaven, could only be united by means of lies; if lies were necessary in order to restrain the greater portion of mankind from evil! And what could their religion in such a case effect? It could not impart holy dispositions to the inward heart of man; it could only restrain the open outbreaking of evil that existed in the heart, by the power of fear. Falsehood, which cannot be arbitrarily imposed on human nature, would never have been able to obtain this influence, had not a truth, which is sure to make itself felt by human nature, been working through it,--had not the belief in an unseen God, on whom man universally feels himself dependent, and to whom he feels himself attracted,--had not the impulse toward an invisible world, which is implanted in the human heart,--been able to work also through this covering of superstition. The geographer Strabo thinks that, in the same manner that mythical tales and fables are needful for children, so also they are necessary for the uneducated and uninformed, who are in some sort children, and also for those who are half educated; for even with them reason is not sufficiently powerful, and they are not able to free themselves from the habits they have acquired as children. This is, indeed, a sad condition of humanity, when the seed of holiness, which can develope itself only in the whole course of a life, cannot be strewn in the heart of the child, and when mature reason must destroy that which was planted in the early years of infancy! when holy truth cannot form the foundation of the future developement of life from the earliest dawn of childish consciousness! The thinking Roman statesmen also of the time at which Christianity appeared, as Varro, for instance, distinguish between the _theologia philosophica_ [philosophical theology] and the _theologia civilis_, [civil theology,] which contradicts the principles of the former, as Cotta in Cicero distinguished between the belief of Cotta, and the belief of the Pontifex. The philosopher required in religion a persuasion grounded on reasoning; the citizen, the statesman, followed the tradition of his ancestors without inquiry. Suppose now this _theologia civilis_, and this _theologia philosophica_ to proceed together, without a man’s wishing to set the opposition between the two in a very clear light to himself; that the citizen and the statesman, the philosopher and the man, could be united in the same individual with contradictory sentiments, (a division which in the same man is very unnatural,) and then he would perhaps say, “Philosophical reason conducts to a different result from that which is established by the state religion; but the latter has in its favour the good fortune which the state has enjoyed in the exercise of religion handed down from our ancestors. Let us follow experience even where we do not thoroughly understand.” Thus speaks Cotta, and thus also many Romans of education in his time, either more or less explicitly. Or perhaps we may suppose, that men openly expressed this contradiction, and did not scruple to assign the pure truth to the _theologia philosophica_, and to declare the _theologia civilis_ only a matter of politics. In the east, which is less subject to commotions, where tranquil habits of life were more common, and where a mystical spirit of contemplation, accompanying and spiritualizing the symbolical religion of the people, was more prevalent than an intellectual cultivation opposed to it, and developing itself independently, it was possible that this kind of esoteric and exoteric religion should proceed hand in hand without change for many centuries. But it was otherwise with the more stirring spirits and habits of the west. Here this independently proceeding developement of the intellect must have been at open war with the religion of the people; and as intellectual culture spread itself more widely, so also must a disbelief of the popular religion have been more extensively diffused; and, in consequence of the intercourse between the people and the educated classes, this disbelief must also have found its way at last among the people themselves; more especially since, as this perception of the nothingness of the popular religion spread itself more widely, there would naturally be many who would not, with the precaution of the men of old, hide their new illumination from the multitude, but would think themselves bound to procure for it new adherents, without any regard to the injury of which they might be laying the foundations, without inquiring of themselves, whether they had any thing to offer to the people in the room of that of which they robbed them; in the room of their then source of tranquillity under the storms of life; instead of that which taught them moderation under affliction; and, lastly, in the place of their then counterpoise against the power of wild desires and passions. Men saw, in the religious systems of different nations which then came into contact with each other in the enormous empire of Rome, nothing but utter contradiction and opposition. The philosophical systems also exhibited nothing but opposition of sentiments, and left those who could see in the moral consciousness no criterion of truth to doubt whether there were any such thing or not. In this sense, as representing the opinions of many eminent and cultivated Romans, with a sneer at all desire for truth, Pilate made the sarcastic inquiry, “What is truth?” Many contented themselves with a shallow lifeless deism, which usually takes its rise where the thirst after a living union with heaven is wanting; a system which, although it denies not the existence of a God, yet drives it as far into the back ground as possible; a listless God! who suffers every thing to take its own course, so that all belief in any inward connection between this Divinity and man, any communication of this Divinity to man, would seem to this system fancy and enthusiasm! The world and human nature remain at least free from God. This belief in God, if we can call it a belief, remains dead and fruitless, exercising no influence over the life of man. The belief in God here produced neither the desire after that ideal perfection of holiness, the contemplation of which shows at the same time to man the corruption of his own nature, so opposite to that holiness; nor that consciousness of guilt by which man, contemplating the holiness of God within him, feels himself estranged from God; nor does this belief impart any lively power of sanctification. Man is not struck by the inquiry, “How shall I, unclean as I am, approach the holy God, and stand before him, when he judges me according to the holy law which he has himself engraven on my conscience? What shall I do to become free from the guilt which oppresses me, and again to attain to communion with him?” To make inquiries such as these, this spirit of deism considers as fanaticism; and it casts away from itself all notions of God’s anger, judgments, or punishments, as representations arising only from the limited nature of the human understanding. More lively and penetrating spirits, who felt in the world an infinite Spirit which animated all things, fell into an error of quite an opposite nature to this deism, which removed God too far from the world; namely into a pantheism, which confused God and the world, which was just as little calculated to bestow tranquillity and consolation. They conceived God only as the infinite Being elevated above frail man, and not as being connected with him, attracting him to himself, and lowering himself down to him. It was only the greatness, not the holiness nor the love, of God which filled their souls. Yet the history of all ages proves that man cannot for any length of time disown the desire for religion implanted in his nature. Whenever man, entirely devoted to the world, has for a long time wholly overwhelmed the perception of the Divinity which exists in his nature, and has long entirely estranged himself from divine things, these at last prevail over humanity with greater force. Man feels that something is wanting to his heart, which can be replaced to him by nothing else; he feels a hollowness within him which can never be satisfied by earthly things, and can find satisfaction and blessing suited to his condition in the Divinity alone, and an irresistible desire impels him to seek again his lost connection with Heaven. The times of the dominion of superstition also, as history teaches us, are always times of earthly calamity; for the moral corruption which accompanies superstition necessarily, also, destroys all the foundations of earthly prosperity. Thus the times in which superstition extended itself among the Romans were those of the downfall of civil freedom, and of public suffering under cruel despots. But, however, the consequences of these evils conducted man, also to their remedy; for by distress from without man is brought to the consciousness of his own weakness, and his dependence on a higher than earthly power; and when he is forsaken by human help, he is compelled to seek it here. Man becomes induced to look upon his misfortunes as the punishments of a higher Being, and to seek for means by which he may secure again for himself the favour of that Being. The need of a connection with Heaven, from which man felt himself estranged, and dissatisfaction with the cold and joyless present, obtained a more ready belief for the picture which mythology presented, of a golden age, when gods and men lived together in intimate union; and warm imaginations looked back on such a state with longing and desire. This belief and this desire, it must be owned, were founded on a great truth which man could rightly apprehend only through Christianity; and this desire was a kind of intimation which pointed to Christianity. From the nature of the case, however, it is clear that a fanatical zeal, where the heat of passion concealed from man the hollowness and falsehood of his faith, might be created for a religion, to which man only betook himself as a refuge in his misery, and in his dread of the abyss of unbelief; a religion which no longer served for the developement of man’s nature, and into which, nevertheless, he felt himself driven back from the want of any other; and that men must use every kind of power and art to uphold that which was in danger of falling from its own internal weakness, and to defend that which was unable to defend itself by its own power. Fanaticism was therefore obliged to avail itself of every kind of power in the struggle with Christianity, in order to uphold Heathenism, which was fast sinking by its own weakness. Although the Romans had from the oldest times been noted for their repugnance to all foreign sorts of religious worship, yet this trait of the old Roman character had with many altogether disappeared. Because the old national temples of the Romans had lost their respect, in many dispositions man was inclined to bring in to their assistance foreign modes of worship. Those which obtained the readiest admission were such as consisted of mysterious, symbolical customs, and striking, sounding forms. As is always the case, men looked for some special and higher power in what is dark and mysterious. The very simplicity of Christianity became therefore a ground of hatred to it.

UNICORN, ראם, Num. xxiii, 22; xxiv, 8; Deut. xxxiii, 17; Job xxxix, 9, 10; Psalm xxii, 21; xxix, 6; xcii, 10; Isa. xxxiv, 7. In each of these places it is rendered in the Septuagint μονόκερως, except in Isaiah, where it is ἁδροὶ, _the great or mighty ones_. Barrow, in his “Travels in Southern Africa,” has given a drawing of the head of the unicorn, “a beast with a single horn projecting from the forehead;” accompanied with such details as, he thinks, offer strong arguments for the existence of such animals in the country of the Bosjesmans. He observes that this creature is represented as a “solid-ungulous animal resembling a horse, with an elegantly shaped body, marked from the shoulders to the flanks with longitudinal stripes or bands.” Still he acknowledges that the animal to which the writer of the book of Job, who was no mean natural historian, makes a poetical allusion, has been supposed, with great plausibility, to be the one-horned rhinoceros; and that Moses also very probably meant the rhinoceros, when he mentions the unicorn as having the strength of God.

“There are two animals,” says Bruce, “named frequently in Scripture, without naturalists being agreed what they are. The one is the _behemoth_, the other the _reem_; both mentioned as types of strength, courage, and independence on man; and, as such, exempted from the ordinary lot of beasts, to be subdued by him, or reduced under his dominion. The behemoth, then, I take to be the elephant; his history is well known, and my only business is with the reem, which I suppose to be the rhinoceros. The derivation of this word, both in the Hebrew and Ethiopic, seems to be from erectness, or standing straight. This is certainly no particular quality in the animal itself, which is not more, nor even so much erect as many other quadrupeds, for its knees are rather crooked; but it is from the circumstance and manner in which his horn is placed. The horns of all other animals are inclined to some degree of parallelism with the nose, or _os frontis_, [front bone.] The horn of the rhinoceros alone is erect and perpendicular to this bone, on which it stands at right angles; thereby possessing a greater purchase or power, as a lever, than any horn could possibly have in any other position. This situation of the horn is very happily alluded to in the sacred writings: ‘My horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of a reem,’ Psalm xcii, 10. And the horn here alluded to is not wholly figurative, but was really an ornament worn by great men in the days of victory, preferment, or rejoicing, when they were anointed with new, sweet, or fresh oil; a circumstance which David joins with that of erecting the horn. Balaam, a priest of Midian, and so in the neighbourhood of the haunts of the rhinoceros, and intimately connected with Ethiopia, for they themselves were shepherds of that country, in a transport, from contemplating the strength of Israel, whom he was brought to curse, says, that they had as it were the strength of the reem, Num. xxiii, 22. Job, xxxix, 9, 10, makes frequent allusion to his great strength, ferocity, and indocility. Isaiah, xxxiv, 7, who of all the prophets seems to have known Egypt and Ethiopia the best, when prophesying about the destruction of Idumea, says, that the reem shall come down with the fat cattle: a proof that he knew his habitation was in the neighbourhood. In the same manner as when foretelling the desolation of Egypt, he mentions, as one manner of effecting it, the bringing down the fly from Ethiopia, Isa. vii, 18, 19, to meet the cattle in the desert and among the bushes, and destroy them there, where that insect did not ordinarily come but on command, Exodus viii, 22, and where the cattle fled every year, to save themselves from that insect.

“The rhinoceros in Geez is called _arwé harish_, and in the Amharic _auraris_, both which names signify the large wild beast with the horn. This would seem as if applied to the species that had but one horn. The Ethiopic text renders the word reem, _arwe harish_, and this the Septuagint translates μονόκερως, or unicorn. If the Abyssinian rhinoceros had invariably two horns, it seems to me improbable the Septuagint would call him μονόκερως, especially as they must have seen an animal of this kind exposed at Alexandria in their time, when first mentioned in history, at an exhibition given to Ptolemy Philadelphus, at his accession to the crown, before the death of his father. The principal reason for translating the word _reem_ unicorn, and not rhinoceros, is from a prejudice that he must have but one horn. But this is by no means so well founded, as to be admitted as the only argument for establishing the existence of an animal, which never has appeared after the search of so many ages. Scripture speaks of the horns of the unicorn, Deut. xxxiii, 17; Psalm xxii, 21; so that even from this circumstance the reem may be the rhinoceros as the rhinoceros may be the unicorn.”

In the book of Job, xxxix, 9, 10, the reem is represented as an unmanageable animal, which, although possessed of sufficient strength to labour, sternly and pertinaciously refused to bend his neck to the yoke.

Will the reem submit to serve thee? Will he, indeed, abide at thy crib? Canst thou make his harness bind the reem to the furrow? Will he, forsooth, plough up the valleys for thee? Wilt thou rely on him for his great strength, And commit thy labour unto him? Wilt thou trust him that he may bring home thy grain, And gather in thy harvest?

The rhinoceros, in size, is only exceeded by the elephant; and in strength and power is inferior to no other creature. He is at least twelve feet in length, from the extremity of the snout to the insertion of the tail; six or seven feet in height, and the circumference of the body is nearly equal to its length. He is particularly distinguished from the elephant and all other animals by the remarkable and offensive weapon he carries upon his nose. This is a very hard horn, solid throughout, directed forward, and has been seen four feet in length. Mr. Browne, in his Travels, says, that the Arabians call the rhinoceros _abu-kurn_, “father of the one horn.” The rhinoceros is very hurtful, by the prodigious devastation which he makes in the fields. This circumstance peculiarly illustrates the passage from Job. Instead of trusting him to bring home the grain, the husbandman will endeavour to prevent his entry into the fields, and hinder his destructive ravages. In a note upon this passage, Mr. Good says, “The original reem, by all the older translators rendered rhinoceros, or unicorn, is by some modern writers supposed to be the bubalus, bison, or wild ox. There can be no doubt that rhinoceros is the proper term; for this animal is universally known in Arabia, by the name of reem, to the present day.” The rhinoceros, though next in size, yet in docility and ingenuity greatly inferior, to the elephant, has never yet been tamed, so as to assist the labours of mankind, or to appear in the ranks of war. The rhinoceros is perfectly indocile and untractable, though neither ferocious nor carnivorous. He is among large animals what the hog is among smaller ones, brutal and insensible; fond of wallowing in the mire, and delighting in moist and marshy situations near the banks of rivers. He is, however, of a pacific disposition; and, as he feeds on vegetables, has few occasions for conflict. He neither disturbs the less, nor fears the greater, beasts of the forest, but lives amicably with all. He subsists principally on large succulent plants, prickly shrubs, and the branches of trees; and lives to the age of seventy or eighty years.

UNITARIANS, a comprehensive term, including all who believe the Deity to subsist in one person only. The chief article in the religious system of the Unitarians is, that Christ was a mere man. But they consider him as the great instrument in the hands of God of reversing all the effects of the fall; as the object of all the prophecies from Moses to his own time; as the great bond of union to virtuous and good men, who, as Christians, make one body in a peculiar sense. The Socinian creed was reduced to what Dr. Priestley calls Humanitarianism, by denying the miraculous conception, the infallibility, and the impeccability of the Saviour; and, consequently, his right to any divine honours or religious worship. As to those texts which declare that Jesus Christ “knew no sin,” &c, his followers explain them in the sense in which it is said of believers, “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin,” 1 John iii, 9. Or, if this be not satisfactory, Dr. Priestley refers us to the “Theological Repository,” “in which,” he says, “I think I have shown that the Apostle Paul often reasons inconclusively; and, therefore, that he wrote as any other person of his turn of mind or thinking, and in his situation, would have written, without any particular inspiration. Facts, such as I think I have there alleged, are stubborn things, and all hypotheses must be accommodated to them.” Nor is this sentiment peculiar to Dr. Priestley. Mr. Belsham says, “The Unitarian doctrine is, that Jesus of Nazareth was a man constituted in all respects like other men, subject to the same infirmities, the same ignorance, prejudices, and frailties; descended from the family of David, the son of Joseph and Mary, though some indeed still adhere to the popular opinion of the miraculous conception; that he was born in low circumstances, having no peculiar advantages of education or learning, but that he was a man of exemplary character; and that, in conformity to ancient prophecy, he was chosen and appointed by God to introduce a new moral dispensation into the world, the design of which was to abolish the Jewish economy, and to place believing Gentiles upon an equal ground of privilege and favour with the posterity of Abraham; in other words, he was authorized to reveal to all mankind, without distinction, the great doctrine of a future life, in which men shall be rewarded according to their works.” Mr. Belsham goes on to state the Unitarian opinion to be, that Jesus was not conscious of his high character till after his baptism; that he afterward spent some time in the wilderness, where he was invested with miraculous powers, and favoured with heavenly visions, like St. Paul, 2 Cor. xii, in which he supposed himself taken up into heaven, and in consequence of which he speaks of his descent from heaven; that he exercised his ministry on earth for the space of a year or more, and then suffered death upon the cross, not to exhibit the evil of sin, or in any sense to make atonement for it, but as a martyr to the truth, and as a necessary preliminary to his resurrection, which they consider as a pledge of the resurrection of mankind. Many also believe that Jesus maintained some personal and sensible connection with the church during the apostolic age, and the continuance of miraculous powers in the church. They farther believe that he is appointed to revisit the earth, and to judge the world,--a difficult task one would suppose, if “he be constituted,” as said above, “in all respects like other men, subject to the same ignorance, prejudices frailties,” &c! So this blasphemous system contains, in this respect, and in almost every other, its own refutation. See SOCINIANS.

The creed which the celebrated council of Nice established, says Grier, in his “Epitome of General Councils,” is that which Christians now profess; the errors and impieties which it condemned are those which, according to the refinements of Socinus, his followers of the present day have moulded into their antichristian system. Arius, a presbyter in the church of Alexandria, a man of consummate talent and address, but of a cold and speculative mind, impiously maintained that there had been a time when the Son of God was not; that he was capable of virtue and vice; and that he was a creature, and mutable as creatures are! It is true that Arius held a qualified preëxistence, when he said that God created the Son from nothing before he created the world; in other words, that the Son was the first of created beings; but such preëxistence does not imply coëxistence or coëternity with the Father. After this manner did he deny the divinity of the Son, and his coëternity with the Father. Seduced by the pride of reasoning, no less than by his fondness for novelty, did he likewise reject the ὁμοούσιαν, as it is called, or the tenet of the Son being of the same substance with the Father. The blasphemies of Arius consisted in the denial of Christ’s being either co-eternal or consubstantial with God. After a lapse of twelve centuries, Socinus lowered him another step by declaring his inferiority to the Father; for that he, as well as all other things, was subject to the supreme Creator of the universe; and although he held his mere humanity, yet, inconsistently enough, he would offer him divine worship! Inconsistently it may be said, because the Socinian, on his own principles, thereby incurs the guilt of idolatry as much as the Roman Catholic who worships the Virgin Mary, a mere created being. The Unitarian, or Humanitarian, sinks the character of the Saviour still lower, by withholding all worship from him; and while he considers him as a mere man, and therefore as not possessing the attributes of the Deity, with an inconsistency as singular as that of Socinus, he acknowledges his divinity so as to call him God; as if the terms Deity and Divinity bore different significations, or as if the principle which constituted the essence of the Godhead were separable from the Godhead itself! It should be observed, that the lowest denomination of unbelievers in the descending scale, namely, the modern Unitarian, combines with his own peculiar errors and impieties all the errors and impieties of both Arius and Socinus, together with an absolute denial of the Holy Ghost being a divine Person. Having touched on the shades of difference which exist between the followers of Arius and Socinus, a more minute detail of the division and subdivision of the classes into which they may be ranged may not be unacceptable to the reader: Arians and Semi-Arians constituted the original distinction; that of a subsequent day was high and low Arians. The high Arians entertain the highest views of the mediatorial influence of Christ, and believe in the entire Scriptures; the low Arians run into the opposite extreme, yet neither high nor low Arians consider Christ to be truly God. The old Socinians admitted the miraculous conception, and the worship of the Son; the modern Socinians do not; a circumstance that identifies the modern Socinian with the Unitarian. Some high Arians, such as Dr. Samuel Clarke, &c, thought that Christ might be worshipped; others of them affect to have no distinct notion of what the Holy Ghost meant, and to believe that worship is not to be addressed to Christ, but through Christ! These variations in the Unitarian creed have been deduced from the evidence of Unitarians themselves, given before the Commissioners of Education Inquiry in Ireland in 1826, as detailed in their Report to Parliament; a circumstance that renders them the more valuable, as it imparts to them a living, speaking authority. It must, however, be observed, that motley as they are, they all terminate in one point, the rejection of Christ’s divinity; and that, diversified as the distinctions appear to be, they all will be ultimately found to be without a shadow of difference. In short, Arians, Socinians, Unitarians, &c, not only agree with each other in their antichristian scheme; but can scarcely be said to differ from the infidel Musselmans, who are taught by their Koran to regard Christ as a great prophet, and the forerunner of their own. With Deism doubtless Unitarianism has an intimate alliance. For Deists reject all the doctrines of the Christian revelation, while Unitarians reject all its peculiar doctrines: 1. The Trinity of Persons in the Godhead. 2. The divinity of Christ. 3. The personality of the Holy Spirit. 4. The miraculous birth of Christ. 5. The atonement of Christ. 6. The sanctification of the Spirit. 7. The existence of angels and spirits; 8. And, therefore, of the devil and his angels. “In what, then,” says the learned Dr. Burgess, bishop of Salisbury, after this enumeration of the peculiar doctrines of Christianity, “does Unitarianism differ from Deism? Deists deny the essential doctrines of Christianity by rejecting the whole of the Christian revelation; Unitarians reject the Christian revelation by denying all its peculiar and essential doctrines.”

UNIVERSALISTS. Those who believe that Christ so died for all, that, before he shall have delivered up his mediatorial kingdom, all fallen creatures shall be brought to a participation of the benefits of his death, in their restoration to holiness and happiness. They are called also Universal Restorationists, and their doctrine, the doctrine of universal restoration. Some of its friends have maintained it, also, under the name of universal salvation; but perhaps the former name is that by which it should be distinguished; for the Universalists do not hold any universal exemption from future punishment, but merely the recovery of all those that shall have been exposed to it.[A] They have likewise a just claim to this title on other grounds; for their doctrine, which includes the restoration, or “restitution of all the intelligent offspring of God,” or of all

[Footnote A: This may be true in respect to the Universalists in Europe; but in America there are those who deny any future punishment whatever. In this country also they have formed themselves into separate and distinct societies. AM. ED.] “lapsed intelligences,” seems to embrace even the fallen angels. They admit the reality and equity of future punishment; but they contend that it will be corrective in its nature, and limited in its duration. They teach the doctrine of election, but not in the exclusive Calvinistic sense of it. They suppose that God has chosen some for the good of all; and that his final purpose toward all is intimated by his calling his elect the first-born and the first-fruits of his creatures, which, say they, implies other branches of his family, and a future ingathering of the harvest of mankind. They teach, also, that the righteous shall have part in the first resurrection, shall be blessed and happy, and be made priests and kings to God and to Christ in the millennial kingdom, and that over them the second death shall have no power; that the wicked will receive a punishment apportioned to their crimes; that punishment itself is a mediatorial work, and founded upon mercy, and, consequently, that it is a means of humbling, subduing, and finally reconciling the sinner to God. They add, that the words rendered “eternal,” “everlasting,” “for ever,” and “for ever and ever,” in the Scriptures, are frequently used to express the duration of things that have ended or must end; and if it is contended that these words are sometimes used to express proper eternity, they answer, that then the subject with which the words are connected must determine the sense of them; and as there is nothing in the nature of future punishment which can be offered as a reason why it should be endless, they infer that the above words ought always to be taken in a limited sense when connected with the infliction of misery.

Those who deny the eternity of future punishments have not formed themselves into any separate body or distinct society; but are to be found in most Christian countries, and among several denominations. Their doctrines form part of the creed of some Arians, as of Mr. Whiston; of many Deists, as of Mr. Hobbes, Mr. Tindal, &c; and of most Socinians. Nor need we be surprised that libertines and atheists hold it, and that they strive to bring others over to their opinion. “The tyranny of priests,” said Dupont the atheist, in the national convention, December, 1792, “extends their opinion to another life, of which they have no other idea than that of eternal punishment; a doctrine which some men have hitherto had the good nature to believe. But these prejudices must now fall: we must destroy them, or they will destroy us.” The Mennonites in Holland have long held the doctrine of the Universalists; the people called Dunkers, or Tunkers, in America, descended from the German Baptists, hold it; and also the Shakers. Excellent refutations of this specious system have been published by the Rev. S. Jerram, and the Rev. Daniel Isaac.

The Arminians are sometimes called “Universalists,” on account of their holding the tenet of general redemption; in opposition to the Calvinists, who, from their specifically restricting the saving grace of God to certain fore ordained individuals, receive the denomination of “Particularists.” By the epithet “Hypothetical Universalists,” are designated on the continent those who have adopted the theological system of Amyraut and Cameron, but who are better KNOWN in this country as “Baxterians.” See AMYRAUT, BAXTERIANISM, and CAMERON.

UPPER ROOM. The principal rooms anciently in Judea were those above, as they are to this day at Aleppo; the ground floor being chiefly made use of for their horses and servants. “The house in which I am at present living,” says, Jowett, “gives what seems to be a correct idea of the scene of Eutychus’ falling from the upper loft while St. Paul was preaching, Acts xx, 6–12. According to our idea of houses, the scene is very far from intelligible; and, beside this, the circumstance of preaching generally leaves on the mind of cursory readers the notion of a church. To describe this house, which is not many miles distant from the Troad, and perhaps, from the unchanging character of oriental customs, nearly resembles the houses then built, will fully illustrate the narrative. On entering my host’s door, we find the first floor entirely used as a store: it is filled with large barrels of oil, the produce of the rich country for many miles round: this space, so far from being habitable, is sometimes so dirty with the dripping of the oil, that it is difficult to pick out a clean footing from the door to the first step of the staircase. On ascending, we find the first floor, consisting of an humble suit of rooms, not very high; these are occupied by the family for their daily use. It is on the next story that all their expense is lavished: here my courteous host has appointed my lodging: beautiful curtains and mats, and cushions to the divan, display the respect with which they mean to receive their guest. Here, likewise, their splendour, being at the top of the house, is enjoyed by the poor Greeks with more retirement, and less chance of molestation from the intrusion of Turks: here, when the professors of the college waited upon me to pay their respects, they were received in ceremony, and sat at the window. The room is both higher and also larger than those below; it has two projecting windows; and the whole floor is so much extended in front beyond the lower part of the building, that the projecting windows considerably overhang the street. In such an upper room, secluded, spacious, and commodious, St. Paul was invited to preach his parting discourse. The divan, or raised seat, with mats or cushions, encircles the interior of each projecting window; and I have remarked that when the company is numerous, they sometimes place large cushions behind the company seated on the divan; so that a second tier of company, with their feet upon the seat of the divan, are sitting behind, higher than the front row. Eutychus, thus sitting, would be on a level with the open window; and, being overcome with sleep, he would easily fall out from the third loft of the house into the street, and be almost certain, from such a height, to lose his life. Thither St. Paul went down, and comforted the alarmed company by bringing up Eutychus alive. It is noted that ‘there were many lights in the upper chamber.’ The very great plenty of oil in this neighbourhood would enable them to afford many lamps; the heat of these and so much company would cause the drowsiness of Eutychus, at that late hour, and be the occasion, likewise, of the windows being open.”

URIM AND THUMMIM. The high priests of the Jews, we are told, consulted God in the most important affairs of their commonwealth, and received answers by the Urim and Thummim. What these were, is disputed among the critics. Josephus, and some others, imagine the answer was returned by the stones of the breastplate appearing with an unusual lustre when it was favourable, or in the contrary case dim. Others suppose, that the Urim and Thummim were something enclosed between the folding of the breastplate; this some will have to be the tetragrammaton, or the word יהוה _Jehovah_. Christophorus de Castro, and after him Dr. Spencer, maintain them to be two little images shut up in the doubling of the breastplate, which gave the oracular answer from thence by an articulate voice. Accordingly, they derive them from the Egyptians, who consulted their _lares_, and had an oracle, or teraphim, which they called Truth. This opinion, however, has been sufficiently confuted by the learned Dr. Pococke and by Witsius. The more common opinion among Christians concerning the oracle by Urim and Thummim, and which Dr. Prideaux espouses, is, that when the high priest appeared before the veil, clothed with his ephod and breastplate, to ask counsel of God, the answer was given with an audible voice from the mercy seat, within the veil; but, it has been observed, that this account will by no means agree with the history of David’s consulting the oracle by Abiathar, 1 Sam. xxiii, 9, 11; xxx, 7, 8; because the ark, on which was the mercy seat, was then at Kirjathjearim; whereas David was in the one case at Ziklag, and in the other in the forest of Hareth. Braunius and Hottinger have adopted another opinion: they suppose, that, when Moses is commanded to put in the breastplate the Urim and Thummim, signifying _lights_ and _perfections_ in the plural number, it was meant that he should make choice of the most perfect set of stones, and have them so polished as to give the brightest lustre; and, on this hypothesis, the use of the Urim and Thummim, or of these exquisitely polished jewels, was only to be a symbol of the divine presence, and of the light and perfection of the prophetic inspiration; and, as such, constantly to be worn by the high priest in the exercise of his sacred function, especially in consulting the oracle.

Michaëlis observes: That in making distributions of property, and in cases of disputes relative to _meum_ [mine] and _tuum_, [thine,] recourse was had to the lot, in default of any other means of decision, will naturally be supposed. The whole land was partitioned by lot; and that, in after times, the lot continued to be used, even in courts of justice, we see from Prov. xvi, 33; xviii, 18; where we are expressly taught to remember, that it is Providence which maketh the choice, and that therefore we ought to be satisfied with the decision of the lot, as the will of God. It was for judicial purposes, in a particular manner, that the sacred lot called Urim and Thummim was employed; and on this account the costly embroidered pouch, in which the priest carried this sacred lot on his breast, was called the judicial ornament. “But was this sacred lot used likewise in criminal trials?” Yes, says Michaëlis, only to discover the guilty, to convict them; for in the only two instances of its use in such cases which occur in the whole Bible, namely, in Joshua vii, 14–18, 1 Sam. xiv, 37–45, we find the confessions of the two delinquents, Achan and Jonathan, annexed. It appears also to have been used only in the case of an oath being transgressed which the whole people had taken, or the leader of the host in their name, but not in the case of other crimes; for an unknown murder, for example, was not to be discovered by recourse to the sacred lot.

The inner sanctuary, within the veil of the tabernacle, observes Dr. Hales, or most holy place, was called the oracle, 1 Kings vi, 16, because there the Lord communed with Moses, face to face, and gave him instructions in cases of legal difficulty or sudden emergency, Exod. xxv, 22; Num. vii, 89; ix, 8; Exod. xxxiii, 11; a high privilege granted to none of his successors. After the death of Moses a different mode was appointed for consulting the oracle by the high priest, who put on “the breastplate of judgment,” a principal part of the pontifical dress, on which were inscribed the words Urim and Thummim, emblematical of divine illumination; as the inscription on his mitre, “Holiness to the Lord,” was of sanctification, Exod. xxviii, 30–37; Lev. viii, 8. Thus prepared, he presented himself before the Lord to ask counsel on public matters, not in the inner sanctuary, which he presumed not to enter, except on the great day of national atonement, but without the veil, with his face toward the ark of the covenant, inside; and behind him, at some distance, without the sanctuary, stood Joshua, the judge, or person who wanted the response, which seems to have been given with an audible voice from within the veil, Num. xxvii, 21, as in the case of Joshua, vi, 6–15; of the Israelites during the civil war with Benjamin, Judges xx, 27, 28; on the appointment of Saul to be king, when he hid himself, 1 Sam. x, 22–24; of David, 1 Sam. xxii, 10; xxiii, 2–12; xxx, 8; 2 Sam. v, 23, 24; of Saul, 1 Sam. xxviii, 6. This mode of consultation subsisted under the tabernacle erected by Moses in the wilderness, and until the building of Solomon’s temple; after which we find no instances of it. The oracles of the Lord were thenceforth delivered by the prophets; as by Ahijah to Jeroboam, 1 Kings xi, 29; by Shemaiah to Rehoboam, 1 Kings xii, 22; by Elijah to Ahab, 1 Kings xvii, 1; xxi, 17–29; by Michaiah to Ahab and Jehoshaphat, 1 Kings xxii, 7; by Elisha to Jehoshaphat and Jehoram, 2 Kings iii, 11–14; by Isaiah to Hezekiah, 2 Kings xix, 6–34; xx, 1–11; by Huldah to Josiah, 2 Kings xxii, 13–20; by Jeremiah to Zedekiah, Jer. xxxii, 3–5, &c. After the Babylonish captivity, and the last of the prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the oracle ceased; but its revival was foretold by Ezra, ii, 63, and accomplished by Christ, who was himself the oracle, under the old and new covenants, Gen. xv, 1; John i, 1. See BREASTPLATE.

USURY, profit or gain from lending money or goods. Moses enacted a law to the effect that interest should not be taken from a poor person, neither for borrowed money, nor for articles of consumption, for instance, grain, which was borrowed with the expectation of being returned, Exod. xxii, 25; Lev. xxv, 35–37. A difficulty arose in determining who was to be considered a poor person in a case of this kind; and the law was accordingly altered in Deut. xxiii, 20, 21, and extended in its operation to all the Hebrews, whether they had more or less property; so that interest could be lawfully taken only of foreigners. As the system of the Jews went to secure every man’s paternal inheritance to his own family, they could not exact it from their brethren, but only from strangers. As the law of nature does not forbid the receipt of moderate interest in the shape of rent, for the use of lands or houses, neither does it prohibit it for the loan of money or goods. When one man trades with the capital of another, and obtains a profit from it, he is bound in justice to return a part of it to his benefactor, who, in the hands of God, has been a second cause of “giving him power to get wealth.” But should Divine Providence not favour the endeavours of some who have borrowed money, the duty of the lenders is to deal gently with them, and to be content with sharing in their losses, as they have been sharers in their gains. The Hebrews were therefore exhorted to lend money, &c, as a deed of mercy and brotherly kindness, Deut. xv, 7–11; xxiv, 13. And hence it happens that we find encomiums every where bestowed upon those who were willing to lend without insisting upon interest for the use of the thing lent, Psalm xv, 15; xxxvii, 21, 26; cxii, 5; Prov. xix, 17; Ezek. xviii, 8. This regulation in regard to taking interest was very well suited to the condition of a state that had been recently founded, and which had but very little mercantile dealings; and its principle, though not capable of being generally introduced into communities that are much engaged in commerce, may still be exercised toward those who stand toward us in the relation of brethren.

UZ, LAND OF, the country of Job. As there were three persons of this name, namely, the son of Aram, the son of Nahor, and the grandson of Seir the Horite, commentators are divided in their opinion as to the situation of the country meant by the land of Uz. Bochart, Spanheim, Calmet, Wells, and others, place it in Arabia Deserta. Michaëlis places it in the valley of Damascus; which city was, in fact, built by Uz, the grandson of Shem. Archbishop Magee, Bishop Lowth, Dr. Hales, Dr. Good, and others, with more reason, fix the scene of the history of Job in Idumea. This is also the opinion of Mr. Horne, who refers for a confirmation of it to Lam. iv, 21, where Uz is expressly said to be in Edom; and to Jer. xlix, 7, 8, 20; Ezek. xxv, 13; Amos i, 11, 12; Obad. 8, 9, where both Teman and Dedan are described as inhabitants of Edom. In effect, says Mr. Horne, nothing is clearer than that the history of an inhabitant of Idumea is the subject of the poem which bears the name of Job, and that all the persons introduced into it were Idumeans, dwelling in Idumea; in other words, Edomite Arabs.

VEIL. Women were wont to cover their faces with veils in token of modesty, of reverence, and subjection to their husbands, Gen. xxiv, 65; 1 Cor. xi, 3, &c. In modern times, the women of Syria never appear in the streets without their veils. These are of two kinds, the furragi and the common Aleppo veil; the former being worn by some of the Turkish women only, the latter indiscriminately by all. The first is in the form of a large cloak, with long straight sleeves, and a square hood hanging flat on the back; it is sometimes made of linen, sometimes of a shawl or cloth. This veil, reaching to the heels, conceals the whole of the dress, from the neck downward; while the head and face are covered by a large white handkerchief over the head dress and forehead, and a smaller one tied transversely over the lower part of the face, hanging down on the neck. Many of the Turkish women, instead of the smaller handkerchief, use a long piece of black crape stiffened, which, sloping a little from the forehead, leaves room to breathe more freely. In this last way, the ladies are completely disguised; in the former, the eyes and nose remaining visible, they are easily known by their acquaintances. The _radid_ is a species of veil, which Calmet supposes is worn by married women, as a token of their submission and dependence, and descends low down on the person. To lift up the veil of a virgin is reckoned a gross insult; but to take away the veil of a married woman is one of the greatest indignities that she can receive, because it deprives her of the badge which distinguishes and dignifies her in that character, and betokens her alliance to her husband, and her interest in his affections. This is the reason why the spouse so feelingly complains: “They took away my veil, רדד, from me,” Cant. v, 7. When it is forcibly taken away by the husband, it is equivalent to divorce, and justly reckoned a most severe calamity; therefore, God threatened to take away the ornamental dresses of the daughters of Zion, including the _radidim_, the low descending veils: “In that day the Lord will take away the changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the veils,” Isaiah iii, 18, &c.

The ordinary Aleppo veil is a linen sheet, large enough to cover the whole habit from head to foot, and is brought over the face in a manner to conceal all but one eye. This is perhaps alluded to by the bridegroom in these words: “Thou hast ravished my heart with one of thine eyes,” Cant. iv, 9. In Barbary, when the ladies appear in public, they always fold themselves up so closely in their hykes, that, even without their veils, one can discover very little of their faces. But, in the summer months, when they retire to their country seats, they walk abroad with less caution; though, even then, on the approach of a stranger, they always drop their veils, as Rebekah did on the approach of Isaac. But, although they are so closely wrapped up, that those who look at them cannot see even their hands, still less their face, yet it is reckoned indecent in a man to fix his eyes upon them; he must let them pass without seeming at all to observe them. When a lady of distinction, says Hanway, travels on horseback, she is not only veiled, but has generally a servant, who runs or rides before her to clear the way; and on such occasions the men, even in the market places, always turn their backs till the women are past, it being thought the highest ill manners to look at them. A lady in the east considers herself degraded when she is exposed to the gaze of the other sex, which accounts for the conduct of Vashti in refusing to obey the command of the king. Their ideas of decency, on the other hand, forbid a virtuous woman to lay aside or even to lift up her veil in the presence of the other sex. She who ventures to disregard this prohibition inevitably ruins her character. From that moment she is noted as a woman of easy virtue, and her act is regarded as a signal for intrigue. Pitts informs us that in Barbary the courtezan appears in public without her veil; and, in Prov. vii, 13, 14, the harlot exposes herself in the same indecent manner: “So she caught him, and kissed him, and with an impudent face,” a face uncovered and shameless, “said unto him, I have peace-offerings with me, this day have I paid my vows.” But it must nevertheless be remarked, that, at different times, and in different parts of the east, the use, or partial use of the veil has greatly varied.

VINE, גפן, Gen. xl, 9; ἄμπελος, Matt. xxvi, 29; Mark xiv, 25; Luke xxii, 18; John xv, 4, 5; James iii, 12; Rev. xiv, 19; a noble plant of the creeping kind, famous for its fruit, or grapes, and the liquor they afford. The vine is a common name or genus, including several species under it; and Moses, to distinguish the true vine, or that from which wine is made, from the rest, calls it, the wine vine, Num. vi, 4. Some of the other sorts were of a poisonous quality, as appears from the story related among the miraculous acts of Elisha, 2 Kings iv, 39, 41. (See _Grapes_.) The expression of “sitting every man under his own vine,” probably alludes to the delightful eastern arbours, which were partly composed of vines. Capt. Norden, in like manner, speaks of vine arbours as common in the Egyptian gardens; and the Prænestine pavement in Dr. Shaw gives us the figure of an ancient one. Plantations of trees about houses are found very useful in hot countries, to give them an agreeable coolness. The ancient Israelites seem to have made use of the same means, and probably planted fruit trees, rather than other kinds, to produce that effect. “It is their manner in many places,” says Sir Thomas Rowe’s chaplain, speaking of the country of the Great Mogul, “to plant about and among their buildings, trees which grow high and broad, the shadow whereof keeps their houses by far more cool: this I observed in a special manner, when we were ready to enter Amadavar; for it appeared to us as if we had been entering a wood rather than a city.” “Immediately on entering,” says Turner, “I was ushered into the court yard of the aga, whom I found smoking under a vine, surrounded by horses, servants, and dogs, among which I distinguished an English pointer.” There were in Palestine many excellent vineyards. Scripture celebrates the vines of Sorek, of Sebamah, of Jazer, of Abel. Profane authors mention the excellent wines of Gaza, Sarepta, Libanus, Saron, Ascalon, and Tyre. Jacob, in the blessing which he gave Judah, “Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass’s colt unto the choice vine, he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes,” Gen. xlix, 11; he showed the abundance of vines that should fall to his lot. “Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well, whose branches hang over the wall,” Gen. xlix, 22. “To the northward and westward,” says Morier, “are several villages, interspersed with extensive orchards and vineyards, the latter of which are generally enclosed by high walls. The Persian vine dressers do all in their power to make the vine run up the wall, and curl over on the other side, which they do by tying stones to the extremity of the tendril. The vine, particularly in Turkey and Greece, is frequently made to entwine on trellises around a well, where, in the heat of the day, whole families collect themselves, and sit under the shade.”

Noah planted the vine after the deluge, and is supposed to have been the first who cultivated it, Gen. ix, 20. Many are of opinion that wine was not unknown before the deluge; and that this patriarch only continued to cultivate the vine after that event, as he had done before it: but the fathers think that he knew not the force of wine, having never used it before, nor having ever seen any one use it. He was the first that gathered the juice of the grape, and preserved it till by fermentation it became a potable liquor. Before him men only ate the grapes like other fruit. The law of Moses did not allow the planters of vineyards to eat the fruit before the fifth year, Lev. xix, 24, 25. The Israelites were also required to indulge the poor, the orphan, and the stranger, with the use of the grapes on the seventh year. A traveller was allowed to gather and eat the grapes in a vineyard as he passed along, but he was not permitted to carry any away, Deut. xxiii, 24. The scarcity of fuel, especially wood, in most parts of the east, is so great, that they supply it with every thing capable of burning; cow dung dried, roots, parings of fruits, withered stalks of herbs and flowers, Matthew vi, 30. Vine twigs are particularly mentioned as used for fuel in dressing their food, by D’Arvieux, La Roque, and others: Ezekiel says, in his parable of the vine, used figuratively for the people of God, “Shall wood be taken thereof to do any work? Or will men take a pin of it to hang any vessel thereon? Behold, it is cast into the fire for fuel,” Ezekiel xv, 3, 4. “If a man abide not in me,” saith our Lord, “he is cast forth as a branch” of the vine, “and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned,” John xv, 6.

VINEGAR, חמץ, Num. vi, 3; Ruth ii, 14; Psalm lxix, 21; Prov. x, 26; xxv, 20; ὄξος, Matt. xxvii, 48; Mark xv, 36; John xix, 29, 30; an acid produced by a second fermentation of vinous liquors. The law of the Nazarite was that he should “separate himself from wine and strong drink, and should drink no vinegar of wine, nor vinegar of strong drink, nor any liquor of grapes.” This is exactly the same prohibition that was given in the case of John the Baptist, Luke i, 15, οἶνον καὶ σίκερα οὺ μὴ ϖίῃ, _wine and sikera he shall not drink_. Any inebriating liquor, says Jerom, is called _sicera_, whether made of corn, apples, honey, dates, or other fruits. One of the four prohibited drinks among the Mohammedans in India is called _sakar_, which signifies inebriating drink in general, but especially date wine. From the original word, probably, we have our term cider or sider, which among us, exclusively means the fermented juice of apples. Vinegar was used by harvesters for their refreshment. Boaz told Ruth that she might come and dip her bread in vinegar with his people. Pliny says, ”_Aceto summa vis in refrigerando_.” [There is the greatest power in vinegar, in cooling.] It made a very cooling beverage. It was generally diluted with water. When very strong, it affected the teeth disagreeably, Prov. x, 26. In Proverbs xxv, 20, the singing of songs to a heavy heart is finely compared to the contrariety or colluctation between vinegar and nitre; untimely mirth to one in anxiety serves only to exasperate, and as it were put into a ferment by the intrusion.

The Emperor Pescennius Niger gave orders that his soldiers should drink nothing but vinegar on their marches. That which the Roman soldiers offered to our Saviour at his crucifixion, was, probably, the vinegar they made use of for their own drinking. Constantine the Great allowed them wine and vinegar alternately, every day. This vinegar was not of that sort which we use for salads and sauces; but it was a tart wine called _pesca_, or _sera_. They make great use of it in Spain and Italy, in harvest time. They use it also in Holland, and on shipboard, to correct the ill taste of the water.

VIPER, אפעה, Job xx, 16; Isaiah xxx, 6; lix, 5; ἔχιδνα, Matt. iii, 7; xii, 34; xxiii, 33; Luke iii, 7; Acts xxviii, 3; a serpent famed for the venomousness of its bite, which is one of the most dangerous poisons in the animal kingdom. So remarkable, says Dr. Mead, has the viper been for its venom, that the remotest antiquity made it an emblem of what is hurtful and destructive. Nay, so terrible was the nature of these creatures, that they were very commonly thought to be sent as executioners of divine vengeance upon mankind, for enormous crimes which had escaped the course of justice. An instance of such an opinion as this we have in the history of St. Paul, Acts xxviii, whom the people of Melita, when they saw the viper leap upon his hand, presently concluded to be a murderer; and as readily made a god of him when, instead of having his hand inflamed, or falling down dead, one or other of which is usually the effect of these bites, he without any harm shook the reptile into the fire: it being obvious enough to imagine that he must stand in a near relation at least to the gods themselves, who could thus command the messengers of their vengeance, and counterwork the effects of such powerful agents.

VISION, the act of seeing; but, in Scripture, it generally signifies a supernatural appearance, either by dream or in reality, by which God made known his will and pleasure to those to whom it was vouchsafed, Acts ix, 10, 12; xvi, 9, xxvi, 13; 2 Cor. xii, 1. Thus, in the earliest times, to patriarchs, prophets, and holy men God sent angels, he appeared to them himself by night in dreams, he illuminated their minds, he made his voice to be heard by them, he sent them ecstasies, and transported them beyond themselves, and made them hear things that eye had not seen, ear had not heard, and which had not entered into the heart of man. The Lord showed himself to Moses, and spoke to him when he was at the mouth of the cave. Jesus Christ manifested himself to his Apostles, in his transfiguration upon the mount, and on several other occasions after his resurrection. God appeared to Abraham under the form of three travellers; he showed himself to Isaiah and Ezekiel, in the splendour of his glory. Vision is also used for the prophecies written by the prophets. The _beatific vision_ denotes the act of angels and glorified spirits beholding in heaven the unveiled splendours of the Lord Jehovah, and privileged to contemplate his perfections and plans in and by himself.

VOCATION, or CALLING, is a gracious act of God in Christ, by which, through his word and Spirit, he calls forth sinful men, who are liable to condemnation and placed under the dominion of sin, from the condition of the animal life, and from the pollutions and corruptions of this world, 2 Tim. i, 9; Matt. xi, 28; 1 Peter ii, 9, 10; Gal. i, 4; 2 Peter ii, 20; Romans x, 13–15; 1 Peter iii, 19; Gen. vi, 3, unto “the fellowship of Jesus Christ,” and of his kingdom and its benefits; that, being united unto him as their head, they may derive from him life, sensation, motion, and a plenitude of every spiritual blessing, to the glory of God and their own salvation, 1 Cor. i, 9; Gal. ii, 20; Eph. i, 3, 6; 2 Thess. ii, 13, 14. The end intended is, that they who have been called answer by faith to God and to Christ who give the call, and that they thus become the covenanted people of God through Christ the Mediator of the new covenant; and, after having become believers and parties to the covenant, that they love, fear, honour, and worship God and Christ, render in all things obedience to the divine precepts “in righteousness and true holiness,” and that by this means they “make their calling and election sure,” Prov. i, 24; Heb. iii, 7; Rev. iii, 20; Eph. ii, 11–16; Titus iii, 8; Deut. vi, 4, 5; Jer. xxxii, 38, 39; Luke i, 74, 75; 2 Peter i, 1, 10. The glory of God, who is supremely wise, good, merciful, just, and powerful, is so luminously displayed in this communication both of his grace and glory, as deservedly to raise into rapturous admiration the minds of angels and of men, and to employ their loosened tongues in celebrating the praises of Jehovah, Rev. iv, 8–11; v, 8–10. See CALLING.

VOW, a promise made to God, of doing some good thing hereafter. The use of vows is observable throughout Scripture. When Jacob went into Mesopotamia, he vowed to God the tenth of his estate, and promised to offer it at Bethel, to the honour of God, Gen. xxviii, 22. Moses enacts several laws for the regulation and execution of vows. A man might devote himself, or his children, to the Lord. Jephthah devoted his daughter, Judges xi, 30, 31. Samuel was vowed or consecrated to the service of the Lord before his birth, by his pious mother Hannah; and was really offered to him, to serve in the tabernacle, 1 Sam. i, 21, &c. If a man and woman vowed themselves to the Lord, they were obliged to adhere strictly to his service, according to the conditions of the vow; but in some cases they might be redeemed. A man from twenty years of age till sixty, gave fifty shekels of silver; and a woman thirty, Lev. xxvii, 3. From the age of five years to twenty, a man gave twenty shekels, and a woman ten; from a month old to five years, they gave for a boy five shekels, and for a girl three. A man of sixty years old, or upward, gave fifteen shekels, and a woman of the same age gave ten. If the person was poor, and could not procure this sum, the priest imposed a ransom upon him, according to his abilities. If any one had vowed an animal that was clean, he had not the liberty of redeeming it, or of exchanging it, but was obliged to sacrifice it to the Lord. If it was an unclean animal, and such as was not allowed to be sacrificed, the priest made a valuation of it; and if the proprietor would redeem it, he added a fifth part to the value, by way of forfeit. They did the same in proportion, when the thing vowed was a house or a field. They could not devote the first born, because in their own nature they belonged to the Lord, Lev. xxvii, 28, 29. Whatever was devoted by way of anathema, could not be redeemed, of whatever nature or quality it was. An animal was put to death, and other things were devoted for ever to the Lord. The consecration of Nazarites was a particular kind of vow. The vows and promises of children were void, of course, except they were ratified either by the express or tacit consent of their parents. It was the same with the vows of a married woman; they were of no validity, except confirmed by the express or tacit consent of her husband, Num. xxx. But widows, or liberated wives, were bound by their vows, whatever they were.

Whosoever invokes the awful name of God to witness any untruth, knowing it to be such, is guilty of taking it in vain. Our Lord did not mean to preclude solemn appeals to heaven, whether oaths or vows, in courts of justice, or in important compacts. For an oath, or appeal to the greatest of all beings, as the Searcher of hearts, to witness a transaction, and to punish falsehood or perjury, is necessary, for putting an end to all strife or controversy among men, to promote confirmation or security of property, Heb. vi, 16. And it was sanctioned by the example of God, swearing by himself, Genesis xxii, 15; Heb. vi, 17, 18; and by the example of the patriarchs and saints of old; thus Abraham swore by the most high God, Creator of heaven and earth, Gen. xiv, 22; the transjordanite tribes, by the God of gods, the Lord, Joshua xxii, 22. And the law prescribed, “Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name,” Deut. vi, 13. And afterward, “All Judah rejoiced at the oath, for they had sworn unto the Lord with a loud voice, with all their heart, and sought him with their whole desire: and he was found of them; and the Lord gave them rest round about,” 2 Chron. xv, 14, 15. And a highly gifted Apostle uses the following most solemn asseveration, “The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not,” 2 Cor. xi, 31. See the vows of the priests and Levites, to put away strange wives, Ezra x, 5; and to take no usury from their brethren, Neh. x, 29. St. Paul also vowed a vow, which he performed, Acts xviii, 18; xxi, 23. Our Lord, therefore, reënacted the law, while he guarded against the abuse of it, by prohibiting all oaths in common conversation, as a profanation either of God’s name, where that was irreverently used, or where any of his works was substituted instead of the awful and terrible name of the Lord, which the Jews, through superstitious dread, at length ceased to use, from misinterpretation of Deut. xxviii, 58: “But I say unto you, Swear not at all,” in common conversation, by any of your usual oaths, “neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by the earth, for it is his footstool,” &c. For, by the detestable casuistry of the scribes and Pharisees, some oaths were reckoned binding, others not, as we learn from the sequel; thus, to swear by the temple, the altar, heaven, &c, they considered as not binding: but to swear by the gold of the temple, by the gift on the altar, &c, they considered as binding; the absurdity and impiety of which practice is well exposed by our Lord in Matt. xxiii, 16–22.

VULGATE, a very ancient Latin translation of the Bible; and the only one the church of Rome acknowledges to be authentic. The ancient Vulgate of the Old Testament was translated almost word for word, from the Greek of the Septuagint. The author of the version is not known. It was a long time known by the name of the Italic, or old version; as being of very great antiquity in the Latin church. It was the common, or vulgar version, before St. Jerom made a new one from the Hebrew original, with occasional references to the Septuagint; whence it has its name Vulgate. Nobilius, in 1558, and F. Morin, in 1628, gave new editions of it; pretending to have restored and re-collated it from the ancients who had cited it. It has since been retouched from the correction of St. Jerom; and it is this mixture of the ancient Italic version, and some corrections of St. Jerom, that is now called the Vulgate, and which the council of Trent has declared to be authentic. It is this Vulgate alone that is used in the Romish church, excepting some passages of the ancient Vulgate, which were left in the Missal and the Psalms, and which are still sung according to the old Italic version. St. Jerom declares that, in his revisal of the Italic version, he used great care and circumspection, never varying from that version but when he thought it misrepresented the sense. But as the Greek copies to which he had access were not so ancient as those from which the Italic version had been made, some learned authors have been of opinion that it would have been much better if he had collected all the copies, and, by comparing them, have restored that translation to its original purity. It is plain that he never completed this work, and that he even left some faults in it, for fear of varying too much from the ancient version, since he renders in his commentaries some words otherwise than he has done in his translation. This version was not introduced into the church but by degrees, for fear of offending weak persons. Rufinus, notwithstanding his enmity to St. Jerom, and his having exclaimed much against this performance, was one of the first to prefer it to the vulgar or Italian. This translation gained at last so great an authority, by the approbation of Pope Gregory I., and his declared preference of it to every other, that it was subsequently brought into public use through all the western churches. Although it was not regarded as authentic, except by the council of Trent, it is certainly of some use, as serving to illustrate several passages both of the Old and New Testament.

The two principal popish editions of the Vulgate are those of pope Sixtus V. and Clement VIII.: the former was printed in 1590, after Pope Sixtus had collected the most ancient MSS. and best printed copies, summoned the most learned men out of all the nations of the Christian world, assembled a congregation of cardinals for their assistance and counsel, and presided over the whole himself. This edition was declared to be corrected in the very best manner possible, and published with a tremendous excommunication against every person who should presume ever afterward to alter the least particle of the edition thus authentically promulgated by his holiness, sitting in that chair, _in quâ Petri vivit potestas, et excellit auctoritas_, [in which the power of Peter lived, and his authority excelled.] The other edition was published in 1592, by Pope Clement VIII.; which was so different from that of Sixtus, as to contain two thousand variations, some of whole verses, and many others clearly and designedly contradictory in sense; and yet this edition is also, _ex cathedrâ_, [from the chair,] pronounced as the only authentic one, and enforced by the same sentence of excommunication with the former. Clement suppressed the edition of his predecessor; so that copies of the Sixtine Vulgate are now very scarce, and have long been reckoned among literary rarities. Our learned countryman, Dr. James, the celebrated correspondent and able coadjutor of Archbishop Usher, relates, with all the ardour of a hard student, the delight which he experienced on unexpectedly obtaining a Sixtine copy; and he used it to good and effective purpose in his very clever book, entitled “_Bellum Papale_,” in which he has pointed out numerous additions, omissions, contradictions, and glaring differences between the Sixtine and Clementine editions. All the popish champions are exceedingly shy about recognizing this irreconcilable conflict between the productions of two such infallible personages; and the boldest of them wish to represent it as a thing of nought. But it is no light matter thus to tamper with the word of God.

The Romanists generally hold the Vulgate of the New Testament preferable to the common Greek text; because it is this alone, and not the Greek text, that the council of Trent has declared authentic: accordingly that church has, as it were, adopted this edition, and the priests read no other at the altar, the preachers quote no other in the pulpit, nor the divines in the schools. Yet some of their best authors, F. Bouhours for instance, own, that among the differences that are found between the common Greek and the Vulgate, there are some in which the Greek reading appears more clear and natural than that of the Latin; so that the second might be corrected from the first, if the holy see should think fit. But those differences, taken in general, only consist in a few syllables or words; they rarely concern the sense. Beside, in some of the most considerable, the Vulgate is authorized by several ancient manuscripts. Bouhours spent the last years of his life in giving a French translation of the New Testament according to the Vulgate. It is probable that at the time the ancient Italic or Vulgate version of the New Testament was made, and at the time it was afterward compared with the Greek manuscripts by St. Jerom, as they were then nearer the times of the Apostles, they had more accurate Greek copies, and those better kept, than any of those used when printing was invented.

“Highly as the Latin Vulgate is extolled by the church of Rome,” says Michaëlis, “it was depreciated beyond measure at the beginning of the sixteenth century by several learned Protestants, whose example has been followed by men of inferior abilities. At the restoration of learning, when the faculty of writing elegant Latin was the highest accomplishment of a scholar, the Vulgate was regarded with contempt, as not written with classical purity. But after the Greek manuscripts were discovered, their readings were preferred to those of the Latin, because the New Testament was written in Greek, and the Latin was only a version; but it was not considered that these Greek manuscripts were modern in comparison of those originals from which the Latin was taken; nor was it known at that time, that the more ancient the Greek manuscripts and the other versions were, the closer was their agreement with the Vulgate. Our ablest writers, such as Mill and Bengel, have been induced by F. Simon’s treatise to abandon the opinion of their predecessors, and have ascribed to the Latin Vulgate a value perhaps greater than it deserves.”

VULTURE, דאה, and ראה, Lev. xi, 14; Isa. xxxiv, 15; a large bird of prey, somewhat resembling the eagle. There are several birds of the vulturine kind, which, though they differ much in respect to colour and dimensions, yet are all easily distinguished by their naked heads, and beaks partly straight and partly crooked. They are frequent in Arabia, Egypt, and many parts of Africa and Asia. They have a most indelicate voracity, preying more upon carrion than live animals. They were declared unclean in the Levitical constitution.

WALDENSES, WALLENSES, or ALBIGENSES, the Vaudois, or inhabitants of the beautiful valleys of the Alps, between Italy and Provence. Many have supposed that they derived their name from Peter Waldo, or Valdo, a merchant of Lyons, in the twelfth century, and one of their leaders and patrons; but their history has been traced considerably farther back, which has led others to suppose that, on the contrary, he derived his name from them, as Peter the Waldensian, or Peter of the Valleys. The learned Dr. Allix, in his “History of the Churches of Piedmont,” gives this account: For three hundred years or more, the bishop of Rome attempted to subjugate the church of Milan under his jurisdiction; and at last the interest of Rome grew too potent for the church of Milan, planted by one of the disciples; insomuch that the bishop and the people, rather than own their jurisdiction, retired to the valleys of Lucerne and Angrogne, and thence were called Vallenses, Wallenses, or, The People in the Valleys. From a confession of their faith, of the early date, A. D. 1120, we extract the following particulars: 1. That the Scriptures teach that there is one God, almighty, all-wise, and all-good, who made all things by his goodness; for he formed Adam in his own image and likeness; but that by the envy of the devil sin entered into the world, and that we are sinners in and by Adam. 2. That Christ was promised to our fathers, who received the law; that so knowing by the law their unrighteousness and insufficiency, they might desire the coming of Christ, to satisfy for their sins, and accomplish the law by himself. 3. That Christ was born in the time appointed by God the Father; that is to say, in the time when all iniquity abounded, that he might show us grace and mercy, as being faithful. 4. That Christ is our life, truth, peace, and righteousness; as also our pastor, advocate, and priest, who died for the salvation of all who believe, and is risen for our justification. 5. That there is no mediator and advocate with God the Father, save Jesus Christ. 6. That after this life there are only two places, the one for the saved, and the other for the damned. 7. That the feasts, the vigils of saints, the water which they call holy, as also to abstain from flesh on certain days, and the like, but especially the masses, are the inventions of men, and ought to be rejected. 8. That the sacraments are signs of the holy thing, visible forms of the invisible grace; and that it is good for the faithful to use those signs or visible forms; but that they are not essential to salvation. 9. That there are no other sacraments but baptism and the Lord’s Supper. 10. That we ought to honour the secular powers by subjection, ready obedience, and paying of tribute. On the subject of infant baptism, they held different opinions, as Christians do in the present day.

For bearing this noble testimony against the church of Rome, these pious people were for many centuries the subjects of a most cruel persecution; and in the thirteenth century the pope instituted a crusade against them, and they were pursued with a fury perfectly diabolical. Their principles, however, continued unsubdued, and at the Reformation their descendants were reckoned among the Protestants, with whom they were in doctrine so congenial; but in the seventeenth century the flames of persecution were again rekindled against them by the cruelty of Louis XIV. At the revocation of the edict of Nantz, about fifteen thousand perished in the prisons of Pignerol, beside great numbers who perished among the mountains. They received, however, the powerful protection and support of England under William III. But still the house of Saxony continued to treat them as heretics, and they were oppressed by a variety of cruel edicts.

When Piedmont was subjected to France in 1800, the French government, Buonaparte being first consul, placed them on the same plan of toleration with the rest of France; but on the return of the king of Sardinia to Genoa, notwithstanding the intercession of Lord William Bentinck, the old persecuting edicts were revived in the end of 1814; and though they have not been subjected to fire and faggot as aforetime, their worship has been restrained, and they were not only stripped of all employments, but, by a most providential circumstance only, saved from a general massacre. Since then they have been visited by some pious and benevolent Englishmen; and the number of Waldenses, or Vaudois, has been taken at nineteen thousand seven hundred and ten, beside about fifty families residing at Turin.

Mr. Milner very properly connects this people with the Cathari, or Paulicians, of the seventh century, who resided chiefly in the valleys of Piedmont, and who, in the twelfth century, according to this valuable historian, received a great accession of members from the learned labours and godly zeal of Peter Waldo, a pious man of unusual learning for a layman at that period. His thoughts being turned to divine things by the sudden death of a friend, he applied himself to the study of the Scriptures, and was, according to Mr. Milner, the first who, in the west of Europe, translated the Bible into a modern language. Waldo was rich, and distributed his wealth among the poor, and with it the bread of life, which endeared him to the lower classes; and it was probably the great increase of these pious people, in consequence of his exertions, which brought upon them the horrible crusade in the next century. This was, however, wholly on account of their pretended heresies,--their bitterest enemies bearing testimony to the purity of their life and manners. Thus a pontifical inquisitor, quoted by Usher, says, “These heretics are known by their manners and conversation; for they are orderly and modest in their behaviour and deportment; they avoid all appearance of pride in their dress; they are chaste, temperate, and sober; they seek not to amass riches; they abstain from anger; and, even while at work, are either learning or teaching.” Seysillius, another popish writer, says of them, “Their heresy excepted, they generally live a purer life than other Christians.” Liclenstenius, a Dominican, says, “In morals and life they are good; true in words; unanimous in brotherly love; but their faith is incorrigible and vile, as I have shown you in my treatise.” But most remarkable is the testimony of Reinerus, an inquisitor of the thirteenth century: “Of all the sects which have been, or now exist, none is more injurious to the church, (that is, of Rome,) for three reasons: 1. Because it is more ancient. Some say it has continued from the time of Silvester; others from the time of the Apostles. 2. Because it is more general. There is scarcely any country into which this sect has not crept. 3. Because all other heretics excite horror by the greatness of their blasphemies against God; but these have a great appearance of piety, as they live justly before men, and believe rightly all things concerning God, and all the articles which are contained in the creed.”

WAR, or WARFARE, the attempt to decide a contest or difference between princes, states, or large bodies of people, by resorting to extensive acts of violence, or, as the phrase is, by an appeal to arms. The Hebrews were formerly a very warlike nation. The books that inform us of their wars display neither ignorance nor flattery; but are writings inspired by the Spirit of truth and wisdom. Their warriors were none of those fabulous heroes or professed conquerors, whose business it was to ravage cities and provinces, and to reduce foreign nations under their dominion, merely for the sake of governing, or purchasing a name for themselves. They were commonly wise and valiant generals, raised up by God “to fight the battles of the Lord,” and to exterminate his enemies. Such were Joshua, Caleb, Gideon, Jephthah, Samson, David, Josiah, and the Maccabees, whose names alone are their own sufficient encomiums. Their wars were not undertaken upon slight occasions, or performed with a handful of people. Under Joshua the affair was of no less importance than to make himself master of a vast country which God had given up to him; and to root out several powerful nations that God had devoted to an anathema; and to vindicate an offended Deity, and human nature which had been debased by a wicked and corrupt people, who had filled up the measure of their iniquities. Under the Judges, the matter was to assert their liberty, by shaking off the yoke of powerful tyrants, who kept them in subjection. Under Saul and David the same motives prevailed to undertake war; and to these were added a farther motive, of making a conquest of such provinces as God had promised to his people. Far was it from their intention merely to reduce the power of the Philistines, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Idumeans, the Arabians, the Syrians, and the several princes that were in possession of those countries. In the later times of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, we observe their kings bearing the shock of the greatest powers of Asia, of the kings of Assyria and Chaldea, Shalmaneser, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and Nebuchadnezzar, who made the whole east tremble. Under the Maccabees a handful of men opposed the whole power of the kings of Syria, and against them maintained the religion of their fathers, and shook off the yoke of their oppressors, who had a design both against their religion and liberty. In still later times, with what courage, intrepidity, and constancy, did they sustain the war against the Romans, who were then masters of the world!

We may distinguish two kinds of wars among the Hebrews: some were of obligation, as being expressly commanded by the Lord; but others were free and voluntary. The first were such as God appointed them to undertake: for example, against the Amalekites and the Canaanites, which were nations devoted to an anathema. The others were undertaken by the captains of the people, to revenge some injuries offered to the nation, to punish some insults or offences, or to defend their allies. Such was that which the Hebrews made against the city of Gibeah, and against the tribe of Benjamin, which would support them in their fault; that which David made against the Ammonites, whose king had affronted his ambassadors; and that of Joshua against the kings of the Canaanites, to protect the Gibeonites. Whatever reasons authorize a nation or a prince to make war against another, obtained, likewise, among the Hebrews; for all the laws of Moses suppose that the Israelites might make war, and might defend themselves, against their enemies. When a war was resolved upon, all the people that were capable of bearing arms were collected together, or only part of them, according as the exigence of the existing case and the necessity and importance of the enterprise required. For it does not appear that, before the reign of King David, there were any regular troops or magazines in Israel. A general rendezvous was appointed, a review was made of the people by tribes and by families, and then they marched against the enemy. When Saul, at the beginning of his reign, was informed of the cruel proposal that the Ammonites had made to the men of the city of Jabesh-Gilead, he cut in pieces the oxen belonging to his plough, and sent them through the country, saying, “Whosoever cometh not forth after Saul and Samuel, to the relief of Jabesh-Gilead, so shall it be done unto his oxen,” 1 Sam. xi, 7. In ancient times, those that went to war generally carried their own provisions along with them, or they took them from the enemy. Hence these wars were generally of short continuance; because it was hardly possible to subsist a large body of troops for a long time with such provisions as every one carried along with him. When David, Jesse’s younger son, stayed behind to look after his father’s flocks while his elder brothers went to the wars along with Saul, Jesse sent David to carry provisions to his brothers, 1 Sam. xvii, 13. We suppose that this way of making war prevailed also under Joshua, the Judges, Saul, David at the beginning of his reign, the kings of Judah and Israel who were successors to Rehoboam and Jeroboam, and under the Maccabees, till the time of Simon Maccabæus, prince and high priest of the Jews, who had mercenary troops, that is, soldiers who received pay, 1 Mac. xiv, 32. Every one also provided his own arms for the war. The kings of the Hebrews went to the wars in person, and, in earlier times, fought on foot, as well as the meanest of their soldiers; no horses being used in the armies of Israel before David. The officers of war among the Hebrews were the general of the army, and the princes of the tribes or of the families of Israel, beside other princes or captains, some of a thousand, some of a hundred, some of fifty, and some of ten, men. They had also their scribes, who were a kind of commissaries that kept the muster roll of the troops; and these had others under them who acted by their direction.

Military fortifications were at first nothing more than a trench or ditch, dug round a few cottages on a hill or mountain, together with the mound, which was formed by the sand dug out of it; except, perhaps, there might have sometimes been an elevated scaffolding for the purpose of throwing stones with the greater effect against the enemy. In the age of Moses and Joshua, the walls which surrounded cities were elevated to no inconsiderable height, and were furnished with towers. The art of fortification was encouraged and patronized by the Hebrew kings, and Jerusalem was always well defended, especially Mount Zion. In later times the temple itself was used as a castle. The principal parts of a fortification were, 1. The wall, which, in some instances, was triple and double, 2 Chron. xxxii, 5. Walls were commonly made lofty and broad, so as to be neither readily passed over nor broken through, Jer. li, 58. The main wall terminated at the top in a parapet for the accommodation of the soldiers, which opened at intervals in a sort of embrasures, so as to give them an opportunity of fighting with missile weapons. 2. Towers, which were erected at certain distances from each other on the top of walls, and ascended to a great height, terminated at the top in a flat roof, and were surrounded with a parapet, which exhibited openings similar to those in the parapet of the walls. Towers of this kind were erected, likewise, over the gates of cities. In these towers guards were kept constantly stationed; at least, this was the case in the time of the kings. It was their business to make known any thing that they discovered at a distance; and whenever they noticed an irruption from an enemy, they blew the trumpet, to arouse the citizens, 2 Sam. xiii, 34; xviii, 26, 27; 2 Kings ix, 17–19; Nahum ii, 1; 2 Chron. xvii, 2. Towers, likewise, which were somewhat larger in size, were erected in different parts of the country, particularly on places which were elevated; and these were guarded by a military force, Judges viii, 9,17; ix, 46, 49, 51; Isaiah xxi, 6; Hab. ii, 1; Hosea v, 8; Jer. xxxi, 6. We find, even to this day, that the circular edifices of this sort, which are still erected in the solitudes of Arabia Felix, bear their ancient name of castles or towers. 3. The walls were erected in such a way as to curve inward; the extremities of them, consequently, projected outward, and formed a kind of bastions. The object of forming the walls so as to present such projections, was to enable the inhabitants of the besieged city to attack the assailants in flank. We learn from the history of Tacitus, that the walls of Jerusalem, at the time of its being attacked by the Romans, were built in this manner. These projections were introduced by King Uzziah, B.C. 810, and are subsequently mentioned in Zeph. i, 16. 4. The digging of a fosse put it in the power of the inhabitants of a city to increase the elevation of the walls, and of itself threw a serious difficulty in the way of an enemy’s approach, 2 Sam. xx, 15; Isaiah xxvi, 1; Neh. iii, 8; Psalm xlviii, 13. The fosse, if the situation of the place admitted it, was filled with water. This was the case at Babylon. 5. The gates were at first made of wood, and were small in size. They were constructed in the manner of valve doors, and were secured by means of wooden bars. Subsequently, they were made larger and stronger; and, in order to prevent their being burned, were covered with plates of brass or iron. The bars were covered in the same manner, in order to prevent their being cut asunder; but it was sometimes the case that they were made wholly of iron. The bars were secured by a sort of lock, Psalm cvii, 16; Isaiah xlv, 2.

Previously to commencing war, the Heathen nations consulted oracles, soothsayers, necromancers, and also the lot, which was ascertained by shooting arrows of different colours, 1 Sam. xxviii, 1–10; Isaiah xli, 21–24; Ezek. xxv, 11. The Hebrews, to whom things of this kind were interdicted, were in the habit, in the early part of their history, of inquiring of God by means of Urim and Thummim, Judges i, 1; xx, 27, 28; 1 Sam. xxiii, 2; xxviii, 6; xxx, 8. After the time of David, the kings who reigned in Palestine consulted, according to the different characters which they sustained, and the feelings which they exercised, sometimes true prophets, and sometimes false, in respect to the issue of war, 1 Kings xxii, 6–13; 2 Kings xix, 2, &c. Sacrifices were also offered, in reference to which the soldiers were said to consecrate themselves to the war, Isaiah xiii, 3; Jer. vi, 4; li, 27; Joel iii, 9; Obad. 1. There are instances of formal declarations of war, and sometimes of previous negotiations, 2 Kings xiv, 8; 2 Chron. xxv, 27; Judges xi, 12–28; but ceremonies of this kind were not always observed, 2 Sam. x, 1–12. When the enemy made a sudden incursion, or when the war was unexpectedly commenced, the alarm was given to the people by messengers rapidly sent forth, by the sound of warlike trumpets, by standards floating on the loftiest places, by the clamour of many voices on the mountains, that echoed from summit to summit, Judges iii, 27; vi, 34; vii, 22; xix, 29, 30; 1 Sam. xi, 7, 8; Isaiah v, 26; xiii, 2; xviii, 3; xxx, 17; xlix, 2; lxii, 10. Military expeditions commonly commenced in the spring, 2 Sam. xi, 1, and were continued in the summer, but in the winter the soldiers went into quarters. The firm persuasion that God fights for the good against the wicked, discovers itself in the Old Testament, and accounts for the fact, that, not only in the Hebrew, but also in the Arabic, Syriac, and Chaldaic languages, words, which originally signify justice, innocence, or uprightness, signify likewise victory; and that words, whose usual meaning is injustice or wickedness, also mean defeat or overthrow. The same may be said in respect to words which signify help or aid, inasmuch as the nation which conquered received aid from God, and God was its helper, Psalm vii, 9; ix, 9; xx, 6; xxvi, 1; xxxv, 24; xliii, 1; xliv, 5; lxxv, 3; lxxvi, 13; lxxviii, 9; lxxxii, 8; 1 Sam. xiv, 45; 2 Kings v, 1; Isa. lix, 17; Hab. iii, 8.

The attack of the orientals in battle has always been, and is to this day, characterized by vehemence and impetuosity. In case the enemy sustain an unaltered front, they retreat, but it is not long before they return again with renewed ardour. It was the practice of the Roman armies to stand still in the order of battle, and to receive the shock of their opposers. To this practice there are allusions in the following passages: 1 Cor. xvi, 13; Gal. v, 1; Eph. vi, 14; Phil. i, 27; 1 Thess. iii, 8; 2 Thess. ii, 15. The Greeks, while they were yet three or four furlongs distant from the enemy, commenced the song of war; something resembling which occurs in 2 Chron. xx, 21. They then raised a shout, which was also done among the Hebrews, 1 Sam. xvii, 52; Joshua vi, 6; Isa. v, 29, 30; xvii, 12; Jer. iv, 19; xxv, 30. The war shout in Judges vii, 20, was as follows, “The sword of the Lord and of Gideon.” In some instances it seems to have been a mere yell or inarticulate cry. The mere march of armies with their weapons, chariots, and trampling coursers, occasioned a great and confused noise, which is compared by the prophets to the roaring of the ocean, and the dashing of the mountain torrents, Isa. xvii, 12, 13; xxvii, 2. The descriptions of battles in the Bible are very brief; but although there is nothing especially said, in respect to the order in which the battle commenced and was conducted, there is hardly a doubt that the light-armed troops, as was the case in other nations, were the first in the engagement. The main body followed them, and, with their spears extended, made a rapid and impetuous movement upon the enemy. Hence swiftness of foot in a soldier is mentioned as a ground of great commendation, not only in Homer, but in the Bible, 2 Sam. ii, 19–24; 1 Chron. xii, 8; Psalm xviii, 33. Those who obtained the victory were intoxicated with joy; the shout of triumph resounded from mountain to mountain, Isa. xlii, 11; lii, 7, 8; Jer. 1, 2; Ezek. vii, 7; Nahum i, 15. The whole of the people, not excepting the women, went out to meet the returning conquerors with singing and with dancing, Judges xi, 34–37; 1 Sam. xviii, 6, 7. Triumphal songs were uttered for the living, and elegies for the dead, 2 Sam. i, 17, 18; 2 Chron. xxxv, 25; Judges v, 1–31; Exod. xv, 1–21. Monuments in honour of the victory were erected, 2 Sam. viii, 13; Psalm lx, 1; and the arms of the enemy were hung up as trophies in the tabernacle, 1 Sam. xxxi, 10; 2 Kings xi, 10. The soldiers who conducted themselves meritoriously were honoured with presents, and had the opportunity of entering into honourable matrimonial connections, Joshua xiv; 1 Sam. xvii, 25; xxviii, 17; 2 Sam. xviii, 11. See ARMIES, and ARMS.

WATER. In the sacred Scriptures, bread and water are commonly mentioned as the chief supports of human life; and to provide a sufficient quantity of water, to prepare it for use, and to deal it out to the thirsty, are among the principal cares of an oriental householder. The Moabites and Ammonites are reproached for not meeting the Israelites with bread and water; that is, with proper refreshments, Deut. xxxiii, 4. Nabal says in an insulting manner to David’s messengers, “Shall I then take my bread and my water, and my flesh that I have killed for my shearers, and give it unto men whom I know not whence they be?” 1 Sam. xxv, 11. To furnish travellers with water is, even in present times, reckoned of so great importance, that many of the eastern philanthropists have been at considerable expense to procure them that enjoyment. The nature of the climate, and the general aspect of the oriental regions, require numerous fountains to excite and sustain the languid powers of vegetation; and the sun, burning with intense heat in a cloudless sky, demands for the fainting inhabitants the verdure, shade, and coolness which vegetation produces. Hence fountains of living water are met with in the towns and villages, in the fields and gardens, and by the sides of the roads and of the beaten tracks on the mountains; and a cup of cold water from these wells is no contemptible present. “Fatigued with heat and thirst,” says Carne, “we came to a few cottages in a palm wood, and stopped to drink of a fountain of delicious water. In this northern climate no idea can be formed of the luxury of drinking in Egypt: little appetite for food is felt; but when, after crossing the burning sands, you reach the rich line of woods on the brink of the Nile, and pluck the fresh limes, and, mixing their juice with Egyptian sugar and the soft river water, drink repeated bowls of lemonade, you feel that every other pleasure of the senses must yield to this. One then perceives the beauty and force of those similes in Scripture, where the sweetest emotions of the heart are compared to the assuaging of thirst in a thirsty land.” In Arabia, equal attention is paid, by the wealthy and benevolent, to the refreshment of the traveller. On one of the mountains of Arabia, Niebuhr found three little reservoirs, which are always kept full of fine water for the use of passengers. These reservoirs, which are about two feet and a half square, and from five to seven feet high, are round, or pointed at the top, of mason’s work, having only a small opening in one of the sides, by which they pour water into them. Sometimes he found, near these places of Arab refreshment, a piece of a ground shell, or a little scoop of wood, for lifting the water. The same attention to the comfort of travellers is manifested in Egypt, where public buildings are set apart in some of their cities, the business of whose inhabitants is to supply the passengers with water free of expense. Some of these houses make a very handsome appearance; and the persons appointed to wait on the passengers are required to have some vessels of copper, curiously tinned and filled with water, always ready on the window next the street. Some of the Mohammedan villages in Palestine, not far from Nazareth, brought Mr. Buckingham and his party bread and water, while on horseback, without even being solicited to do so; and when they halted to accept it, both compliments and blessings were mutually interchanged. “Here, as in every other part of Nubia,” says Burckhardt, “the thirsty traveller finds, at short distances, water jars placed by the road side under a low roof. Every village pays a small monthly stipend to some person to fill these jars in the morning, and again toward evening. The same custom prevails in Upper Egypt, but on a larger scale: and there are caravanserais often found near the wells which supply travellers with water.” In India the Hindoos go sometimes a great way to fetch water, and then boil it, that it may not be hurtful to travellers that are hot; and after this stand from morning till night in some great road, where there is neither pit nor rivulet, and offer it in honour of their gods, to be drunk by the passengers. This necessary work of charity in these hot countries seems to have been practised among the more pious and humane Jews; and our Lord assures them, that if they do this in his name, they shall not lose their reward. Hence a cup of water is a present in the east of great value, though there are some other refreshments of a superior quality. It is still the proper business of the females to supply the family with water. From this drudgery, however, the married women are exempted, unless when single women are wanting. The proper time for drawing water in those burning climates is in the morning, or when the sun is going down; then they go forth to perform that humble office adorned with their trinkets, some of which are often of great value. Agreeably to this custom Rebecca went instead of her mother to fetch water from the well, and the servant of Abraham expected to meet an unmarried female there who might prove a suitable match for his master’s son. In the East Indies, the women also draw water at the public wells, as Rebecca did, on that occasion, for travellers, their servants and their cattle; and women of no mean rank literally illustrate the conduct of an unfortunate princess in the Jewish history, by performing the services of a menial, 2 Sam. xiii, 8. The young women of Guzerat daily draw water from the wells, and carry the jars upon the head; but those of high rank carry them upon the shoulder. In the same way Rebecca carried her pitcher; and probably for the same reason, because she was the daughter of an eastern prince, Gen. xxiv, 45.

Water sometimes signifies the element of water, Gen. i, 10; and metaphorically, trouble and afflictions, Psalm lxix, 1. In the language of the prophets, waters often denote a great multitude of people, Isa. viii, 7; Rev. xvii, 15. Water is put for children or posterity, Num. xxiv, 7; Isa. xlviii, 1; for the clouds, Psalm civ, 3. Waters sometimes stand for tears, Jer. ix, 1, 7; for the ordinances of the Gospel, Isa. xii, 3; xxxv, 6, 7; lv, 1; John vii, 37, 38. “Stolen waters” denote unlawful pleasures with strange women, Prov. ix, 17. The Israelites are reproached with having forsaken the fountain of living water, to quench their thirst at broken cisterns, Jer. ii, 13; that is, with having quitted the worship of God for the worship of false and ridiculous deities. Waters of Meribah, or the waters of strife, were so called because of the quarrelling or contention and murmuring of the Israelites against Moses and against God. When they came to Kadesh, and there happened to be in want of water, they made a sedition against him and his brother Aaron, Numbers xx, 1, &c. Upon this occasion Moses committed that great sin with which God was so much displeased, that he deprived him of the honour of introducing his people into the land of promise.

WAX, דונג, Psalm xxii, 14; lxviii, 2; xcvii, 5; Micah i, 4. Thus the LXX. throughout, κηρὸς, and vulgate _cera_; so there is no room to doubt but this is the true meaning of the word: and the idea of the root appears to be soft, melting, yielding, or the like, which properties are not only well known to belong to wax, but are also intimated in all the passages of Scripture in which this word occurs.

WAYFARING MEN. In the primitive ages of the world there were no public inns or taverns. In those days the voluntary exhibition of hospitality to one who stood in need of it was highly honourable. The glory of an open-hearted and generous hospitality continued even after public inns or caravanserais were erected, and continues to this day in the east, Job xxii, 7; xxxi, 17; Gen. xviii, 3–9; xix, 2–10; Exodus ii, 20; Judges xix, 2–10; Acts xvi, 15; xvii, 7; xxviii, 7; Matt. xxv, 35; Mark ix, 41; Rom. xii, 13; 1 Tim. iii, 2; v, 10; Heb. xiii, 2. Buckingham in his “Travels among the Arab Tribes,” says, “A foot passenger could make his way at little or no expense, as travellers and wayfarers of every description halt at the sheikh’s dwelling, where, whatever may be the rank or condition of the stranger, before any questions are asked him as to where he comes from, or whither he is going, coffee is served to him from a large pot always on the fire; and a meal of bread, milk, oil, honey, or butter, is set before him, for which no payment is ever demanded or even expected by the host, who, in this manner, feeds at least twenty persons on an average every day in the year from his own purse; at least, I could not learn that he was remunerated in any manner for this expenditure, though it is considered as a necessary consequence of his situation, as chief of the community, that he should maintain this ancient practice of hospitality to strangers.--We had been directed to the house of Eesa, or Jesus. Our horses were taken into the court yard of the house, and unburdened of their saddles, without a single question being asked on either side; and it was not until we had seated ourselves that our intention to remain here for the night was communicated to the master of the house: so much is it regarded a matter of course, that those who have a house to shelter themselves in, and food to partake of, should share those comforts with wayfarers.” The passage in Isa. xxxv, 8, “The wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein,” receives elucidation from some of the accounts of modern travellers. Irwin, speaking of his passing through the deserts on the eastern side of the Nile, in his going from Upper Egypt to Cairo, tells us, that, after leaving a certain valley, which he mentions, their road lay over level ground. “As it would be next to an impossibility to find the way over these stony flats, where the heavy foot of a camel leaves no impression, the different bands of robbers,” wild Arabs, he means, who frequent that desert, “have heaped up stones at unequal distances for their direction through this desert. We have derived great assistance from the robbers in this respect, who are our guides when the marks either fail, or are unintelligible to us.” “It was on the 24th of March,” says Hoste, “that I departed from Alexandria for Rosetta: it was a good day’s journey thither, over a level country, but a perfect desert, so that the wind plays with the sand, and there is no trace of a road. We travel first six leagues along the sea coast; but when we leave this, it is about six leagues more to Rosetta, and from thence to the town there are high stone or bark pillars, in a line, according to which travellers direct their journey.”

WAYS, in Scripture, means conduct: for example: “Make your paths straight.” The paths of the wicked are crooked. To forsake the ways of the Lord, is to forsake his laws. Ways also signifies custom, manners, and way of life: “All flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth,” Gen. vi, 12; xix, 31; Jer. xxxii, 19. The way of the Lord expresses his conduct to us: “My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord,” Isa. lv, 8. We find through the whole of Scripture this kind of expressions: The way of peace, of justice, of iniquity, of truth, of darkness. To go the way of all the earth, Joshua xxiii, 14, signifies dying and the grave. A hard way represents the way of sinners, a way of impiety, Judges ii, 19. Jesus Christ is called the Way, John xiv, 6, because it is by him alone that believers obtain eternal life, and an entrance into heaven. The psalmist says, “Thou wilt show me the path of life,” Psalm xvi, 11; that is, Thou wilt raise my body from death to life, and conduct me to the place and state of everlasting happiness. When a great prince in the east sets out on a journey, it is usual to send a party of men before him, to clear the way. The state of those countries in every age, where roads are almost unknown, and, from the want of cultivation, in many parts overgrown with brambles, and other thorny plants, which renders travelling, especially with a large retinue, very incommodious, requires this precaution. The emperor of Hindostan, in his progress through his dominions, as described in the narrative of Sir Thomas Roe’s embassy to the court of Delhi, was preceded by a very great company, sent before him to cut up the trees and bushes, to level and smooth the road, and prepare their place of encampment. Balin, who swayed the imperial sceptre of India, had five hundred chosen men, in rich livery, with their drawn sabres, who ran before him, proclaiming his approach, and clearing the way. Nor was this honour reserved exclusively for the reigning emperor; it was often shown to persons of royal birth. When an Indian princess made a visit to her father, the roads were directed to be repaired, and made clear for her journey; fruit trees were planted, water vessels placed in the road side, and great illuminations prepared for the occasion. Mr. Bruce gives nearly the same account of a journey, which the king of Abyssinia made through a part of his dominions. The chief magistrate of every district through which he had to pass was, by his office, obliged to have the roads cleared, levelled, and smoothed; and he mentions, that a magistrate of one of the districts, having failed in this part of his duty, was, together with his son, immediately put to death on the spot, where a thorn happened to catch the garment, and interrupt for a moment the progress of his majesty. This custom is easily recognized in that beautiful prediction: “The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain; and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it,” Isa. xl, 3–5. We shall be able, perhaps, to form a more clear and precise idea, from the account which Diodorus gives of the marches of Semiramis, the celebrated queen of Babylon, into Media and Persia. In her march to Ecbatane, says the historian, she came to the Zarcean mountain, which, extending many furlongs, and being full of craggy precipices and deep hollows, could not be passed without taking a great compass. Being therefore desirous of leaving an everlasting memorial of herself, as well as of shortening the way, she ordered the precipices to be digged down, and the hollows to be filled up; and at great expense she made a shorter and more expeditious road; which to this day is called, from her, the road of Semiramis. Afterward she went into Persia, and all the other countries of Asia subject to her dominion; and wherever she went, she ordered the mountains and the precipices to be levelled, and raised causeways in the plain country, and at a great expense made the ways passable. Whatever may be in this story, the following statement is entitled to the fullest credit: “All eastern potentates have their precursors and a number of pioneers to clear the road, by removing obstacles, and filling up the ravines and the hollow ways in their route. In the days of Mogul splendour, the emperor caused the hills and mountains to be levelled, and the valleys to be filled up for his convenience. This beautifully illustrates the figurative language in the approach of the Prince of Peace, when every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain.”

WEAVING. The combined arts of spinning and weaving are among the first essentials of civilized society, and we find both to be of very ancient origin. The fabulous story of Penelope’s web, and, still more, the frequent allusions to this art in the sacred writings, tend to show that the fabrication of cloth from threads, hair, &c, is a very ancient invention. It has, however, like other useful arts, undergone a vast succession of improvements, both as to the preparation of the materials of which cloth is made, and the apparatus necessary in its construction, as well as in the particular modes of operation by the artist. Weaving, when reduced to its original principle, is nothing more than the interlacing of the weft or cross threads into the parallel threads of the warp, so as to tie them together, and form a web or piece of cloth. This art is doubtless more ancient than that of spinning; and the first cloth was what we now call matting, that is, made by weaving together the shreds of the bark, or fibrous parts of plants, or the stalks, such as rushes and straws. This is still the substitute for cloth among most rude and savage nations. When they have advanced a step farther in civilization than the state of hunters, the skins of animals become scarce, and they require some more artificial substance for clothing, and which they can procure in greater quantities. When it was discovered that the delicate and short fibres which animals and vegetables afford could be so firmly united together by twisting, as to form threads of any required length and strength, the weaving art was placed on a very permanent foundation. By the process of spinning, which was very simple in the origin, the weaver is furnished with threads far superior to any natural vegetable fibres in lightness, strength, and flexibility; and he has only to combine them together in the most advantageous manner. In the beautiful description which is given, in the last chapter of Solomon’s Proverbs, of the domestic economy of the virtuous woman, it is said, “She seeketh wool and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands: she layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff. She maketh herself coverings of tapestry,” &c. Such is the occupation of females in the east in the present day. Not only do they employ themselves in working rich embroideries, but in making carpets filled with flowers and other pleasing figures. Dr. Shaw gives us an account of the last: “Carpets, which are much coarser than those from Turkey, are made here in great numbers, and of all sizes. But the chief branch of their manufactories is the making of _hykes_, or blankets, as we should call them. The women alone are employed in this work, (as Andromache and Penelope were of old,) who do not use the shuttle, but conduct every thread of the woof with their fingers.” Hezekiah says, “I have cut off like a weaver my life,” Isa. xxxviii, 12. Mr. Harmer suggests whether the simile here used may not refer to the weaving of a carpet filled with flowers and other ingenious devices; and that the meaning may be, that, just as a weaver, after having wrought many decorations into a piece of carpeting, suddenly cuts it off, while the figures were rising into view fresh and beautiful, and the spectator expecting he would proceed in his work; so, after a variety of pleasing transactions in the course of life, it suddenly and unexpectedly comes to its end.

WEEKS. A period of seven days, under the usual name of a week, שבעה, is mentioned as far back as the time of the deluge, Gen. vii, 4, 10; viii, 10, 12; xxix, 27, 28. It must, therefore, be considered a very ancient division of time, especially as the various nations among whom it has been noticed, for instance, the Nigri in Africa, appear to have received it from the sons of Noah. The enumeration of the days of the week commenced at Sunday. Saturday was the last or seventh, and was the Hebrew Sabbath, or day of rest. The Egyptians gave to the days of the week the same names that they assigned to the planets. From the circumstance that the Sabbath was the principal day of the week, the whole period of seven days was likewise called שפת, in Syriac שבתא, in the New Testament σάϐϐατον and σάϐϐατα. The Jews, accordingly, in designating the successive days of the week, were accustomed to say, the first day of the Sabbath, that is, of the week; the second day of the Sabbath, that is, Sunday, Monday, &c, Mark xvi, 2, 9; Luke xxiv, 1; John xx, i, 19. In addition to the week of days, the Jews had three other seasons, denominated weeks, Lev. xxv, 1–17; Deut. xvi, 9–10: 1. The week of weeks. It was a period of seven weeks or forty-nine days, which was succeeded on the fiftieth day by the feast of pentecost, ϖεντηκοσὴ, “fifty,” Deut. xvi, 9, 10. 2. The week of years. This was a period of seven years, during the last of which the land remained untilled, and the people enjoyed a Sabbath or season of rest. 3. The week of seven sabbatical years. It was a period of forty-nine years, and was succeeded by the year of jubilee, Lev. xxv, 1–22; xxvi, 34. See YEAR.

WEIGHTS. See “Table of Weights and Measures” at the end of the volume.

WELLS. When the pool, the fountain, and the river fail, the oriental shepherd is reduced to the necessity of digging wells; and, in the patriarchal age, the discovery of water was reckoned of sufficient importance to be the subject of a formal report to the master of the flock, who commonly distinguished the spot by an appropriate name. A remarkable instance of this kind is recorded by Moses in these terms: “And Isaac departed thence, and pitched his tent in the valley of Gerar, and dwelt there. And Isaac digged again the wells of water which they had digged in the days of Abraham his father; for the Philistines had stopped them after the death of Abraham; and he called their names after the names by which his father had called them. And Isaac’s servants digged in the valley, and found there a well of springing water. And the herdmen of Gerar did strive with Isaac’s herdmen, saying, The water is ours; and he called the name of the well Ezek, because they strove with him. And they digged another well; and they strove for that also, and he called the name of it Sitnah, (opposition;) and he removed from thence and digged another well: and for that they strove not; and he called the name of it Rehoboth, (room;) and he said, For now the Lord hath made room for us, and we shall be fruitful in the land,” Gen. xxvi, 17, &c. “Strife,” says Dr. Richardson, “between the different villagers and the different herdsmen here, exists still, as it did in the days of Abraham and Lot: the country has often changed masters; but the habits of the natives, both in this and other respects, have been nearly stationary.” So important was the successful operation of sinking a well in Canaan, that the sacred historian remarks in another passage: “And it came to pass the same day, (that Isaac and Abimelech had concluded their treaty,) that Isaac’s servants came and told him concerning the well which they had digged, and said unto him, We have found water; and he called it Shebah, (the oath,) therefore the name of the city is Beershebah unto this day,” Gen. xxvi, 33. To prevent the sand, which is raised from the parched surface of the ground by the winds, from filling up their wells, they were obliged to cover them with a stone. In this manner the well was covered, from which the flocks of Laban were commonly watered: and the shepherds, careful not to leave them open at any time, patiently waited till all the flocks were gathered together, before they removed the covering, and then, having drawn a sufficient quantity of water, they replaced the stone immediately. The extreme scarcity of water in these arid regions, entirely justifies such vigilant and parsimonious care in the management of this precious fluid; and accounts for the fierce contentions about the possession of a well, which so frequently happened between the shepherds of different masters. But after the question of right, or of possession, was decided, it would seem the shepherds were often detected in fraudulently watering their flocks and herds from their neighbour’s well. To prevent this, they secured the cover with a lock, which continued in use so late as the days of Chardin, who frequently saw such precautions used in different parts of Asia, on account of the real scarcity of water there. According to that intelligent traveller, when the wells and cisterns were not locked up, some person was so far the proprietor that no one dared to open a well or cistern but in his presence. This was probably the reason that the shepherds of Padanaram declined the invitation of Jacob to water the flocks, before they were all assembled; either they had not the key of the lock which secured the stone, or, if they had, they durst not open it but in the presence of Rachel, to whose father the well belonged. It is ridiculous to suppose the stone was so heavy that the united strength of several Mesopotamian shepherds could not roll it from the mouth of the well, when Jacob had strength or address to remove it alone; or that, though a stranger, he ventured to break a standing rule for watering the flocks, which the natives did not dare to do, and that without opposition. The oriental shepherds were not on other occasions so passive, as the violent conduct of the men of Gerar sufficiently proves.

Twice in the day they led their flocks to the wells; at noon, and when the sun was going down. To water the flocks was an operation of much labour, and occupied a considerable space of time. It was, therefore, an office of great kindness with which Jacob introduced himself to the notice of his relations, to roll back the stone which lay upon the mouth of the well, and draw water for the flocks which Rachel tended. Some of these wells are furnished with troughs and flights of steps down to the water, and other contrivances to facilitate the labour of watering the cattle. It is evident the well to which Rebekah went to draw water, near the city of Nahor, had some convenience of this kind; for it is written, “Rebekah hasted and emptied her pitcher into the trough, and ran again unto the well to draw water, and drew for all his camels,” Gen. xxiv, 20. A trough was also placed by the well, from which the daughters of Jethro watered his flocks, Exod. ii, 16; and, if we may judge from circumstances, was a usual contrivance in every part of the east. In modern times, Mr. Park found a trough near the well, from which the Moors watered their cattle, in the sandy deserts of Sahara. Dr. Shaw, speaking of the occupation of the Moorish women in Barbary, says, “To finish the day, at the time of the evening, even at the time that the women go out to draw water, they are still to fit themselves with a pitcher or goat skin, and tying their sucking children behind them, trudge it in this manner two or three miles to fetch water.” “The women in Persia,” says Morier, “go in troops to draw water for the place. I have seen the elder ones sitting and chatting at the well, and spinning the coarse cotton of the country, while the young girls filled the skins which contain the water, and which they all carry on their backs into the town.” “A public well,” says Forbes, “without the gate of Diamonds, in the city Dhuboy, was a place of great resort: there, most travellers halted for shade and refreshment: the women frequented the fountains and reservoirs morning and evening, to draw water. Many of the Gwzerat wells have steps leading down to the surface of the water; others have not, nor do I recollect any furnished with buckets and ropes for the convenience of a stranger; most travellers are therefore provided with them, and halcarras and religious pilgrims frequently carry a small brass pot affixed to a long string for this purpose.”

WHALE, תן and תניין, Gen. i, 21; Job vii, 12; Ezek. xxxii, 2; κῆτος, Matt. xii, 40; the largest of all the inhabitants of the water. A late author, in a dissertation expressly for the purpose, has proved that the crocodile, and not the whale, is spoken of in Gen. i, 21. The word in Job vii, 12, must also be taken for the crocodile. It must mean some terrible animal, which, but for the watchful care of Divine Providence, would be very destructive. Our translators render it by _dragon_ in Isaiah xxvii, 1, where the prophet gives this name to the king of Egypt: “He shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.” The sea there is the river Nile, and the dragon the crocodile, Ezek. xxxii, 2. On this passage Bochart remarks, ”The תנין is not a whale, as people imagine; for a whale has neither feet nor scales, neither is it to be found in the rivers of Egypt; neither does it ascend therefrom upon the land; neither is it taken in the meshes of a net; all of which properties are ascribed by Ezekiel to the תנין of Egypt. Whence it is plain that it is not a whale that is here spoken of, but the crocodile. Merrick supposes David, in Psalm lxxiv, 13, to speak of the _tunnie_, a kind of whale, with which he was probably acquainted; and Bochart thinks it has its Greek name _thunnos_ from the Hebrew _thanot_. The last-mentioned fish is undoubtedly that spoken of in Psalm civ, 26. We are told, that, in order to preserve the Prophet Jonah when he was thrown overboard by the mariners, “the Lord prepared a great fish to swallow him up.” What kind of fish it was, is not specified; but the Greek translators take the liberty to give us the word κῆτος, _whale_; and though St. Matthew, xii, 40, makes use of the same word, we may probably conclude that he did so in a general sense; and that we are not to understand it as an appropriated term, to point out the particular species of fish. It is notorious that sharks are common in the Mediterranean.

WHEAT, חטה, Gen. xxx, 14; Deut. viii, 8; σῖτος, Matt. xiii, 25; Luke xvi, 7; 1 Cor. xv, 37; the principal and the most valuable kind of grain for the service of man. (See _Barley_, and _Fitches_.) In Lev. ii, directions are given for oblations, which in our translation are called meat-offerings; but as meat means flesh, and all kinds of offerings there specified, were made of wheat, it had been better to render it “wheaten offerings.” Calmet has observed, that there were five kinds of these, simple flour, oven cakes, cakes of the fire plate, cakes of the frying pan, and green ears of corn. The word בר, translated _corn_, Gen. xli, 35, and _wheat_ in Jer. xxiii, 28; Joel ii, 24; Amos v, 11, &c, is undoubtedly the _burr_, or wild corn of the Arabs, mentioned by Forskal.

WHIRLWIND, a wind which rises suddenly from almost every point, is exceedingly impetuous and rapid, and imparts a whirling motion to dust, sand, water, and occasionally to bodies of great weight and bulk, carrying them either upward or downward, and scattering them about in different directions. Whirlwinds and water spouts are supposed to proceed from the same cause; their only difference being, that the latter pass over the water, and the former over the land. Both of them have a progressive as well as a circular motion, generally rise after calms and great heats, and occur most frequently in warm latitudes. The wind blows in every direction from a large surrounding space, both toward the water spout and the whirlwind; and a water spout has been known to pass, in its progressive motion, from sea to land, and, when it has reached the latter, to produce all the phenomena and effects of a whirlwind. There is no doubt, therefore, of their arising from a similar cause, as they are both explicable on the same general principles. In the imagery employed by the sacred writers, these frightful hurricanes are introduced as the immediate instruments of the divine indignation: “He shall take them away as with a whirlwind, both living and in his wrath,” Psalm lviii, 9. “God shall rebuke them, and they shall flee far off, and shall be chased as the chaff of the mountains before the wind, and like a rolling thing before the whirlwind,” Isaiah xvii, 13. “The Lord hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet,” Nahum i, 3. All these are familiar images to the inhabitants of eastern countries, and receive some elucidation from the subjoined descriptions of English travellers. “On the 25th,” says Bruce, “at four o’clock in the afternoon, we set out from the villages of the Nuba, intending to arrive at Basbock, where is the ferry over the Nile; but we had scarcely advanced two miles into the plain, when we were enclosed in a violent whirlwind, or what is called at sea the water spout. The plain was red earth, which had been plentifully moistened by a shower in the night time. The unfortunate camel that had been taken by Cohala seemed to be nearly in the centre of its vortex; it was lifted and thrown down at a considerable distance, and several of its ribs broken; although, as far as I could guess, I was not near the centre, it whirled me off my feet, and threw me down upon my face, so as to make my nose gush out with blood: two of the servants, likewise, had the same fate. It plastered us all over with mud, almost as smoothly as could have been done with a trowel. It took away my sense and breathing for an instant; and my mouth and nose were full of mud when I recovered. I guess the sphere of its action to be about two hundred feet. It demolished one half of a small hut, as if it had been cut through with a knife, and dispersed the materials all over the plain, leaving the other half standing.” “When there was a perfect calm,” observes Morier, “partial and strong currents of air would arise, and form whirlwinds, which produced high columns of sand all over the plain. Those that we saw at Shiraz were formed and dissipated in a few minutes: nor is it the nature of this phenomenon to travel far; it being a current of air that takes its way in a capricious and sudden manner, and is dissolved by the very nature of its formation. Whenever one of them took our tents, it generally disturbed them very materially, and frequently threw them down. Their appearance was that of water spouts at sea, and perhaps they are produced in the same manner.” And Burchell remarks: “The hottest days are often the most calm; and at such times the stillness of the atmosphere was sometimes suddenly disturbed in an extraordinary manner. Whirlwinds, raising up columns of dust to a great height in the air, and sweeping over the plains with momentary fury, were no unusual occurrence. As they were always harmless, it was an amusing sight to watch these tall pillars of dust as they rapidly passed by, carrying up every light substance to the height of from one to even three or four hundred feet. The rate at which they travelled varied from five to ten miles in the hour: their form was seldom straight, nor were they quite perpendicular, but uncertain and changing. Whenever they happened to pass over our fire, all the ashes were scattered in an instant, and nothing remained but the heavier sticks and logs. Sometimes they were observed to disappear, and in a minute or two afterward to make their re-appearance at a distance farther on. This occurred whenever they passed over rocky ground, or a surface on which there was no dust, nor other substances sufficiently light to be carried up in the vortex. Sometimes they changed their colour, according to that of the soil or dust which lay in their march; and when they crossed a tract of country where the grass had lately been burned, they assumed a corresponding blackness. But to-day the calm and heat of the air was only the prelude to a violent wind, which commenced as soon as the sun had sunk, and continued during the greater part of the night. The great heat and long-protracted drought of the season had evaporated all moisture from the earth, and rendered the sandy soil excessively light and dusty. Astonishing quantities of the finer particles of this sand were carried up by the wind, and filled the whole atmosphere, where, at a great height, they were borne along by the tempest, and seemed to be real clouds, although of a reddish hue; while the heavier particles, descending again, presented, at a distance, the appearance of mist or driving rains.”

WHITE, a favourite and emblematical colour in Palestine. See HABITS.

WIDOW. Among the Hebrews, even before the law, a widow who had no children by her husband was to marry the brother of her deceased spouse, in order to raise up children who might inherit his goods and perpetuate his name and family. We find the practice of this custom before the law in the person of Tamar, who married successively Er and Onan, the sons of Judah, and who was likewise to have married Selah, the third son of this patriarch, after the two former were dead without issue, Gen. xxxviii, 6–11. The law that appoints these marriages is Deut. xxv, 5, &c. Two motives prevailed to the enacting of this law. The first was, the continuation of estates in the same family; and the other was to perpetuate a man’s name in Israel. It was looked upon as a great misfortune for a man to die without an heir, or to see his inheritance pass into another family. This law was not confined to brothers-in-law only, but was extended to more distant relations of the same kind; as we see in the example of Ruth, who married Boaz after she had been refused by a nearer kinsman. See SANDALS.

WILL. “In his primitive condition as he came out of the hands of his Creator, man was endowed with such a portion of knowledge, holiness, and power, as enabled him to understand, esteem, consider, will, and to perform the true good, according to the commandment delivered to him: yet none of these acts could he do, except through the assistance of divine grace. But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good. When he is made a partaker of this regeneration, or renovation, since he is delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing, and doing that which is good, but yet not without the continued aids of divine grace.” Such were the sentiments of the often misrepresented Arminius on this subject; to which is only to be added, to complete the Scriptural view, that a degree of grace to consider his ways, and to return to God, is through the merit of Christ vouchsafed to every man. Every one must be conscious that he possesses free will, and that he is a free agent; that is, that he is capable of considering and reflecting upon the objects which are presented to his mind, and of acting, in such cases as are possible, according to the determination of his will. And, indeed, without this free agency, actions cannot be morally good or bad; nor can the agents be responsible for their conduct. But the corruption introduced into our nature by the fall of Adam has so weakened our mental powers, has given such force to our passions, and such perverseness to our wills, that a man “cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works to faith and calling upon God.” The most pious of those who lived under the Mosaic dispensation often acknowledged the necessity of extraordinary assistance from God: David prays to God to open his eyes, to guide and direct him; to create in him a clean heart, and renew a right spirit within him, Psalm li, 10; cxix, 18, 33, 35. Even we, whose minds are enlightened by the pure precepts of the Gospel, and urged by the motives which it suggests, must still be convinced of our weakness and depravity, and confess, in the words of the tenth article, that “we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us when we have that good will.” The necessity of divine grace to strengthen and regulate our wills, and to coöperate with our endeavours after righteousness, is clearly asserted in the New Testament: “They that are in the flesh cannot please God,” Rom. viii, 8. “Abide in me,” says our Saviour, “and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine, no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, and ye are the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit; for without me ye can do nothing,” John xv, 4, 5. “No man can come to me, except the Father, which hath sent me, draw him.” “It is God that worketh in you, both to will and to do of his good pleasure,” Phil. ii, 13. “Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God,” 2 Cor. iii, 5. “We know not what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit helpeth our infirmities,” Rom. viii, 26. We are said to be “led by the Spirit,” and to “walk in the Spirit,” Rom. viii, 14; Gal. v, 16, 25. These texts sufficiently prove that we stand in need both of a prevenient and of a coöperating grace. This doctrine we find asserted in many of the ancient fathers, and particularly in Ambrose, who, in speaking of the effects of the fall, uses these words: “Thence was derived mortality, and no less a multitude of miseries than of crimes. Faith being lost, hope being abandoned, the understanding blinded, and the will made captive, no one found in himself the means of repairing these things. Without the worship of the true God, even that which seems to be virtue is sin; nor can any one please God without God. But whom does he please who does not please God, except himself and Satan? The nature therefore, which was good is made bad by habit: man would not return unless God turned him.” And Cyprian says, “We pray day and night that the sanctification and enlivening, which springs from the grace of God, may be preserved by his protection.” Dr. Nicholls, after quoting many authorities to show that the doctrine of divine grace always prevailed in the catholic church, adds, “I have spent, perhaps, more time in these testimonies than was absolutely necessary; but whatever I have done is to show that the doctrine of divine grace is so essential a doctrine of Christianity, that not only the Holy Scriptures and the primitive fathers assert it, but likewise that the Christians could not in any age maintain their religion without it,--it being necessary, not only for the discharge of Christian duties, but for the performance of our ordinary devotions.” And this seems to have been the opinion of the compilers of our excellent liturgy, in many parts of which both a prevenient and a coöperating grace is unequivocally acknowledged; particularly in the second collect for the evening service; in the fourth collect at the end of the communion service; in the collect for Easter day; in the collect for the fifth Sunday after Easter; in the collects for the third, ninth, seventeenth, nineteenth, and twenty-fifth Sundays after Trinity. This assistance of divine grace is not inconsistent with the free agency of men: it does not place them under an irresistible restraint, or compel them to act contrary to their will. Our own exertions are necessary to enable us to work out our salvation; but our sufficiency for that purpose is from God. It is, however, impossible to ascertain the precise boundary between our natural efforts and the divine assistance, whether that assistance be considered as a coöperating or a prevenient grace. Without destroying our character as free and accountable beings, God may be mercifully pleased to counteract the depravity of our hearts by the suggestions of his Spirit; but still it remains with us to choose whether we will listen to those suggestions, or obey the lusts of the flesh. We may rest assured that he will, by the communication of his grace, varied often as to power and distinctness, help our infirmities, invigorate our resolutions, and supply our defects. The promises that if we draw nigh to God, God will draw nigh to us, and pour out his Spirit upon us, James iv, 8; Acts ii, 17, and that he will give his Holy Spirit to every one that asketh him, Luke xi, 13, imply that God is ever ready to work upon our hearts, and to aid our well-doing through the powerful, though invisible, operation of his Spirit: “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit,” John iii, 8. The joint agency of God and man, in the work of human salvation, is pointed out in the following passage: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure,” Phil, ii, 12, 13; and therefore we may assure ourselves that free will and grace are not incompatible, though the mode and degree of their coöperation be utterly inexplicable, and though at different times one may appear for a season to overwhelm the other. This doctrine has, however, been the subject of much dispute among Christians: some sects contend for the irresistible impulses of grace, and others reject the idea of any influence of the divine Spirit upon the human mind. The former opinion seems irreconcilable with the free agency of man, if held as the constant unvarying mode in which he carries on his work in the soul of man, and the latter contradicts the authority of Scripture; “and therefore,” says Veneer, “let us neither ascribe nothing to free will, nor too much; let us not, with the defenders of irresistible grace, deny free will, or make it of no effect, not only before, but even under, grace; nor let us suffer the efficacy of saving grace, on the other hand, to be swallowed up in the strength and freedom of our wills; but, allowing the government or superiority to the grace of God, let the will of man be admitted to be its handmaid, but such a one as is free, and freely obeys; by which, when it is freely excited by the admonitions of prevenient grace, when it is prepared as to its affections, strengthened and assisted as to its powers and faculties, a man freely and willingly coöperates with God, that the grace of God be not received in vain.” “All men are also to be admonished,” observes Cranmer, in his “Necessary Doctrine,” “and chiefly preachers, that in this high matter they, looking on both sides, so temper and moderate themselves, that they neither so preach the grace of God that they take away thereby free will, nor on the other side so extol free will, that injury be done to the grace of God.” And Jortin remarks: “Thus do the doctrine of divine grace and the doctrine of free will or human liberty unite and conspire, in a friendly manner, to our everlasting good. The first is adapted to excite in us gratitude, faith, and humility; the second, to awaken our caution and quicken our diligence.”

Many, indeed, relying on mere abstract arguments, deny free will, in the strict meaning of the term, altogether, and define the mental faculties of man according to their various fancies. But the existence and nature of our moral and rational powers are and ought to be, in true philosophy, the subject of mental observation, not the sport of hypothesis. Those who love metaphysical abstractions may people the worlds of their imagination with beings of whatsoever character they prefer; but the nature and capabilities of man, as he really is, must be determined not by speculation but by experience. It is true that this experience is the object of consciousness, not of the senses; and, accordingly, each man is, in some respect, the judge in his own case, and may, if he chooses, deny his own freedom and his power of self control, or of using those means which God hath appointed to lead to this result. But this is seldom done in ordinary life, except by those abandoned individuals who seek, in such a statement, an excuse for capricious or unprincipled conduct,--an excuse which is never admitted by the majority of reasoning persons, much less by the truly pious. The latter, indeed, will always be found attributing any thing good they achieve to the coöperating efficacy of superior assistance. But they will, with equal sincerity, blame themselves for what they have done amiss; or, in other words, acknowledge that they should and might have willed and acted otherwise; and this is exactly the practical question, the very turning point, on which the whole controversy hinges. The only competent judges in such a question, says Dr. R. H. Graves, are those who have made it the subject of mental observation, exertion, and pursuit; or, in other words, those who have sought after righteousness, under whatever dispensation, Acts x, 35; Romans ii, 7, 10. And surely the confessions, the prayers, the repentance, and the sacrifices, of the humble and pious of all ages show that they felt, not only that they were themselves to blame for their actions, and therefore that they might have done otherwise, that is, they had a free will, but that, to make this will operative in spiritual matters, they required an aid beyond the reach of mere human attainment. Some may fancy this statement inconsistent in itself; and I allow that it cannot satisfy the mere speculative supporters either of free will or its opponents. But to me it seems the testimony of conscience and experience, which, in natural religion, must, as I conceive, be preferred to abstract hypothesis. The inquiry is not how the mind _may be_, but how it _is actually_, constituted. This surely is a question of fact, not of conjecture, and must therefore be decided by an appeal to common sense and experience, not by random speculation. Again: even those who in theory contend for the doctrine of necessity, yet in all the affairs of life where their interests, comforts, or gratifications are concerned, both speak and act as if they disbelieved it, and as if they really imagined themselves capable of such self determination and self control, as to improve their talents, their opportunities, and their acquirements, and so to exercise a material influence on their worldly fortunes. But suppose the assertions of individuals, as to their consciousness in this particular, to disagree. It is then evident, that, the question being as to the nature of man in general, it must be determined by the voice of preponderating testimony. But how, it may be asked, are the suffrages to be collected? Since the judgment of each individual must in this scheme be considered as a separate fact, how is a sufficiently extensive induction to be made? In answer, it may be asserted, that in every civilized nation the induction has been already made, the suffrages have been taken, the case has been tried, and the decision is on record. And the verdict is the most impartial that can be looked for in such a case, because given without any reference to the controversy in dispute. All human laws, forbidding, condemning, and punishing vicious actions, are grounded on the acknowledged supposition that man is possessed of a self control, a self determining power, by which he could, both in will and in deed, have avoided the very actions for which he is condemned, and in the very circumstances in which he has committed them. Nor would it be easy to find a case where the criminal has deceived himself, or hoped to deceive his judges, by pleading that he laboured under a fatal necessity, which rendered his crimes unavoidable, and therefore excusable. The justice of all legislative enactments evidently and essentially depends on the principle, that the things prohibited can be avoided, or, in other words, might have been done otherwise than they were done; and this is the very turning point of the controversy. Accordingly, in whatever instances such freedom of will is not presupposed, (as in the cases of idiots and madmen,) the operation of such enactments is suspended. All nations, therefore, who consent to frame and abide by such laws, do thereby testify their deliberate and solemn assent to the truth of this principle, and, consequently, to the existence of free will in man; and do certify the sincerity of their conviction by staking upon it their properties, their liberties, and their lives. Numberless other instances might be adduced in which the practice of mankind implies their belief in this principle. And so conscious of this are the opponents of free will, that they generally deprecate appeals to common sense and experience, and resort to metaphysical arguments to examine what is in truth a matter of truth, not of conjecture; or, in other words, to determine, not what man is, but what they imagine he _must be_. In their reasonings they differ, as might have been expected, as much from each other as they do from truth and reality. But the experience of common sense and conscience will always decide, that no man can conscientiously make this excuse for his crimes, that he could not have willed or acted otherwise than he did. The existence of the above faculties in the human mind once acknowledged leads, by necessary inference, to the admission, that there exists in the great First Cause a power to create them. Not, indeed, that these faculties themselves exist in him in the same manner as in us, but the power of originating and producing them in all possible variety. We can indeed conclude, that having created all these in us, his nature must be so perfect that we cannot attribute to him any line of conduct inconsistent with whatever is excellent in the exercise of these faculties in ourselves. And therefore we cannot ascribe to him, as his special act, any thing we should perceive to be unworthy of any just or merciful, any wise or upright, being. But this furnishes no clue whatever to a knowledge of the real constitution of his nature, or of the manner in which his divine attributes exist together. In truth, we no more comprehend how he wills than how he acts, and therefore we have no better right to assert that he wills evil than that he does evil. Again: we as little understand how he knows as how he sees, and therefore might as well argue that all things exist in consequence of his beholding them, as that all events arise in consequence of his foreknowing them. In short, all that can be inferred by reason concerning the intrinsic nature of the invisible, unsearchable Deity, must be admitted by the candid inquirer to be no better than conjecture. And he who should hope from such doubtful support as his fancied insight into the unknown operations of the divine mind to suspend a system of irrespective decrees, embracing the moral government of the world, would but too much resemble him who should imagine the material globe adequately sustained if upheld by a chain whose highest links were wrapped in clouds and darkness. Thus our affirmative knowledge of the Deity, as derived from this part of our inquiry, consists in the certainty, (though his nature is unknown to us,) that he is the creative source of all that is great, glorious, and good in heaven or in earth; while we may negatively conclude, that his moral government shall, on the whole, be conducted in a manner not inconsistent with whatever is excellent in the exercise of power and wisdom, justice and mercy, goodness and truth. Nor is it a little important, as connected with the present inquiry, to keep in mind this distinction between our affirmative and negative knowledge in this matter. For it shows us that as, on the one side, we cannot pretend to such an insight into the nature and character of the divine knowledge as to deduce therefrom a system of eternal and irrespective decrees; so neither, on the other, can this system of moral government be ascribed to the Deity, because it would be manifestly unworthy, not merely of him who has created all moral excellence, but of any of those beings on whom he has conferred the most ordinary degrees of mercy and justice. The natural benefits or evils arising out of moral or immoral practices are, in fact, so many rewards or punishments, exhibiting the Being who has so constituted our nature as a moral governor. This part of his government may not be so clearly discernible in individual instances, because much of the happiness and unhappiness attending virtue and vice is mental and invisible. In the case of nations, however, considered merely as bodies politic, the internal sanction of an approving or reproaching conscience, of subdued or distracting passions, can have no existence; and therefore the external sanctions are more uniformly enforced. Hence, whoever carefully examines the dealings of Providence with the human race will admit, that national prosperity has ever kept pace with national wisdom and integrity; whereas, the greatest empires, when once corrupted, have soon become the prey of internal strife or foreign domination. Again: man is made for society, and cannot exist without it: consequently, all the regulations which are really conducive to the maintenance of civil policy and social order must be regarded as evident consequences of our nature, when enlightened to the rational pursuit of its own advantage; and therefore should be considered as intimations of a moral government, carried on through their intervention. In addition to which, it ought to be observed, that these laws may be regarded in another point of view,--as a most important class of moral phenomena; inasmuch as they virtually exhibit the most unexceptionable declarations of reason on this subject, because they are collected from the common consent of mankind, and therefore rendered, in a great measure, independent of the obliquities of individual intellect, the errors of private judgment, and the partial views of self interest, prejudice, or passion. But all the laws of civilized nations, both in their enactment and administration, not only presuppose certain notions concerning the freedom and accountableness of man, the merit and demerit of human actions, and the inseparable connection of virtue and vice with rewards and punishments, but greatly contribute to fix and perpetuate these notions. It is therefore evidently the intention of that part of the moral government with which we are acquainted, to impress these principles deeply on the human mind, and to induce the human race to regulate their conduct accordingly. The laws, then, of this moral government under which we find ourselves placed, and from which we cannot escape, correspond with and corroborate the conclusions deduced from the observation of mental phenomena. And from both we conclude that similar principles of government will be adopted, (so far, at least, as man is concerned,) in other worlds and in future ages; only more developed, and therefore more evidently free from its present apparent imperfections. Upon this account we look, in another life, for some such general disclosure and consummation of the ways and wisdom of Providence as shall vindicate, even in the minor details, the grand principles upon which, generally speaking, the government of God is at present obviously conducted. How this may be done, with many questions connected therewith, reason without revelation could, as I conceive, do little more than form plausible conjectures. Though now that it has pleased God in Christ to bring “life and immortality to light through the Gospel,” it is possible for reason to estimate the beauty and the mercy and the wisdom of the dispensation by which it has been effected.

WIND. The Hebrews, like us, acknowledge four principal winds, Ezek. xiii, 16–18: the east wind, the north wind, the south wind, and the west wind, or that from the Mediterranean sea. See WHIRLWIND.

WINDOWS. The method of building both in Barbary and the Levant seems to have continued the same from the earliest ages. All the windows open into private courts, if we except sometimes a latticed window or balcony toward the street. It is only during the celebration of some _zeenah_, or public festival, that these houses and their latticed windows are left open; for this being a time of great liberty, revelling, and extravagance, each family is ambitious of adorning both the inside and outside of their houses with the richest part of their furniture; while crowds of both sexes, dressed out in their best apparel, and laying aside all ceremony and restraint, go in and out where they please. The account we have, 2 Kings ix, 30, of Jezebel’s painting her face, tiring her head, and looking out at a window upon Jehu’s public entry into Jezreel, gives us a lively idea of an eastern lady at one of those solemnities.

WINE, יין, Gen. xix, 32, οινος, Matt. ix, 17, a liquor expressed from grapes. The art of refining wine upon the lees was known to the Jews. The particular process, as it is now practised in the island of Cyprus, is described in Mariti’s Travels. The wine is put immediately from the vat into large vases of potters’ ware, pointed at the bottom, till they are nearly full, when they are covered tight and buried. At the end of a year what is designed for sale is drawn into wooden casks. The dregs in the vases are put into wooden casks destined to receive wine, with as much of the liquor as is necessary to prevent them from becoming dry before use. Casks thus prepared are very valuable. When the wine a year old is put in, the dregs rise, and make it appear muddy, but afterward they subside and carry down all the other feculences. The dregs are so much valued that they are not sold with the wine in the vase, unless particularly mentioned.

The “new wine,” or “must,” is mentioned, Isa. xlix, 26; Joel i, 5; iii, 18; and Amos ix, 13, under the name עסים. The “mixed wine,” ממסד, Prov. xxiii, 30, and in Isaiah lxv, 11 rendered “drink-offering,” may mean wine made stronger and more inebriating by the addition of higher and more powerful ingredients, such as honey, spices, _defrutum_, or wine inspissated by boiling it down, myrrh, mandragora, and other strong drugs. Thus the drunkard is properly described as one that seeketh “mixed wine,” Prov. xxiii, 30, and is mighty to “mingle strong drink,” Isa. v, 22; and hence the psalmist took that highly poetical and sublime image of the cup of God’s wrath, called by Isaiah, li, 17, “the cup of trembling,” containing, as St. John expresses it, Rev. xiv, 10, pure wine made yet stronger by a mixture of powerful ingredients: “In the hand of Jehovah is a cup, and the wine is turbid; it is full of a mixed liquor, and he poureth out of it,” or rather, “he poureth it out of one vessel into another,” to mix it perfectly; “verily the dregs thereof,” the thickest sediment of the strong ingredients mingled with it, “all the ungodly of the earth shall wring them out, and drink them.” “Spiced wine,” Cant. viii, 2, was wine rendered more palatable and fragrant with aromatics. This was considered as a great delicacy. Spiced wines were not peculiar to the Jews; Hafiz speaks of wines “richly bitter, richly sweet.” The Romans lined their vessels, _amphoræ_, with odorous gums, to give the wine a warm bitter flavour: and the orientals now use the admixture of spices to give their wines a favourite relish. The “wine of Helbon,” Ezek. xxvii, 18, was an excellent kind of wine, known to the ancients by the name of _chalibonium vinum_. It was made at Damascus; the Persians had planted vineyards there on purpose, says Posidosius, quoted by Athenæus. This author says that the kings of Persia used no other wine. Hosea, xiv, 7, mentions the wine of Lebanon. The wines from the vineyards on that mount are even to this day in repute; but some think that this may mean a sweet-scented wine, or wine flavoured with fragrant gums.

WINE PRESS. The vintage in Syria commences about the middle of September, and continues till the middle of November. But grapes in Palestine, we are informed, were ripe sometimes even in June or July, which arose perhaps from a triple pruning, in which case there was also a third vintage. The first vintage was in August, the second in September, and the third in October. The grapes when not gathered were sometimes found on the vines until November and December. The Hebrews were required to leave gleanings for the poor, Lev. xix, 10. The season of vintage was a most joyful one, Judges ix, 27; Isaiah xvi, 10; Jer. xxv, 30; xlviii, 33. With shoutings on all sides, the grapes were plucked off and carried to the wine press, פורה, פארה, ληνὸς, which was in the vineyard, Isa. liii, 3; Zech. xiv, 10; Haggai ii, 16; Matt. xxi, 33; Rev. xiv, 19, 20. The presses consisted of two receptacles, which were either built of stones and covered with plaster, or hewn out of a large rock. The upper receptacle, called נת, as it is constructed at the present time in Persia, is nearly eight feet square and four feet high. Into this the grapes are thrown and trodden out by five men. The juice flows out into the lower receptacle, through a grated aperture, which is made in the side near the bottom of the upper one. The treading of the wine press was laborious, and not very favourable to cleanliness; the garments of the persons thus employed were stained with the red juice, and yet the employment was a joyful one. It was performed with singing, accompanied with musical instruments; and the treaders, as they jumped, exclaimed, הידד, Isa. xvi, 9, 10; Jer. xxv, 30; xlviii, 32, 33. Figuratively, vintage, gleaning, and treading the wine press, signified battles and great slaughters, Isa. xvii, 6; lxiii, 1–3; Jer. xlix, 9; Lam. i, 15. The must, as is customary in the east at the present day, was preserved in large firkins, which were buried in the earth. The wine cellars were not subterranean, but built upon the earth. When deposited in these, the firkins, as is done at the present time in Persia, were sometimes buried in the ground, and sometimes left standing upon it. Formerly, also, new wine or must was preserved in leathern bottles; and, lest they should be broken by fermentation, the people were very careful that the bottles should be new, Job xxxii, 19; Matt. ix, 17; Mark ii, 22. Sometimes the must was boiled and made into syrup, which is comprehended under the term דבש, although it is commonly rendered “honey,” Gen. xliii, 11; 2 Chron. xxxi, 5. Sometimes the grapes were dried in the sun and preserved in masses, which were called “bunches or clusters of raisins,” 1 Sam. xxv, 18; 2 Sam. xvi, 1; 1 Chron. xii, 40; Hosea iii, 1. From these dried grapes, when soaked in wine and pressed a second time, was manufactured sweet wine, which is also called new wine, γλεῦκος, Acts ii, 13.

WISDOM is put for that prudence and discretion which enables a man to perceive that which is fit to be done, according to the circumstances of time, place, persons, manners, and end of doing, Eccles. ii, 13, 14. It was this sort of wisdom that Solomon intreated of God with so much earnestness, and which God granted him with such divine liberality, 1 Kings iii, 9, 12, 28. It also signifies quickness of invention, and dexterity in the execution of several works, which require not so much strength of body, as industry, and labour of the mind. For example, God told Moses, Exod. xxxi, 3, that he had filled Bezaleel and Aholiab with wisdom, and understanding, and knowledge, to invent and perform several sorts of work for completing the tabernacle. It is used for craft, cunning, and stratagem, and that whether good or evil. Thus it is said by Moses, that Pharaoh dealt wisely with the Israelites, when he opposed them in Egypt, Exodus i, 10: it is observed of Jonadab, the friend of Ammon, and nephew of David, that he was very wise, that is, very subtle and crafty, 2 Sam. xiii, 3; and Job, v, 13, says, that God “taketh the wise in their own craftiness.” Wisdom means also doctrine, learning, and experience: “With the ancient is wisdom, and in length of days understanding,” Job xii, 12. It is put for true piety, or the fear of God, which is spiritual wisdom: “So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom,” Psalm xc, 12; “The fear of the Lord that is wisdom,” Job xxvii, 28. Wisdom is put for the eternal Wisdom, the Word of God. It was by wisdom that God established the heavens, and founded the earth, Prov. iii, 19. How magnificently does Solomon describe the primeval birth of the eternal Son of God, under the character of Wisdom personified; to which so many references and allusions are to be found in the Old and New Testament! “The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth,” Prov. viii, 22–25. The apocryphal book of Wisdom introduces, by a reference to this passage, the following admirable invocation, Wisdom ix, 9, 10:--

“O send forth wisdom, out of thy holy heavens, Even from the throne of thy glory; That being present she may labour with me, That I may know what is pleasing in thy sight!”

And our Lord assumes the title of Wisdom, Luke xi, 49; Matt. xxiii, 34; and declares that “wisdom shall be justified of all her children,” Matt. xi, 19; Luke vii, 35.

WISDOM, BOOK OF, an apocryphal book of Scripture, so called on account of the wise maxims contained in it. This book has been commonly ascribed to Solomon, either because the author imitated that king’s manner of writing, or because he sometimes speaks in his name. But it is certain Solomon was not the author of it; for it was not written in Hebrew, nor was it inserted in the Jewish canon, nor is the style like that of Solomon; and therefore St. Jerom observes justly that it smells strong of the Grecian eloquence; that it is composed with art and method, after the manner of the Greek philosophers, very different from that noble simplicity so full of life and energy to be found in the Hebrew books. It has been ascribed by many of the ancients to Philo.

WOLF, זאב, in Arabic, _zeeb_, Gen. xlix, 27; Isa. xi, 6; lxv, 25; Jer. v, 6; Ezek. xxii, 27; Zeph. iii, 3; Hab. i, 8; λύκος, Matt. vii, 15; x, 16; Luke x, 3; John x, 12; Acts xx, 29; Eccles. xiii, 17. M. Majus derives it from the Arabic word _zaab_ or _daaba_, “to frighten;” and hence, perhaps, the German word _dieb_, “a thief.” The wolf is a fierce, strong, cunning, mischievous, and carnivorous quadruped; externally and internally so nearly resembling the dog, that they seem modelled alike, yet have a perfect antipathy to each other. The Scripture observes of the wolf, that it lives upon rapine; is violent, bloody, cruel, voracious, and greedy; goes abroad by night to seek its prey, and is a great enemy to flocks of sheep. Indeed, this animal is fierce without cause, kills without remorse, and by its indiscriminate slaughter seems to satisfy its malignity rather than its hunger. The wolf is weaker than the lion or the bear, and less courageous than the leopard; but he scarcely yields to them in cruelty and rapaciousness. His ravenous temper prompts him to destructive and sanguinary depredations; and these are perpetrated principally in the night. This circumstance is expressly mentioned in several passages of Scripture. “The great men have altogether broken the yoke and burst the bonds; wherefore, a lion out of the forest shall slay them, and a wolf of the evenings shall spoil them,” Jer. v, 6. The rapacious and cruel conduct of the princes of Israel is compared by Ezekiel, xxii, 27, to the mischievous inroads of the same animal: “Her princes in the midst thereof are like wolves ravening the prey, to shed blood, to destroy lives, to get dishonest gain;” and Zephaniah, iii, 3, says, “Her princes within her are roaring lions, her judges are evening wolves: they gnaw not the bones till the morrow.” Instead of protecting the innocent and restraining the evil doer, or punishing him according to the demerit of his crimes, they delight in violence and oppression, in blood and rapine; and so insatiable is their cupidity, that, like the evening wolf, they destroy more than they are able to possess. The dispositions of the wolf to attack the weaker animals, especially those which are under the protection of man, is alluded to by our Saviour in the parable of the hireling shepherd: “The wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the flock,” Matt. vii, 15. And the Apostle Paul, in his address to the elders of Ephesus, gives the name of this insidious and cruel animal to the false teachers who disturbed the peace and perverted the faith of their people: “I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock,” Acts xx, 29.

WORD. Sometimes the Scripture ascribes to the word of God certain supernatural effects, and often represents it as animated and active: “He sent his word and healed them,” Psalm cvii, 20. It also signifies what is written in the sacred books of the Old and New Testament, Luke xi, 28; James i, 22; the divine law which teaches and commands good things, and forbids evil, Psalm cxix, 101; and is used to express every promise of God, Psalm cxix, 25, &c, and prophecy or vision, Isaiah, ii, 1. This term is likewise consecrated and appropriated to signify the only Son of the Father, the uncreated Wisdom, the second Person of the most holy Trinity, equal to and consubstantial with the Father. St. John the evangelist, more expressly than any other, has opened to us the mystery of the Word of God, when he tells us, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made,” John i, 1–3. The Chaldee paraphrasts, the most ancient Jewish writers extant, generally make use of the word _memra_, which signifies “the Word,” in those places where Moses puts the name Jehovah. They say, for example, that it was the _Memra_, or the Word, which created the world, which appeared to Moses on Mount Sinai, which gave him the law, which spoke to him face to face, which brought Israel out of Egypt, which marched before the people, and which wrought all those miracles that are recorded in Exodus. It was the same Word that appeared to Abraham in the plain of Mamre, that was seen of Jacob at Bethel, to whom Jacob made his vow, and acknowledged as God, saying, “If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, then shall the Lord be my God,” Gen. xxviii, 20, 21. The manner in which St. John commences his Gospel is strikingly different from the introductions to the histories of Christ by the other evangelists; and no less striking and peculiar is the title under which he announces him--“the Word.” It has therefore been a subject of much inquiry and discussion, from whence this evangelist drew the use of this appellation, and what reasons led him, as though intending to solicit particular attention, to place it at the very head of his Gospel. That it was for the purpose of establishing an express opinion, as to the personal character of him it is used to designate, is made more than probable from the predominant character of the whole Gospel, which is more copiously doctrinal, and contains a record more full of what Jesus “_said_” than the others. As to the source from which the term Logos was drawn by the Apostle, some have held it to be taken from the Jewish Scriptures; others, from the Chaldee paraphrases; others, from Philo and the Hellenizing Jews. The most natural conclusion certainly appears to be, that, as St. John was a plain, “unlearned” man, chiefly conversant in the Holy Scriptures, he derived this term from the sacred books of his own nation, in which the Hebrew phrase, _Dabar Jehovah_, “the Word of Jehovah,” frequently occurs in passages which must be understood to speak of a personal Word, and which phrase is rendered Λόγος Κυρίου [the word of the Lord] by the Septuagint interpreters. Certainly, there is not the least evidence in his writings, or in his traditional history, that he ever acquainted himself with Philo or with Plato; and none, therefore, that he borrowed the term from them, or used it in any sense approaching to or suggested by these refinements:--in the writings of St. Paul there are allusions to poets and philosophers; in those of St. John, none, except to the rising sects afterward known under the appellation of Gnostics. The Hebrew Scriptures contain frequent intimations of a distinction of Persons in the Godhead; one of these Divine Persons is called Jehovah; and, though manifestly represented as existing distinct from the Father, is yet arrayed with attributes of divinity, and was acknowledged by the ancient Jews to be, in the highest sense, “their God,” the God with whom, through all their history, they chiefly “had to do.” This Divine Person is proved to have been spoken of by the prophets as the future Christ; the evangelists and Apostles represent Jesus as that Divine Person of the prophets; and if, in the writings of the Old Testament, he is also called the Word, the application of this term to our Lord is naturally accounted for. It will then appear to be a theological, not a philosophic appellation, and one which, previously even to the time of the Apostle, had been stamped with the authority of inspiration.

Celebrated as this title of the Logos was in the Jewish theology, it is not, however, the appellation by which the Spirit of inspiration has chosen that our Saviour should be principally designated. It occurs but a very few times, and principally and emphatically in the introduction to St. John’s Gospel. A cogent reason can be given why this Apostle adopts it; and we are not without a probable reason why, in the New Testament, the title “Son of God” should have been preferred, which is a frequent title of the Logos in the writings also of Philo. Originating from the spiritual principle of connection, between the first and the second Being in the Godhead; marking this, by a spiritual idea of connection; and considering it to be as close and as necessary as the Word is to the energetic mind of God, which cannot bury its intellectual energies in silence, but must put them forth in speech; it is too spiritual in itself, to be addressed to the faith of the multitude. If with so full a reference to our bodily ideas, and so positive a filiation of the second Being to the first, we have seen the attempts of Arian criticism endeavouring to resolve the doctrine into the mere dust of a figure; how much more ready would it have been to do so, if we had only such a spiritual denomination as this for the second! This would certainly have been considered by it as too unsubstantial for distinct personality, and therefore too evanescent for equal divinity. One of the first teachers of this system was Cerinthus. We have not any particular account of all the branches of his system; and it is possible that we may ascribe to him some of those tenets by which later sects of Gnostics were discriminated. But we have authority for saying, that the general principle of the Gnostic scheme was openly taught by Cerinthus before the publication of the Gospel of St. John. The authority is that of Irenæus, a bishop who lived in the second century, who in his youth had heard Polycarp, the disciple of the Apostle John, and who retained the discourses of Polycarp in his memory till his death. There are yet extant of the works of Irenæus, five books which he wrote against heresies, one of the most authentic and valuable monuments of theological erudition. In one place of that work he says, that Cerinthus taught in Asia that the world was not made by the Supreme God, but by a certain power very separate and far removed from the Sovereign of the universe, and ignorant of his nature. In another place, he says that John the Apostle wished, by his Gospel, to extirpate the error which had been spread among men by Cerinthus; and Jerom, who lived in the fourth century, says that St. John wrote his Gospel, at the desire of the bishops of Asia, against Cerinthus and other heretics, and chiefly against the doctrines of the Ebionites, then springing up, who said that Christ did not exist before he was born of Mary.

“It appears,” says Dr. Hill, “to have been the tradition of the Christian church, that St. John, who lived to a great age, and who resided at Ephesus, in Proconsular Asia, was moved by the growth of the Gnostic heresies, and by the solicitations of the Christian teachers, to bear his testimony to the truth in writing, and particularly to recollect those discourses and actions of our Lord, which might furnish the clearest refutation of the persons who denied his preëxistence. This tradition is a key to a great part of his Gospel. Matthew, Mark, and Luke had given a detail of those actions of Jesus which are the evidences of his divine mission; of those events in his life upon earth which are most interesting to the human race; and of those moral discourses in which the wisdom, the grace, and the sanctity of the Teacher shine with united lustre. Their whole narration implies that Jesus was more than man. But as it is distinguished by a beautiful simplicity, which adds very much to their credit as historians, they have not, with the exception of a few incidental expressions, formally stated the conclusion that Jesus was more than man; but have left the Christian world to draw it for themselves from the facts narrated, or to receive it by the teaching and the writings of the Apostles. St. John, who was preserved by God to see this conclusion, which had been drawn by the great body of Christians, and had been established in the epistles, denied by different heretics, brings forward, in the form of a history of Jesus, a view of his exalted character, and draws our attention particularly to the truth of that which had been denied. When you come to analyze the Gospel of St. John, you will find that the first eighteen verses contain the positions laid down by the Apostle, in order to meet the errors of Cerinthus; that these positions, which are merely affirmed in the introduction, are proved in the progress of the Gospel, by the testimony of John the Baptist, and by the words and the actions of our Lord; and that after the proof is concluded by the declaration of Thomas, who, upon being convinced that Jesus had risen, said to him, ‘My Lord, and my God,’ St. John sums up the amount of his Gospel in these few words: ‘These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God;’ that is, that Jesus and the Christ are not distinct persons, and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The Apostle does not condescend to mention the name of Cerinthus, because that would have preserved, as long as the world lasts, the memory of a name which might otherwise be forgotten. But, although there is dignity and propriety in omitting the mention of his name, it was necessary, in laying down the positions that were to meet his errors, to adopt some of his words, because the Christians of those days would not so readily have applied the doctrine of the Apostle to the refutation of those heresies which Cerinthus was spreading among them, if they had not found in the exposition of that doctrine some of the terms in which the heresy was delivered; and as the chief of these terms, Logos, which Cerinthus applied to an inferior spirit, was equivalent to a phrase in common use among the Jews, ‘the Word of Jehovah,’ and was probably borrowed from thence, John by his use of Logos rescues it from the degraded use of Cerinthus, and restores it to a sense corresponding to the dignity of the Jewish phrase.”

The Logos was no fanciful term, merely invented by St. John, _pro re natâ_, [according to circumstances,] or even suggested by the Holy Spirit, as a suitable title for a prophet by whom God chose to reveal himself or his Word. It was a term diversely understood in the world before St. John began his Gospel. Is it possible, therefore, that he should have used the term without some express allusion to these prevailing opinions? Had he contradicted them all, it would, of course, have been a plain proof, that they were all equally fabulous and fanciful; but by adopting the term, he certainly meant to show, that the error did not consist in believing that there was a Logos, or Word of God, but in thinking amiss of it. We might, indeed, have wondered much had he decidedly adopted the Platonic or Gnostic notions, in preference to the Jewish; but that he should harmonize with the latter, is by no means surprising; first, because he was a Jew himself; and, secondly, because Christianity was plainly to be shown to be connected with, and, as it were, regularly to have sprung out of, Judaism. It is certainly, then, in the highest degree consistent with all we could reasonably expect, to find St. John and others of the sacred writers expressing themselves in terms not only familiar to the Jews under the old covenant, but, in such as might tend, by a perfect revelation of the truth, to give instruction to all parties; correcting the errors of the Platonic and oriental systems, and confirming, in the clearest manner, the hopes and expectations of the Jews.

While the reasons for the use of this term by St. John are obvious, the argument from it is irresistible; for, first, the Logos of the evangelist is a _person_, not an _attribute_, as many Socinians have said, who have, therefore, sometimes chosen to render it _wisdom_. For if it be an attribute, it were a mere truism to say, that “it was in the beginning with God;” because God could never be without his attributes. The Apostle also declares, that the Logos was the Light; but that John Baptist was not the light. Here is a kind of parallel supposed, and it presumes, also, that it was possible that the same character might be erroneously ascribed to both. Between person and person this may, undoubtedly, be the case; but what species of parallel can exist between man and an attribute? Nor will the difficulty be obviated by suggesting, that wisdom here means not the attribute itself, but him whom that attribute inspired, the man Jesus Christ, because the name of our Saviour has not yet been mentioned; because that rule of interpretation must be inadmissible, which at one time would explain the term Logos by an attribute, at another by a man, as best suits the convenience of hypothesis; and because, if it be, in this instance, conceived to indicate our Saviour, it must follow, that our Saviour created the world, (which the Unitarians will by no means admit,) for the Logos, who was that which John the Baptist was not, the true Light, is expressly declared to have made the world. Again: the Logos was made flesh, that is, became man; but in what possible sense could an attribute become man? The Logos is “the only begotten of the Father;” but it would be uncouth to say of any attribute, that it is begotten; and, if that were passed over, it would follow, from this notion, either that God has only one attribute, or that wisdom is not his only begotten attribute. Farther: St. John uses terms decisively personal, as that he is God, not divine as an attribute, but God personally; not that he was in God, which would properly have been said of an attribute, but _with_ God, which he could only say of a person; that “all things were made by him;” that he was “in the world;” that “he came to his own;” that he was “in the bosom of the Father;” and that “he hath declared the Father.” The absurdity of representing the Logos of St. John as an attribute seems, at length, to have been perceived by the Socinians themselves, and their new version accordingly regards it as a personal term.

If the Logos be a person, then is he Divine; for, first, eternity is ascribed to him: “In the beginning was the Word.” The Unitarian comment is, “from the beginning of his ministry,” or “the commencement of the Gospel dispensation;” which makes St. John use another trifling truism, and solemnly tell his readers, that our Saviour, when he began his ministry, was in existence! “in the beginning of his ministry the Word _was_!” It is true, that ἀρχὴ, “the beginning,” is used for the beginning of Christ’s ministry, when he says that the Apostles had been with him from the beginning; and it may be used for the beginning of any thing whatever. It is a term which must be determined in its meaning by the context; and the question, therefore, is, how the connection here determines it. Almost immediately it is added, “All things were made by him;” which can only mean the creation of universal nature. He, then, who made all things was prior to all created things; he _was_ when they _began_ to be, and before they began to be; and, if he existed before all created things, he was not himself created, and was, therefore, eternal. Secondly, he is expressly called God; and, thirdly, he is as explicitly said to be the Creator of all things. The two last particulars have often been largely established, and nothing need be added, except, as another proof that the Scriptures can only be fairly explained by the doctrine of a distinction of divine Persons in the Godhead, the declaration of St. John may be adduced, that “the Word was _with_ God, and the Word was God.” What hypothesis but this goes a single step to explain this wonderful language? Arianism, which allows the preëxistence of Christ _with_ God, accords with the first clause, but contradicts the second. Sabellianism, which reduces the personal to an official, and therefore a temporal, distinction, accords with the second clause, but contradicts the first; for Christ, according to this theory, was not with God in the beginning, that is in eternity. Socinianism contradicts both clauses; for on that scheme Christ was neither with God in the beginning, nor was he God. “The faith of God’s elect” agrees with both clauses, and by both it is established: “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.” See UNITARIANS.

WORM, the general name in Scripture for little creeping insects. Several kinds are spoken of: 1. Those that breed in putrefied bodies, רמה, Exod. xvi, 20, 24; Job vii, 5; xvii, 14; xxi, 26; xxiv, 20; xxv, 6; Isa. xiv, 11; σκώληξ, Ecclus. vii, 17; x, 11; 1 Mac. ii, 62; 2 Mac. ix, 9; Judith xvi, 17; Mark ix, 44, 46, 48; Acts xii, 23. 2. That which eats woollen garments, סס, Isa. li, 8; σὴς, Matt. vi, 19, 20; Luke xii, 33. 3. That which, perforating the leaves and bark of trees, causes the little excrescences called _kermes_, whence is made a crimson dye, תולע, Deut. xxviii, 39; Job xxv, 6; Psalm xxii, 6; Isa. xiv, 11; xii, 14; lxvi, 24; Exod. xvi, 20; Jonah iv, 7. 4. The worm destructive of the vines, referred to in Deut. xxviii, 39; which was the _pyralis vitanæ_, or _pyralis fasciana_, of Forskal, the vine weevil, a small insect extremely hurtful to the vines.

WORMWOOD, לענה, Deut. xxix, 18; Prov. v, 4; Jer. ix, 15; xxiii, 15; Lam. iii, 15, 19; Amos v, 7; vi, 12; ἄψινθον, Rev. viii, 11. In the Septuagint the original word is variously rendered, and generally by terms expressive of its figurative sense, for what is offensive, odious, or deleterious; but in the Syriac and Arabic versions, and in the Latin Vulgate, it is rendered “wormwood;” and this is adopted by Celsius, who names it the _absinthium santonicum Judaicum_, [bitter wormwood of Judea.] From the passages of Scripture, however, where this plant is mentioned, something more than the bitterness of its qualities seems to be intimated, and effects are attributed to it greater than can be produced by the wormwood of Europe. The Chaldee paraphrase gives it even the character of “the wormwood of death.” It may therefore mean a plant allied, perhaps, to the _absinthium_ in appearance and in taste, but possessing more nauseous, hurtful, and formidable properties.

WORSHIP. The Scriptural obligation of public worship is partly founded upon example, and partly upon precept; so that no person who admits that authority, can question this great duty without manifest and criminal inconsistency. The institution of public worship under the law, and the practice of synagogue worship among the Jews, from at least the time of Ezra, cannot be questioned; both of which were sanctioned by the practice of our Lord and his Apostles. The preceptive authority for our regular attendance upon public worship, is either inferential or direct. The command to publish the Gospel includes the obligation of assembling to hear it; the name by which a Christian society is designated in Scripture is a church; which signifies an assembly for the transaction of business; and, in the case of a Christian assembly, that business must necessarily be spiritual, and include the sacred exercises of prayer, praise, and hearing the Scriptures. But we have more direct precepts, although the practice was obviously continued from Judaism, and was therefore consuetudinary. Some of the epistles of St. Paul are commanded to be read in the churches. The singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs is enjoined as an act of solemn worship to the Lord; and St. Paul cautions the Hebrews that they “forsake not the assembling of themselves together.” The practice of the primitive age is also manifest from the epistles of St. Paul. The Lord’s Supper was celebrated by the body of believers collectively; and this Apostle prescribes to the Corinthians regulations for the exercises of prayer and prophesyings, “when they came together in the church,”--the assembly. The statedness and order of these holy offices in the primitive church, appear also from the apostolical epistle of St. Clement: “We ought also, looking into the depths of the divine knowledge, to do all things in order, whatsoever the Lord hath commanded to be done. We ought to make our oblations, and perform our holy offices, at their appointed seasons; for these he hath commanded to be done, not irregularly or by chance, but at determinate times and hours; as he hath likewise ordained by his supreme will, where, and by what persons, they shall be performed; that so all things being done according to his pleasure, may be acceptable in his sight.” This passage is remarkable for urging a divine authority for the public services of the church, by which St. Clement, no doubt, means the authority of the inspired directions of the Apostles. The ends of the institution of public worship are of such obvious importance, that it must ever be considered as one of the most condescending and gracious dispensations of God to man. By this his church confesses his name before the world; by this the public teaching of his word is associated with acts calculated to affect the mind with that solemnity which is the best preparation for hearing it to edification. It is thus that the ignorant and the vicious are collected together, and instructed and warned; the invitations of mercy are published to the guilty, and the sorrowful and afflicted are comforted. In these assemblies God, by his Holy Spirit, diffuses his vital and sanctifying influence, and takes the devout into a fellowship with himself, from which they derive strength to do and to suffer his will in the various scenes of life, while he there affords them a foretaste of the deep and hallowed pleasures which are reserved for them at his right hand for evermore. Prayers and intercessions are offered for national and public interests; and while the benefit of these exercises descends upon a country, all are kept sensible of the dependence of every public and personal interest upon God. Praise calls forth the grateful emotions, and gives cheerfulness to piety; and that instruction in righteousness which is so perpetually repeated, diffuses the principles of morality and religion throughout society; enlightens and gives activity to conscience; raises the standard of morals; attaches shame to vice, and praise to virtue; and thus exerts a powerfully purifying influence upon mankind. Laws thus receive a force, which, in other circumstances, they could not acquire, even were they enacted in as great perfection; and the administration of justice is aided by the strongest possible obligation and sanction being given to legal oaths. The domestic relations are rendered more strong and interesting by the very habit of the attendance of families upon the sacred services of the sanctuary of the Lord; and the rich and the poor meeting together, and standing on the same common ground as sinners before God, equally dependent upon him, and equally suing for his mercy, has a powerful, though often an insensible, influence in humbling the pride which is nourished by superior rank, and in raising the lower classes above abjectness of spirit, without injuring their humility. Piety, benevolence, and patriotism are equally dependent for their purity and vigour upon the regular and devout worship of God in the simplicity of the Christian dispensation.

The following is an abridgment of Dr. Neander’s account of the mode of conducting public worship among the primitive Christians, which, though questionable on some points, is upon the whole just and interesting:--Since the religion of the New Testament did not admit of any peculiar outward priesthood, similar to that of the Old, the same outward kind of worship, dependent on certain places, times, and outward actions and demeanours, would also have no place in its composition. The kingdom of God, the temple of the Lord, were to be present, not in this or that place, but in every place where Christ himself is active in the Spirit, and where through him the worship of God in spirit and in truth is established. Every Christian in particular, and every church in general, were to represent a spiritual temple of the Lord; the true worship of God was to be only in the inward heart, and the whole life proceeding from such inward disposition, sanctified by faith, was to be a continued spiritual service; this is the great fundamental idea of the Gospel, which prevails throughout the New Testament, by which the whole outward appearance of religion was to assume a different form, and all that once was carnal was to be converted into spiritual, and ennobled. This notion came forward most strongly in the original inward life of the first Christians, particularly when contrasted with Judaism, and still more so when contrasted with Heathenism; a contrast which taught the Christians to avoid all pomp that caught the eye, and all multiplication of means of devotion addressed to the senses, while it made them hold fast the simple, spiritual character of the Christian worship of God. It was this which always struck the Heathen so much in the Christian worship; namely, that nothing was found among them of the outward pomp of all other religions; no temples, no altars, no images. This reproach was made to the Christians by Celsus, and answered thus by Origen: “In the highest sense the temple and image of God are in the human nature of Christ; and hence, also, in all the faithful, who are animated by the Spirit of Christ,--living images! with which no statue of Jove by Phidias is fit to be compared.” Christianity impelled men frequently to seek for the stillness of the inward sanctuary, and here to pour forth their heart to God, who dwells in such temples; but then the flames of love were also lighted in their hearts, which sought communion in order to strengthen each other mutually, and to unite themselves into one holy flame which pointed toward heaven. The communion of prayer and devotion was thought a source of sanctification, inasmuch as men knew that the Lord was present by his Spirit among those who were gathered together in his name; but then they were far from ascribing any peculiar sacredness and sanctity to the place of assembly. Such an idea would appear to partake of Heathenism; and men were at first in less danger of being seduced into such an idea, because the first general places of assembly of the Christians were only common rooms in private houses, just according as it happened that any member of the church had sufficient accommodation for the purpose. Thus Gaius of Corinth, Rom. xvi, is called the host of the church, because the church was in the habit of assembling in a room of his house. Origen says, “The place where believers come together to pray has something agreeable and useful about it;” but then he only says this in respect to that spiritual communion. Man, we must avow, is very easily led to fall away from the worship of God in spirit and in truth, and to connect the religion of the Spirit with outward and earthly things; as the Apostle says, “Having begun in the Spirit, to wish to end in the flesh.” Watchfulness on this point was constantly needed, lest the Jewish or the Heathen notions should here intrude themselves on those of the Gospel, which was likely enough to happen as soon as the Old and the New Testament notions of the priesthood had been confused. Even in the time of Clemens of Alexandria he found himself obliged to combat the notion, which allowed the essentials of a Christian life to be of one kind in, and of another out of, the church. “The disciples of Christ,” he says, “must form the whole course of their life and conduct on the model which they assume in the churches, for the sake of propriety; they must be such, and not merely seem so; as mild, as pious, and as charitable. But now, I know not how it is, they change their habits and their manners with the change of place, as the polypus, they say, changes its colour, and becomes like the rock on which it hangs. They lay aside the spiritual habit which they had assumed in the church, as soon as they have left the church, and assimilate themselves to the multitude among whom they live. I should rather say, that they convict themselves of hypocrisy, and show what they really are in their inward nature, by laying aside the mask of piety which they had assumed; and while they honour the word of God, they leave it behind them in the place where they heard it.”

The Christian places of assembly were, at first, in the rooms of private houses; it may perhaps be the case, that in large towns, where the number of Christians was soon considerable, and no member of the church had any room in his house sufficient to contain all his brethren, or in places where men did not fear any prejudicial consequences from large assemblies, the church divided itself into different sections, according to the habitations of its members, of which each section held its assemblies in one particular chamber of the house of some wealthy member of the church; or, perhaps, while it was usual to unite on Sundays in one general assembly, yet each individual part of the church met together daily in the rooms which lay the most convenient to it. Perhaps the passages in St. Paul’s epistles, which speak of churches in the houses of particular persons, are thus to be understood. The answer of Justin Martyr to the question of the prefect, “Where do you assemble?” exactly corresponds to the genuine Christian spirit on this point. This answer was, “Where each one can and will. You believe, no doubt, that we all meet together in one place; but it is not so, for the God of the Christians is not shut up in a room, but, being invisible, he fills both heaven and earth, and is honoured every where by the faithful.” Justin adds, that when he came to Rome, he was accustomed to dwell in one particular spot, and that those Christians who were instructed by him, and wished to hear his discourses, assembled at his house. He had not visited any other congregations of the church. The arrangements which the peculiarities of the Christian worship required, were gradually made in these places of assembly, such as an elevated seat for the purpose of reading the Scriptures and preaching, a table for the distribution of the sacrament, to which as early as the time of Tertullian the name of altar, _ara_ or _altare_, was given, and perhaps not without some mixture of the unevangelical Old Testament notion of a sacrifice; or at least this idea might easily attach itself to this name. When the churches increased, and their circumstances improved, there were, during the course of the third century, already separate church buildings for the Christians, as the name θρησκεύσιμοι τοπόι, [religious places,] of the Christians occurs in the edict of Gallienus. In the time of the external prosperity of the church, during the reign of Diocletian, many handsome churches arose in the great towns. The use of images was originally quite foreign to the Christian worship and churches, and it remained so during this whole period. The intermixture of art and religion, and the use of images for the latter, appeared to the first Christians a Heathenish practice. As in Heathenism the divine becomes desecrated and tarnished by intermixture with the natural; and as men have often paid homage to the beauties of nature, with injury to the cause of holiness, the first warmth of Christian zeal, which opposed the idolatry of nature, so common to Heathenism, and sought to maintain the divine in all its purity and elevation, was inclined rather to set holiness in the strongest contrast with what is beautiful by nature, than to endeavour to grace it by lending it a beautiful form. Men were more inclined in general to carry into extremes the idea of the appearance of the Divinity in the form of a servant, which suited the oppressed condition of the church in these centuries than to throw it into the back ground, and overwhelm it under the predominance of their æsthetic dispositions, and their love of art. This is peculiarly shown by the general belief of the early church, that Christ had clothed his inward divine glory in a mean outward form, which was in direct contradiction to it; a conclusion which was drawn from interpreting the prophecy of the Messiah in Isa. liii, 2, too literally. Thus, Clemens of Alexandria warns the Christians, from the example of Christ, not to attribute too much value to outward beauty: “The Lord himself was mean in outward form; and who is better than the Lord? But he revealed himself not in the beauty of the body, perceptible to our senses, but in the true beauty of the soul as well as of the body; the beauty of the soul consisting in benevolence, and that of the body in immortality!” Fathers of entirely opposite habits of mind, the adherents of two different systems of conceiving divine things, were nevertheless united on this point by their common opposition to the mixture of the natural and the divine in Heathenism, and by the endeavour to maintain the devotion to God, in spirit and in truth, pure and undefiled. Clemens of Alexandria is as little favourable as Tertullian to the use of images. Heathens, who, like Alexander Severus, saw something divine in Christ’s personal form, and sects which mixed Heathenism and Christianity together, were the first who made use of images of Christ; as, for instance, the Gnostic sect of the followers of Carpocratian, who put his image beside those of Plato and Aristotle. The use of religious images among the Christians did not proceed from their ecclesiastical but from their domestic life. In the intercourse of daily life, the Christians saw themselves every where surrounded by objects of Heathen mythology, or by such as shocked their moral and Christian feelings. Similar objects adorned the walls of chambers, the drinking vessels, and the signet rings, (on which the Heathen had constantly idolatrous images,) to which, whenever they pleased, they could address their devotions; and the Christians naturally felt themselves obliged to replace these objects, which wounded their moral and religious feelings, with others more suited to those feelings. Therefore, they gladly put the likeness of a shepherd carrying a lamb upon his shoulders, on their cups, as a symbol of the Redeemer, who saves the sinners that return to him, according to the parable in the Gospel. And Clemens of Alexandria says, in reference to the signet rings of the Christians, “Let our signet rings consist of a dove,” the emblem of the Holy Ghost, “or a fish, or a ship sailing toward heaven,” the emblem of the Christian church, or of individual Christian souls, “or a lyre,” the emblem of Christian joy, “or an anchor,” the emblem of Christian hope; “and he who is a fisherman, let him remember the Apostle, and the children who were dragged out from the water; for those men ought not to engrave idolatrous forms, to whom the use of them is forbidden; those can engrave no sword and no bow, who seek for peace; the friends of temperance cannot engrave drinking cups.” And yet, perhaps, religious images made their way from domestic life into the churches as early as the end of the third century, and the walls of the churches were painted in the same way. The council of Elvira set itself against this innovation as an abuse, for it made the following order: “Objects of reverence and worship shall not be painted on the walls.” It is probable that the visible representation of the cross found its way very early into domestic and ecclesiastical life. This token was remarkably common among them; it was used to consecrate their rising and their going to bed, their going out and their coming in, and all the actions of daily life; it was the sign which Christians made involuntarily whenever any thing of a fearful nature surprised them. This was a mode of expressing, by means perceptible to the senses, the purely Christian idea, that all the actions of Christians, as well as the whole course of their life, must be sanctified by faith in the crucified Jesus, and by dependence upon him; and that this faith is the most powerful means of conquering all evil, and preserving oneself against it. But here also, again, men were too apt to confuse the idea and the token which represented it; and they attributed the effects of faith in the crucified Redeemer to the outward sign, to which they ascribed a supernatural, sanctifying, and preservative power; an error of which we find traces as early as the third century.

We now pass from the consideration of the places of public worship, to that of the seasons of worship, and the festivals of the early Christians. It is here shown again, that the Gospel, as it remodelled the former conceptions of the priesthood, of worship in general, and of holy places, also entirely changed the then views of sacred seasons. And here again, also, the character of the theocracy of the New Testament revealed itself, a theocracy spiritualized, ennobled, and freed from its outward garb of sense, and from the limits which bounded its generalization. The Jewish laws relating to their festivals were not merely abrogated by the Gospel, in such a manner as to transfer these festivals to different seasons; but they were entirely abolished, as far as fixing religious worship to particular times is concerned. St. Paul expressly declares all sanctifying of certain seasons, as far as men deduced this from the divine command, to be Jewish and unevangelical, and to be like returning to the slavery of the law, and to captivity to outward precepts. Such was the opinion of the early church. At first the churches assembled every day; as, for instance, the first church of Jerusalem, which assembled daily for prayer in common, and for the public consideration of the divine word, for the common celebration of the Lord’s Supper and the _agapæ_, as well as to maintain the connection between the common head of the spiritual body of the church and themselves, and between one another as members of this body. Traces of this are also found in later times in the daily assembling of the churches for the purpose of hearing the Scriptures read, and of celebrating the communion. Although, in order to meet the wants of human nature generally, consisting as it does of sense as well as soul, and those of a large body of Christians in particular, who were only in a state of education, and were to be brought up to the ripeness of Christian manhood, men soon selected definite times [beside the authorized Christian Sabbath, the first day of the week] for religious admonitions, and to consecrate them to a fuller occupation with religious things, as well as to public devotion, with the intention, that the influence of these definite times should animate and sanctify the rest of their lives, and that Christians who withdrew themselves from the distractions of business on these days, and collected their hearts before God in the stillness of solitude, as well as in public devotion, might make these seasons of service to the other parts of their life; yet this was in itself, and of itself, nothing unevangelical. It was only a dropping down from the purely spiritual point of view, on which even the Christian, as he still carries about two natures in himself, cannot always maintain himself, to the carnal; a dropping down which became constantly more necessary, the more the fire of the first animation and the warmth of the first love of the Christians died away. It was no more unevangelic than the gradual limitation of the exercise of many rights, belonging to the common priesthood of all Christians, to a certain class in the church, which circumstances rendered necessary. But just as the unevangelic made its appearance, men supposed certain days distinguished from others, and hallowed by divine right, when they introduced a distinction between holy and common days into the life of the Christian, and in this distinction forgot his calling to sanctify all days alike. When the Montanists wished to introduce and make imperative new fasts, which were fixed to certain days, the Epistle to the Galatians was very properly brought to oppose them; but Tertullian, who stood on the boundary between the original pure evangelic times and those when the intermixture of Jewish and Christian notions first took place, confuses here the views of the two religions, because he makes the evangelical to consist, not in a wholly different method of considering festivals altogether, but in the celebration of different particular festivals; and he makes the Judaizing, which the Apostle condemns, to consist only in the observation of the Jewish instead of the peculiarly Christian festivals. The weekly and the yearly festivals originally arose from the self-same fundamental idea, which was the centre point of the whole Christian life; the idea of imitating Christ, the crucified and the risen; to follow him in his death, by appropriating to ourselves, in penitence and faith, the effects of his death, by dying to ourselves and to the world; to follow him in his resurrection, by rising again with him, by faith in him and by his power, to a new and holy life, devoted to God, which, beginning here below in the seed, is matured in heaven. Hence the festival of joy was the festival of the resurrection; and the preparation for it, the remembrance of the sufferings of Christ, with mortification and crucifixion of the flesh, was the day of fasting and penitence. Thus in the week the Sunday was the joyful festival; and the preparation for it was a day of penitence and prayer, consecrated to remembrance of the sufferings of Christ and the preparations for them, and this was celebrated on the Friday; and thus also the yearly festivals were to celebrate the resurrection of Christ, and the operations of the Redeemer after he had risen again; the preparation for this day was in commemoration of the sufferings and fastings of our Saviour. Allusion is made to Sunday under the character of a festival, as a symbol of a new life, consecrated to the Lord in opposition to the old Sabbath, in the epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians: “If they who were brought up under the Old Testament have attained to a new hope, and no longer keep [Jewish] Sabbaths holy, but have consecrated their life to the day of the Lord, on which also our life rose up in him, how shall we be able to live without him?” Sunday was distinguished as a day of joy by the circumstances, that men did not fast upon it, and that they prayed standing up and not kneeling, as Christ had raised up fallen man to heaven again through his resurrection. And farther: two other days in the week, Friday and Wednesday, particularly the former, were consecrated to the remembrance of the sufferings of Christ, and of the circumstances preparatory to them; congregations were held on them, and a fast till three o’clock in the afternoon, but nothing was positively appointed concerning them; in respect to joining in these solemnities every one consulted his own convenience or inclination. Such fasts, joined with prayer, were considered as the watches of the _milites Christi_ [soldiers of Christ] on their post by the Christians, who compared their calling to a warfare, the _militia Christi_, and they were _stationes_, and the days on which they took place were called _dies stationum_, [day of their stations.] The churches, which were a graft of a Christian on a Jewish spirit, although they received the Sunday, retained also that of the Sabbath; and from them the custom spread abroad in the oriental church, of distinguishing this day, as well as the Sunday, by not fasting and by praying in an erect posture; in the western churches, particularly the Roman, where opposition to Judaism was the prevailing tendency, this very opposition produced the custom of celebrating the Saturday in particular as a fast day. This difference in customs would of course be striking, where members of the oriental church spent their Sabbath day in the western church. It was only too soon that men lost sight of the principle of the apostolic church, which retained the unity of faith and spirit in the bond of love, but allowed all kinds of difference in external things; and then they began to require uniformity in these things. The first yearly festivals of the Christians proceeded from similar views; and at first the contrast which had in early times the most powerful influence on the developement as well of the churchly life, as of the doctrines of Christianity, is peculiarly prominent; I mean the contrast between the Jewish churches and those of the Gentile converts. The former retained all the Jewish festivals as well as the whole ceremonial law; although by degrees they introduced into them a Christian meaning which spontaneously offered itself. On the contrary, there was probably no yearly festival at all, from the beginning, among the Heathen converts; for no trace of any thing of the sort is found in the whole of the New Testament. The passover of the Old Testament was easily ennobled and converted to a passover which suited the New Testament, by merely substituting the idea of deliverance from spiritual bondage, that is, from the slavery of sin, for that of deliverance from earthly bondage. The paschal lamb was a type of Christ, by whom that deliverance was wrought. These representations went on the supposition, that Christ had partaken his last meal with his disciples, as a proper passover, at the very time that the Jews were celebrating theirs. This passover was, therefore, always celebrated on the night between the fourteenth and fifteenth of the Jewish month Nisan, as a remembrance at the same time of the last supper of Christ. This was the fundamental notion of the whole Jewish Christian passover, on which all the rest was built. The day following this passover was consecrated to the remembrance of the sufferings of Christ, and the third day from it to the remembrance of his resurrection. On the contrary, in the greater number of Heathen churches, as soon as men began to celebrate yearly festivals, (a time which cannot be determined very precisely,) they followed the method observed in the weekly festivals. They appointed one Sunday in the year for the festival of the resurrection, and one Friday as a day of penitence and fasting preparatory to this Sunday, in remembrance of the sufferings of Christ; and they gradually lengthened this time of penitence and fasting, as a preparation for that high and joyful festival. In these churches they were more inclined to take up a kind of antithetical turn against the Jewish festivals, than to graft Christian ones upon them. It was far from their notions to think of observing a yearly passover with the Jews. The following was the view which they took of the matter: “Every typical feast has lost its true meaning by the realization of that which is typified; in the sacrifice of Christ, the Lord’s Supper, as the new covenant, has taken the place of that of the old covenant.” This difference of outward customs between the Jewish Christian churches and the churches allied to them on the one hand, and the Heathen Christian churches founded by St. Paul on the other, existed at first without its being supposed that external things of this nature were of importance enough to lead to a controversy. A fast formed the introduction to the passover; and this was the only fast formally established by the church. The necessity of this fast was deduced from Matthew ix, 15; but it was by a carnal interpretation of the passage, and an application of it quite contrary to its real sense. For it does not relate to the time of Christ’s suffering, but to the time when he should be with his disciples no more. As long as they enjoyed his society they were to give themselves up to joy, and to be disturbed in it by no forced asceticism. But a time of sorrow was to follow this time of joy, although only for a season, after which a time of higher and imperishable joy, in invisible communion with him, was to follow, John xvi, 22. The duration of this fast, however, was not determined; the imitation of the temptation of our Lord for forty days introduced the custom of fasting forty hours in some places, which afterward was extended to forty days; and thus the fast of forty days, the quadrigesimal fast, arose. The festival of pentecost, Whitsuntide, was closely connected with that of the resurrection; and this was dedicated to commemorating the first visible effects of the operations of the glorified Christ upon human nature, now also ennobled by him, the lively proofs of his resurrection and reception into glory; and therefore Origen joins the festivals of the resurrection and of pentecost together as one whole. The means of transition from an Old Testament festival to one befitting the New Testament, were here near at hand. The first fruits of harvest in the kingdom of nature; the first fruits of harvest in the kingdom of grace; the law of the letter from Mount Sinai--the law of the Spirit from the heavenly Jerusalem. This festival originally embraced the whole season of fifty days from Easter, and was celebrated like a Sunday, that is to say, no fasts were kept during the whole of it, and men prayed standing, and not kneeling; and perhaps also in some places assemblies of the church were held, and the communion was celebrated every day. Afterward, two peculiar points of time, the ascension of Christ and the effusion of the Holy Spirit, were selected from this whole interval. These were the only festivals generally celebrated at that time, as the passage cited from Origen proves. The fundamental notion of the whole Christian life, which referred every thing to the suffering, the resurrection, and the glorification of Christ, as well as the adherence, or, on the other hand, the opposition, to the Jewish celebration of festivals, were the cause that these were the only general festivals. The notion of a birth-day festival was far from the ideas of the Christians of this period in general; they looked upon the second birth as the true birth of men. The case must have been somewhat different with the birth of the Redeemer; human nature was to be sanctified by him from its first developement; but then this last notion could not at first come so prominently forward among the early Christians, because so many of them were first converted to Christianity when well advanced in years, after some decisive excitement of their life; but then it may have entered generally into domestic life, though at first gradually. Nevertheless, we find in this period apparently one trace of Christmas as a festival. Its history is intimately connected with the history of a kindred festival; the festival of the manifestation of Jesus in his character of Messiah, his consecration to the office of Messiah by the baptism of John, and the beginning of his public ministry as the Messiah, which was afterward called Epiphany, the ἑυρτη τῶν ἐπιφανίων, or τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ Χριϛοῦ, [the festival of Epiphany, or of the appearance of Christ.] We find in later times that these festivals extended themselves in opposite directions, that of Christmas spreading from west to east, and the other from east to west. Clemens of Alexandria merely relates, that the Gnostic sect of the Basilidians celebrated the festival of the Epiphany at Alexandria in his time. We can hardly suppose that this sect invented the festival, although they may have had some dogmatical reason for celebrating it; for it is highly improbable that the catholic church should have afterward received a festival from the Gnostics; and these Gnostics most probably received it from the Jewish Christian churches in Palestine or Syria. For this time of our Saviour’s life would appear the most important to the notions of the Jewish Christians; and the Gnostics would afterward explain it according to their own ideas.

The character of a spiritual worship of God distinguished the Christian worship from that of other religions, which consisted in symbolical pageantry and lifeless ceremonies. As a general elevation of spirit and sanctification of heart was the object of every thing in this religion, instruction and edification, through a common study of the divine word, and through prayer in common, were the leading features in the Christian worship. And in this respect it might in its form adhere to the arrangements made about the congregations in the Jewish synagogues, in which also the element of a spiritual religious worship was the prevailing ingredient. As the reading of portions of the Old Testament had formed the ground work of religious instruction in the Jewish synagogues, this custom also passed into the Christian congregations. First the Old Testament, and especially the prophetic parts of it, were read as things that pointed to the Messiah; then followed the Gospels, and after that the epistles of the Apostles. The reading of the Scriptures was of still greater consequence then, because it was desirable that every Christian should be acquainted with them; and yet, by reason of the rarity and dearness of manuscripts, and the poverty of a great proportion of the Christians, or perhaps also because all were not able to read, the Bible itself could not be put into the hands of all. Frequent hearing was therefore with many to supply the place of their own reading. The Scriptures were therefore read in the language which all could understand, and that was, in most parts of the Roman empire, the Greek or the Latin. In very early times different translations of the Bible into Latin were in existence; as every one who knew a little of Greek, found it needful to have his own Bible in his own mother tongue. In places where the Greek or the Latin language was understood only by a part of the church, that is to say, by the educated classes, while the rest understood only their native language, as was the case in many Egyptian and Syrian towns, church interpreters were appointed, as in the Jewish synagogues, and they immediately translated what had been read into the language of the country, so that it might be intelligible to all. After the reading of the Scripture there followed, as there had previously in the Jewish synagogues, short, and at first very simple, addresses in familiar language, the momentary effusions of the heart, which contained an explanation and application of what had just been read. Justin Martyr expresses himself thus on the subject: “After the reading of the Scriptures, the president instructs the people in a discourse, and incites them to the imitation of these good examples.” Among the Greeks, where the taste was more rhetorical, the sermon from the very earliest times was of a more lengthened kind, and formed a very important part of the service. Singing also passed from the Jewish service into that of the Christian church. St. Paul exhorts the early churches to sing spiritual songs. What was used for this purpose were partly the Psalms of the Old Testament, and partly songs composed with this very object, especially songs of praise and thanks to God and Christ; and these, we know, Pliny found to be customary among the Christians. In the controversies with the Unitarians, about the end of the second century, and the beginning of the third, the hymns, in which from early times Christ had been honoured as a God, were appealed to. The power of church singing over the heart was soon recognized; and hence those who wished to propagate any peculiar opinions, like Bardasanes, or Paul of Samosata, endeavoured to spread them by means of hymns. In compliance with the infirmities of human nature, composed as it is of sense and spirit, the divine Founder of the church, beside his word, ordained two outward signs, as symbols of the invisible communion which existed between him, the Head of the spiritual body, and the faithful, its members; and also of the connection of these members, as with him, so also with one another. These were visible means to represent the invisible, heavenly benefits to be bestowed on the members of this body through him; and while man received in faith the sign presented to his senses, the enjoyment of that heavenly communion and those heavenly advantages was to gladden his inward heart. As nothing in all Christianity and in the whole Christian life stands isolated, but all forms one whole, proceeding from one centre, therefore, also, that which this outward sign represented must be something which should continue through the whole of the inward Christian life, something which, spreading itself forth from this one moment over the whole Christian life, should be capable of being especially excited again and promoted in return, by the influence of isolated moments. Thus, baptism was to be the sign of a first entrance into communion with the Redeemer, and with the church, the first appropriation of those advantages which Christ has bestowed on man, namely, of the forgiveness of sins and the inward union of life, which proceeds from it, as well as of the participation in a sanctifying divine Spirit of life. And the Lord’s Supper was to be the sign of a constant continuance in this communion, in the appropriation and enjoyment of these advantages; and thus were represented the essentials of the whole inward Christian life, in its earliest rise and its continued progress. The whole peculiar spirit of Christianity was particularly stamped in the mode in which these external things were administered; and the mode of their administration in return exerted a powerful influence on the whole nature of the Christian worship. The connection of the moments, represented by these signs, with the whole Christian life, the connection of inward and divine things with the outward act was present to the lively Christian feelings of the first Christians.

WRITING. In regard to alphabetic writing, all the ancient writers attribute the invention of it to some very early age, and some country of the east; but they do not pretend to designate precisely either the time or the place. They say, farther, that Cadmus introduced letters from Phenicia into Greece, if we may credit the Parisian Chronicle, B. C. 1519, that is, forty-five years after the death of Moses. Anticlides asserts, and attempts to prove, that letters were invented in Egypt fifteen years before Phoroneus, the most ancient king of Greece; that is, four hundred and nine years after the deluge, and in the one hundred and seventeenth year of Abraham. On this it may be remarked that they might have been introduced into Egypt at this time, but they had been previously invented by the Phenicians. Epigenes, who, in the estimation of Pliny, is weighty authority, informs us that observations, made upon the heavenly bodies for seven hundred and twenty years at Babylon, were written down upon baked tiles; but Berosus and Critodemus, also referred to by Pliny, make the number of years four hundred and eighty. Pliny from these statements draws the conclusion that the use of letters, as he expresses it, must have been eternal, that is, beyond all records. Simplicius, who lived in the fifth century, states, on the authority of Porphyry, an acute historian, that Callisthenes, the companion of Alexander, found at Babylon a record of observations on the heavenly bodies for one thousand nine hundred and three years. Of course the record must have been begun B. C. 2234, that is, the eighty-ninth year of Abraham. This statement receives some confirmation from the fact that the month of March is called Adar in the Chaldaic dialect; and at the time mentioned, namely, the eighty-ninth year of Abraham, the sun, during the whole month of March, was in the sign of the zodiac called Aries, or the Ram. The word Adar means the same with Aries. But, as letters would be unquestionably first used for the purposes of general intercourse, they must have been known long before they were employed to transmit the motions of the stars. Of this we have an evidence in the bill of sale, which, as we have reason to suppose from the expressions used in Gen. xxiii, 20, was given to Abraham by the sons of Heth. Hence it is not at all wonderful that books and writings are spoken of in the time of Moses, as if well known, Exodus xvii, 14; xxiv, 4; xxviii, 9–11; xxxii, 32; xxxiv, 27, 28; Numbers xxxiii, 2; Deut. xxvii, 8. Nor is it a matter of surprise that long before his time there had been public scribes, who kept written genealogies: they were called by the Hebrews שוטרים, Exod. v, 14; Deut. xx, 5–9. Even in the time of Jacob, seals, upon which names are engraved in the east, were in use, Gen. xxxviii, 18; xii, 42; which is another probable testimony to the great antiquity of letters.

Letters, which had thus become known at the earliest period, were communicated by means of the Phenician merchants and colonies, and subsequently by Egyptian emigrants, through all the east and the west. A strong evidence of this is to be found in the different alphabets themselves, which betray by their resemblance a common origin. That the posterity of the Hebrew patriarchs preserved a knowledge of alphabetical writing during their abode in Egypt, where essentially the same alphabet was in use, is evident from the fact, that the Hebrews while remaining there always had public genealogists. The law, also, was ordered to be inscribed on stones; a fact which implies a knowledge of alphabetical writing. The writing thus engraven upon stones is designated by its appropriate name, namely, חרות, Exodus xxxii, 16, 32. Not a few of the Hebrews might be unable to read and write, Judges viii, 14; but those who were capable of writing wrote for others, when necessary. Such persons were commonly priests, who, as they do to this day in the east, bear an inkhorn in their girdle, Ezek. x, 2, 3, 11. In the inkhorn were the materials for writing, and a knife for sharpening the pen, Jer. xxxvi, 23. The rich and noble had scribes of their own, and readers also; whence there is more frequent mention made of hearing than of reading, 1 Kings iv, 3; 2 Kings xii, 10; Isa. xxix, 18; Jer. xxxvi, 4; Rom. ii, 13; James v, 11; Rev. i, 3. The scribes took youth under their care, who learned from them the art of writing. Some of the scribes seem to have held public schools for instruction; some of which, under the care of Samuel and other prophets, became in time quite illustrious, and were called the schools of the prophets, 1 Sam. xix, 16, &c; 2 Kings ii, 3, 5; iv, 38; vi, 1. The disciples in these schools were not children or boys, but young men, who inhabited separate edifices, as is the case in the Persian academies. They were taught music and singing, and without doubt writing also, the Mosaic law and poetry. They were denominated, in reference to their instructers, the sons of the prophets; teachers and prophets being sometimes called fathers. After the captivity there were schools for instruction either near the synagogues or in them.

The materials and instruments of writing were, 1. The leaves of trees. 2. The bark of trees, from which, in the process of time, a sort of paper was manufactured. 3. A table of wood, πίναξ, לוח, Deut. ix, 9; Ezek. xxxvii, 5; Luke i, 63. In the east, these tables were not covered with wax as they were in the west; or at any rate very rarely so. 4. Linen was first used for the object in question at Rome. Linen books are mentioned by Livy. Cotton cloth also, which was used for the bandages of Egyptian mummies, and inscribed with hieroglyphics, was one of the materials for writing upon. 5. The paper made from the reed papyrus, which, as Pliny has shown, was used before the Trojan war. 6. The skins of various animals; but they were poorly prepared for the purpose, until some improved methods of manufacture were invented at Pergamus, during the reign of Eumenes, about B. C. 300. Hence the skins of animals, prepared for writing, are called in Latin _pergamena_, in English parchment, to this day, from the city Pergamus. They are sometimes denominated in Greek, μεμβράνα, 2 Tim. iv, 13. 7. Tables of lead, עפרת, Job xix, 24. 8. Tables of brass, δέλτοι χαλκαὶ. Of all the materials, brass was considered among the most durable, and was employed for those inscriptions which were designed to last the longest, 1 Macc. viii, 22; xiv, 20–27. 9. Stones or rocks, upon which public laws, &c, were written. Sometimes the letters engraved were filled up with lime, Exod. xxiv, 12; xxxi, 18; xxxii, 19; xxxiv, 1; Deut. xxvii, 1–9; Joshua viii, 32; Job xix, 24. 10. Tiles. The inscriptions were made upon the tiles first, and afterward they were baked in the fire. They are yet to be found in the ruins of Babylon; others of later origin are to be found in many countries in the east. 11. The sand of the earth, in which the children in India to this day learn the art of writing, and in which Archimedes himself delineated his mathematical figures, John viii, 1–8. If in Ezekiel iii, 1, and in Revelation x, 9, we are informed that books were eaten, we must remember that the descriptions are figurative, and that they were eaten in vision; and consequently we are not at liberty to draw the conclusion from these passages, that any substance was used as materials for writing upon, which was at the same time used for food. The representations alluded to are symbolic, introduced to denote a communication or revelation from God.

As to the instruments used in writing, when it was necessary to write upon hard materials, as tables of stone and brass, the style was made of iron, and sometimes tipped with diamond, Jer. xvii. 1. The letters were formed upon tablets of wood, (when they were covered with wax,) with a style sharpened at one end, broad and smooth at the other; by means of which the letters, when badly written, might be rubbed out and the wax smoothed down. 2. Wax, however, was but rarely used for the purpose of covering writing tables in warm regions. When this was not the case, the letters were painted on the wood with black tincture or ink. 3. On linen, cotton cloth, paper, skins, and parchment, the letters were painted with a very small brush, afterward with a reed, which was split. The orientals use this elegant instrument to the present day instead of a pen. _Ink_, called דיו, is spoken of in Num. v, 23, as well known and common, Jer. xxxvi, 18, and was prepared in various ways, which are related by Pliny. The most simple, and consequently the most ancient, method of preparation was a mixture of water with coals broken to pieces, or with soot, with an addition of gum. The ancients used other tinctures also; particularly, if we may credit Cicero and Persius, the ink extracted from the cuttle fish, although their assertion is in opposition to Pliny. The Hebrews went so far as to write their sacred books in gold, as we may learn from Josephus compared with Pliny.

Hieroglyphics, that is, sacred sculptures or engravings, received that appellation, because it was once, and indeed till very lately, thought, that they were used only to express, in a manner hidden from the vulgar, what was exclusively religious; and which it was thought proper to conceal from all but the learned. The fact, however, is, that the hieroglyphic was a kind of picture writing, which passed through various modifications, and was applied alike to sacred and to civil purposes; to the emblazonment of the attributes of idols, the exploits of warriors, and the events of illustrious history. Rudiments of the same art have been found among almost all savages. Among the semi-civilized Mexicans history was pictorial: and in Ceylon and Continental India the same vehicle of instruction is made use of on the walls of their temples, to convey moral lessons, or to indicate the character and exploits of their deities. In Egypt, however, the art was carried into a more perfect system, and was more ostensibly set before the public eye on the massive and almost eternal monuments which cover the country. There, too, it ascends to ages of the world with which the Scriptures have made us familiar, and stands associated with royal dynasties, and vicissitudes of conquest, more intimately blended with that stream of civil history, along the margin of which European education conducts us. These mystic characters have acquired an adventitious interest also, from the circumstance that the key to them was for so many ages lost. This knowledge perished among that people themselves, the records of whose kings and conquests lay hid under the inexplicable symbol, or the fanciful representation of letters and sounds which were still familiar to the lips of those to whom the signs had become wholly unmeaning. Age after age they were gazed at by the curious; conjectures respecting their nature and use were offered by the learned, some absurd and some approaching the truth, but all failing to throw light upon a mystery, which at length was surrendered, by common consent, to the receptacle of lost and irrecoverable knowledge. Whether the hieroglyphics were symbols only, or words, or picturesque alphabetical characters, or expressed the popular tongue, or one known only to the priests, were questions answered at random by the prompt and dogmatic; and even the more modest and probable solutions of the cautious had so little collateral evidence to support them, that they led to no result. As to their intent, one thought that they involved the mysteries of magic; another, that they were a form of the Chinese language; a third, that they veiled the doctrines of the true patriarchal religion; a fourth, that they enveloped the dogmatic arcana of the Egyptian priesthood. The great point, however, to be determined was, whether the hieroglyphics were the signs of a language; that is, of the sounds of any language; and, if so, whether the language was now known, or knowable, from books still extant. Each of these points was of equal importance; for in vain would it have been ascertained that these signs represented the sounds of a tongue once spoken, if that tongue had perished from the earth. Clement of Alexandria, who lived about the end of the second century, asserted that the Egyptians had three modes of writing,--the epistolographic, or common characters; the hieratic, or sacerdotal, employed chiefly by the priesthood in writing books; and the hieroglyphic, used on public monuments. The symbolical he again distributes into imitative, which represent the plain figure of an object, as a circle to express the sun, and a half circle the moon; tropical,--which have recourse to analogy for the representation of the object; and enigmatical,--as “a serpent, to signify the oblique course of the stars.” This writer could not so accurately have expressed the truth of the case, unless he had known much more than he has written; and we may presume, that if he had been more liberal in his communications, the present age would not have had the honour of throwing open the gate to this branch of ancient learning. The notion which has generally prevailed, that by whatever rule the hieroglyphics were composed, they were invented by the Egyptian priests to conceal their wisdom from the vulgar, was combated by Bishop Warburton, with his usual acuteness. According to him, the first kind of hieroglyphics were mere pictures; because the most natural way of communicating our conceptions by marks or figures was, to trace out the images of things. But the hieroglyphics invented by the Egyptians were an improvement on this rude and inconvenient essay toward writing; for they contrived to make them both pictures and characters. He proceeds to other observations, which have lost their interest in consequence of the recent discoveries; but he argues conclusively, that hieroglyphics could not, in a vast number of cases, have been resorted to for purposes of secrecy, since they were employed to record openly and plainly their laws, history, and all kinds of civil matters. This, as a general view, has been proved to be correct; but still no key to the reading of these characters was found. The figures of deities might, in many instances, be deciphered by their attributes; other symbols were not difficult to explain, as they spoke a universal language. Thus two hands, one holding a bow, and another a shield, suggested a battle; an eye and a sceptre, a monarch of intelligence and vigilance; a ship and a pilot, the governor of a state if associated with a man, the ruler of the universe if associated with a deity. A lion was a natural emblem of strength and courage; a bullock, of agriculture; a horse, of liberty; a sphynx, of subtlety. But still those hieroglyphics were in the greatest number which appeared to represent letters; and many might prove, at the same time, both emblematic and alphabetical. Approaches to the truth of the case had been, indeed, made. Warburton, from an attentive perusal of what Clemens Alexandrinus had said on the subject, had, in fact, concluded, in a way highly creditable to his acuteness, that hieroglyphics were a real written language, applicable to the purposes of history and common life, as well as to those of religion; and that, among the different sorts of hieroglyphics, the Egyptians possessed those which were used phonetically, or alphabetically, as letters; but, till recently, the means of following out this ingenious and correct conjecture were wanting to the learned. The first effectual step was taken by M. Quattermere, who proved, in his work _Sur la Langue et Littérature de l’Egypte_, [Concerning the Language and Literature of Egypt,] that the Coptic, a language of easy attainment, at least to a considerable extent, was the language of the ancient Egyptians. The second favouring circumstance of modern times was, the publication of the researches made as to the monuments of Egypt by the literary men and artists who accompanied the French expedition to that country. Previous to this, the specimens which had been brought to Europe were few, and the impressions and the fac similes of them incorrect. Some, too, were imitations, and others spurious. In the works published in France after this expedition, the representations of Egyptian monuments were numerous; and the inscriptions were given with perfect exactness and fidelity. Still, however, those would have remained as unintelligible as the originals but for the discovery of the Rosetta stone, now among the Egyptian antiquities in the gallery of the British museum. This stone was dug up by the French, near Rosetta, and contained an inscription in three sets of characters: one in hieroglyphics; a second in a sort of running hand, called enchorial, that is, in the common characters of the country; and a third in Greek. The latter appearing, from the disposition of the whole, to be a translation of the enchorial inscription, as that was of the hieroglyphic, the importance of this stone was at once seen by the French savans; but by the fortune of war, it was taken, with other valuables, by the British troops, and was sent to this country. The Antiquarian Society had it immediately engraved; and the fac similes, which were circulated through Europe attracted great attention. Dr. Young has, however, the honour of being the discoverer of the nature and use of the hieroglyphical inscription. M. de Sacy, and more especially Mr. Ackerblad, a Danish gentleman, made some progress in identifying the sense of several parts of the second inscription, or that in demotic or enchorial characters, but made no progress in the hieroglyphics; and it was left for British industry to convert to permanent profit a monument which had been a useless, though a glorious, monument of British valour. The inscription upon this celebrated stone proved to be a decree of the Egyptian priests, solemnly assembled in the temple, to record upon a monument, as a public expression of their gratitude, all the events of the reign of Ptolemy Epiphanes; his liberality to the temples and to the gods; his success against his rebellious subjects; his clemency toward some of the traitors; his measures against the fatal consequences of excessive inundations of the Nile; and his munificence toward the college of the priests, by remitting the arrears of several years’ payment of taxes. It was an important circumstance, that the whole concludes by ordering that this decree “shall be engraved on a hard stone in sacred characters, in common characters, and in Greek.” By this it was ascertained that the second and third inscriptions were translations of the first; and that the second inscription was in the common character of the country. It was this that led Ackerblad to the investigation of the enchorial text, in order to discover its alphabet; in which he partially succeeded. His labours were, however, for some time unnoticed; but in 1814, Dr. Young published, in the Archæologia, an improvement on the alphabet of Ackerblad, and a translation of the Egyptian inscription. Difficulties of no ordinary kind, beside those arising from the mutilated state of the stone, presented themselves to all who had applied to make out even the second, or enchorial inscription.

“The method,” says the Marquis Spineto, “pursued by our learned men in this Herculean task of deciphering the Rosetta stone, deserves to be noticed; it may serve to give you a proper idea of the infinite labour to which they have been obliged to submit; a labour which at first seemed calculated to deter the most indefatigable scholar. Figure to yourself, for a moment, the fashion introduced of writing the English language with the omission of most of its vowels, and then suppose our alphabet to be entirely lost or forgotten, a new mode of writing introduced, letters totally different from those we use, and then conceive what our labour would be, if, after the lapse of fifteen hundred years, when the English language, by the operation of ages, and the intercourse with foreigners, was much altered from what it now is, we should be required, by the help of a Greek translation, to decipher a bill of parliament written in this old, forgotten, and persecuted alphabet, in every word of which we should find, and even this not always, the regular number of consonants, but most of the vowels left out. And yet this is precisely what our learned antiquarians have been obliged to do. The Egyptians, like most of the orientals, left out many of the vowels in writing. The enchorial, or demotic alphabet, which they used, has been laid aside since the second or third century of our era. From that time to this, that is, for nearly sixteen hundred years, the Coptic alphabet has been used; and yet in this Coptic language, and in these very enchorial or demotic characters, was engraved on the Rosetta stone the inscription which they have deciphered.”

The steps of this interesting process are given by Dr. Young, in the Supplement to the Encyclopædia Britannica. The substance is as follows: “As the demotic characters showed something like the shape of letters, it was shrewdly suspected that they might have been used as an alphabet. By comparing, therefore, its different parts with each other, and with the Greek, it was observed that the two groups in the fourth and seventeenth lines of the Greek inscription, in which Alexander and Alexandria occur, corresponded with two other groups in the second and the tenth line of the demotic inscription. These two groups, therefore, were considered as representing these two names, and thus not less than seven characters, or letters, were ascertained. Again: it was observed that a small group of character occurs very often in almost every line. At first it was supposed that this group was either a termination, or some very common particle; and after some words had been identified, it was found to mean the conjunction _and_. It was then observed, that the next remarkable collection of characters was repeated twenty-nine or thirty times in the enchorial inscription; and nothing found to occur so often in the Greek, except the word king, which with its compounds, is repeated about thirty-seven times. A fourth assemblage of characters was found fourteen times in the enchorial inscription, agreeing sufficiently well in frequency with the name of Ptolemy, which occurs eleven times in the Greek, and generally in passages corresponding to those of the enchorial text, in their relative situation; and, by a similar comparison, the name of Egypt was identified. Having thus obtained a sufficient number of common points of subdivision, the next step was to write the Greek text over the enchorial, in such a manner that the passages ascertained should coincide as nearly as possible; taking, however, a proper care to observe that the lines of the demotic or enchorial inscription are written from right to left, while those of the Greek run in a contrary direction from left to right. At first sight this difficulty seemed very great; but it was conquered by proper attention and practice; because, after some trouble, the division of the several words and phrases plainly indicated the direction in which they were to be read. Thus it was obvious that the intermediate parts of each inscription stood then very near to the corresponding passages of the other.”

By means of the process above mentioned, Ackerblad, De Sacy, and Dr. Young, among whom a correspondence had been carried on, obtained a sort of alphabet from the enchorial characters, which might aid them in future researches. This result was published by Dr. Young in 1814. The examination of another stone at Menoup, containing an inscription in enchorial and in Greek characters, enabled Dr. Young to confirm the accuracy of former discoveries, and to add several new characters to the enchorial or demotic alphabet. Dr. Young next turned his attention to the hieroglyphics; and, though not with equal success, yet so as to demonstrate that they were phonetic or alphabetical, and to spell several proper names. The difficulty here, indeed, was how to begin; but his success opened a certain way to future progress; and it was upon Dr. Young’s discovery that Champollion afterward engrafted his system, and was enabled to carry his researches into Egyptian antiquities and Egyptian hieroglyphics, to an extent which is now deeply engaging the attention of the literary world.

Two practical ends appear to have been answered already by the deciphering of the mystic monuments of Egypt. The first is, that the inscriptions which have been read by Champollion, afford assistance in settling some questions of ancient chronology; the other is, that important collateral proof has been afforded of the historical accuracy of the Old Testament, and the antiquity of its books. It is presumptive in favour of the genuineness and antiquity of the writings of Moses, that such proper Egyptian names as are found in no other ancient writings beside his own, such as On, and Rameses, and Potipherah, and Asenath, should now be read in hieroglyphic characters on monuments still standing in the same country. But the confirmatory evidence goes still farther. In one inscription the names of two of the Pharaohs, Osorgon and Scheschonk, are exhibited. Of the characters which compose this legend some are phonetic, some figurative, and some symbolic. The whole reading in Coptic, is, “_Ouab an Amon-re soten annenoute Osorchon pri_ (or _pre_) _ce_ or _ci an ouab an Amon-re Souten Scheschonk-re Soten Nebto_, (_Amonmai Osorchon_,)” &c. The meaning of which is, “The pure by Amon-re, king of the gods, Osorchon deceased, son of the pure, by Amon-re, king of the gods, Scheschonk deceased, son of king of the world, (beloved by Amon-re, Osorchon,) imparting life, like the sun, for ever.” This Osorchon seems to have been the Zarah, or Zarach, the king of Ethiopia, recorded in the Second Book of Chronicles, who, with a host of a thousand thousand and three hundred chariots, came to make war against Asa, the grandson of Jeroboam, and was defeated at Mareshah. Although the Greek historians have never mentioned either the name or exploits of Osorchon, this fact is attested by an hieroglyphical manuscript, published by Denon. It is a funeral legend, loaded with figures, on and round which there are several hieroglyphical inscriptions. With respect to the other Pharaoh, Champollion, speaking of the temple of Karnac, says, “In this marvellous place I saw the portraits of most of the ancient Pharaohs, known by their great actions. They are real portraits, represented a hundred times on the basso-relievos of the outer and inner walls. Each of them has his peculiar physiognomy, different from that of his predecessors and successors. Thus, in colossal representations, the sculpture of which is lively, grand, and heroic, more perfect than can be believed in Europe, we see the Pharaoh Mandouei combating the nations hostile to Egypt, and returning triumphant to his country. Farther on, the campaigns of Rhamses Sesostris; elsewhere Sesonchis, or Shishak, dragging to the feet of the Theban Trinity, Ammon, Mouth, and Khous, the chiefs of thirty conquered nations, among which is found, written in letters at full length, the word _Joudahamalek_, that is, the kingdom of the Jews, or the kingdom of Judah. This is a commentary on the fourteenth chapter of the First Book of Kings, which relates the arrival of Shishak at Jerusalem, and his success there. Thus the identity between the Egyptian Sheschonk, the Sesonchis of Manetho, and the Sesac, or Schischak of the Bible, is confirmed in the most satisfactory manner.”

YEAR. The Hebrews had always years, of twelve months each. But at the beginning, and in the time of Moses, these were solar years, of twelve months; each having thirty days, except the twelfth which had thirty-five. We see, by the reckoning that Moses gives us of the days of the deluge, Gen. vii, that the Hebrew year consisted of three hundred and sixty-five days. It is supposed that they had an intercalary month at the end of one hundred and twenty years; at which time the beginning of their year would be out of its place full thirty days. But it must be owned, that no mention is made in Scripture of the thirteenth month, or of any intercalation. It is not improbable that Moses retained the order of the Egyptian year, since he himself came out of Egypt, was born in that country, had been instructed and brought up there, and since the people of Israel, whose chief he was, had been for a long time accustomed to this kind of year. But the Egyptian year was solar, and consisted of twelve months of thirty days each, and that for a very long time before. After the time of Alexander the Great, and the reign of the Grecians in Asia, the Jews reckoned by lunar months, chiefly in what related to religion, and the order of the festivals. St. John, in his Revelation, xi, 2, 3; xii, 6, 14; xiii, 5, assigns but twelve hundred and sixty days to three years and a half, and consequently just thirty days to every month, and just three hundred and sixty days to every year. Maimonides tells us, that the years of the Jews were solar, and their months lunar. Since the completing of the Talmud, they have made use of years that are purely lunar, having alternately a full month of thirty days, and then a defective month of twenty-nine days. And to accommodate this lunar year to the course of the sun, at the end of three years they intercalate a whole month after Adar; which intercalated month they call Ve-adar, or the second Adar.

The beginning of the year was various among different nations: the ancient Chaldeans, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, Armenians, and Syrians, began their year about the vernal equinox; and the Chinese in the east, and Latins and Romans in the west, originally followed the same usage. The Egyptians, and from them the Jews, began their civil year about the autumnal equinox. The Athenians and Greeks in general began theirs about the summer solstice; and the Chinese, and the Romans after Numa’s correction, about the winter solstice. At which of these the primeval year, instituted at the creation, began, has been long contested among astronomers and chronologers. Philo, Eusebius, Cyril, Augustine, Abulfaragi, Kepler, Capellus, Simpson, Lange, and Jackson, contend for the vernal equinox; and Josephus, Scaliger, Petavius, Usher, Bedford, Kennedy, &c, for the autumnal. The weight of ancient authorities, and also of argument, seems to preponderate in favour of the former opinion. 1. All the ancient nations, except the Egyptians, began their civil year about the vernal equinox: but the deviation of the Egyptians from the general usage may easily be accounted for, from a local circumstance peculiar to their country; namely, that the annual inundation of the Nile rises to its greatest height at the autumnal equinox. 2. Josephus, the only ancient authority of any weight on the other side seems to be inconsistent with himself, in supposing that the deluge began in the second civil month, _Dius_, or _Marheshvan_, rather than in the second sacred month; because Moses, throughout the Pentateuch, uniformly adopts the sacred year; and fixes its first month by an indelible and unequivocal character, calling it _Abib_, as ushering in the season of green corn. And as Josephus calls the second month elsewhere _Artemisius_, or _Iar_, in conformity with Scripture, there is no reason why he should deviate from the same usage in the case of the deluge. 3. To the authority of Josephus, we may oppose that of the great Jewish antiquary, Philo, in the generation before him; who thus accounts for the institution of the sacred year by Moses:--“This month, _Abib_, being the seventh in number and order according to the sun’s course, or civil year, reckoned from the autumnal equinox, is virtually the first, and is therefore called ‘the first month’ in the sacred books. And the reason, I think, is this: because the vernal equinox is the image and representative of the original epoch of the creation of the world. Thereby God notified the spring, in which all things bloom and blossom, to be an annual memorial of the world’s creation. Wherefore this month is properly called the first in the law, as being the image of the first original month, stamped upon it, as it were, by that archetypal seal.” 4. The first sacrifice on record seems to decide the question. The time of the sacrifice of Cain and Abel appears to have been spring; when Cain, who was a “tiller of the ground,” brought the first fruits of his tillage, or a sheaf of new corn; and Abel, who was “a feeder of sheep,” “the firstlings of his flock,” lambs: and this was done “at the end of days,” or “at the end of the year;” which is the correct meaning of the phrase מקץ ימם, and not the indefinite expression, “in process of time,” Gen. iv, 3. It is a remarkable proof of the accuracy of Moses, and a confirmation of this expression, that he expresses the end of the civil year, or “ingathering of the harvest,” by different phrases, בצאת השנה, “at the going out of the year,” Exod. xxiii, 16; and תקופת השנה, “at the revolution of the year,” Exod. xxxiv, 22; as those phrases may more critically be rendered. But, in process of time, it was found that the primeval year of three hundred and sixty days was shorter than the tropical year; and the first discovery was, that it was deficient five entire days, which therefore it was necessary to intercalate, in order to keep up the correspondence of the civil year to the stated seasons of the principal festivals. How early this discovery and intercalation was made, is nowhere recorded. It might have been known and practised before the deluge. The apocryphal book of Enoch, which probably was as old as the Septuagint translation of the Pentateuch, stated that “the archangel Ariel, president of the stars, discovered the nature of the month and of the year to Enoch, in the one hundred and sixty-fifth year of his age, and A. M. 1286.” And it is remarkable, that Enoch’s age at his translation, three hundred and sixty-five years, expressed the number of entire days in a tropical year. This knowledge might have been handed down to Noah and his descendants; and that it was early communicated indeed to the primitive Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Chinese, we learn from ancient tradition.

This article would be rendered too prolix were we to notice the various inventions of eminent men in different ages to rectify the calendar by adjusting the difference between lunar and tropical years; which at length was effected by Gregory XIII. in 1583. This Gregorian, or reformed Julian year, was not adopted in England until A. D. 1751, when, the deficiency from the time of the council of Nice then amounting to eleven days, this number was struck out of the month of September, by act of parliament; and the third day was counted the fourteenth, in that year of confusion. The next year, A. D. 1752, was the first of the new style. Russia is the only country in Europe which retains the old style.

The civil year of the Hebrews has always begun at autumn, at the month they now call Tisri, which answers to our September, and sometimes enters into October, according as the lunations happen. But their sacred years, by which the festivals, assemblies, and all other religious acts, were regulated, begin in the spring, at the month Nisan, which answers to March, and sometimes takes up a part of April, according to the course of the moon. See MONTHS.

Nothing is more equivocal among the ancients, than the term year. It always has been, and still is, a source of disputes among the learned, whether on account of its duration, its beginning, or its end. Some people heretofore made their year consist only of one month, others of four, others of six, others of ten, and others of twelve. Some have divided one of our years into two, and have made one year of winter, another of summer. The beginning of the year was fixed sometimes at autumn, sometimes at the spring, and sometimes at midwinter. Some people have used lunar months, others solar. Even the days have been differently divided: some people beginning them at evening, others at morning, others at noon, and others at midnight. With some the hours were equal, both in winter and summer; with others, they were unequal. They counted twelve hours to the day, and as many to the night. In summer the hours of the day were longer than those of the night; but, on the contrary, in winter the hours of the night were longer than those of the day.

While the Jews continued in the land of Canaan, the beginnings of their months and years were not settled by any astronomical rules or calculations, but by the phasis, or actual appearance of the new moon. When they saw the new moon, they began the month. Persons were therefore appointed to watch on the tops of the mountain for the first appearance of the moon after the change. As soon as they saw it, they informed the sanhedrim, and public notice was given by lighting beacons throughout the land; though after they had been often deceived by the Samaritans, who kindled false fires, they used, say the Mishnical rabbins, to proclaim its appearance by sending messengers. Yet as they had no months longer than thirty days, if they did not see the new moon the night following the thirtieth day, they concluded the appearance was obstructed by the clouds, and, without watching any longer, made the next day the first of the following month. But after the Jews became dispersed through all nations, where they had no opportunity of being informed of the first appearance of the new moon, as they formerly had, they were forced to make use of astronomical calculations and cycles for fixing the beginning of their months and years. The first cycle they made use of for this purpose was of eighty-four years. But that being discovered to be faulty, they came afterward into the use of Meto’s cycle of nineteen years, which was established by the authority of Rabbi Hillel Hannasi, or prince of the sanhedrim, about A. D. 360. This they still use, and say it is to be observed till the coming of the Messiah. In the compass of this cycle there are twelve common years, consisting of twelve months, and seven intercalary years, consisting of thirteen months. We find the Jews and their ancestors computing their years from different eras, in different parts of the Old Testament; as from the birth of the patriarchs, for instance, of Noah, Gen. vii, 11; viii, 13; afterward from their exit out of Egypt, Num. xxxiii, 38; 1 Kings vi, 1; then from the building of Solomon’s temple, 2 Chron. viii, 1; and from the reigns of the kings of Judah and Israel. In latter times the Babylonish captivity furnished them with a new epocha, from whence they computed their years, Ezek. xxxiii, 21; xl, 1. But since the times of the Talmudical rabbins, they have constantly used the era of the creation.

There is not a more prolific source of confusion and embarrassment in ancient chronology, than the substitution of the cardinal numbers, one, two, three, for the ordinals, first, second, third, &c, which frequently occurs in the sacred and profane historians. Thus Noah was six hundred years old when the deluge began, Gen. vii, 6; and presently after, in his six hundredth year: confounding complete and current years. And the dispute whether A. D. 1800, or A. D. 1801, was the first of the nineteenth century, should be decided in favour of the latter; the former being in reality the last of the eighteenth century; which is usually, but improperly, called the year one thousand eight hundred, complete; whereas it is really the one thousandth, eight hundredth; as in Latin we say, _Anno Domini millesimo octingentesimo_. There is also another and a prevailing error, arising from mistranslation of the current phrases, μεθ’ ἡμέρας ὀκτὼ, μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας, &c, usually rendered, “after eight days,” “after three days,” &c; but which ought to be rendered “eight days after,” “three days after,” as in other places, μετὰ τινὰς ἡμέρας, μετ’ οὐ πολλὰς ἡμέρας, which are correctly rendered “some days after,” “not many days after,” in our English Bible, Acts xv, 36; Luke xv, 13, the extreme days being included. Such phrases seem to be elliptical, and the ellipsis is supplied, Luke ix, 28, speaking of our Lord’s transfiguration, μετὰ τοὺς λόγους τούτους, ὡσεὶ ἡμέραι ὀκτὼ: “After these sayings, about eight days,” or rather about the eighth day, counted inclusively; for in the parallel passages, Matt. xvii, 1, Mark ix, 2, there are only “six days,” counted exclusively, or omitting the extremes. Thus, circumcision is prescribed, Gen. xvii, 11, when the child is “eight days old;” but in Lev. xii, 3, “on the eighth day.” And Jesus accordingly was circumcised, ὅτε ἐπλήσθησαν ἡμέραι ὀκτὼ, “when eight days were accomplished,” Luke ii, 21; whereas John the Baptist, τῇ ογδοῃ ἡμέρᾳ, “on the eighth day.” The last, which was the constant usage, explains the meaning of the former. This critically reconciles our Lord’s resurrection, μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας, “three days after,” according to Matt. xxvii, 63; Mark viii, 31; with his resurrection, τῇ τρίτη hήμερᾳ, “on the third day,” according to Matt. xvi, 21; Luke ix, 22; and according to fact: for our Lord was crucified on Good Friday, about the third hour; and he arose before sunrise, πρωΐ, “early,” on Sunday; so that the interval, though extending through three calendar days current, did not in reality amount to two entire days, or forty-eight hours. This phraseology is frequent among the most correct classic writers. Some learned commentators, Beza, Grotius, Campbell, Newcome, render such phrases, “within eight days,” “within three days;” which certainly conveys the meaning, but not the literal translation, of the preposition μετὰ, “after.” In memory of the primeval week of creation, revived among the Jews, after their departure from Egypt, their principal festivals, the passover, pentecost, and tabernacles, lasted a week each. They had weeks of seven years a piece, at the term of which was the sabbatical year; as also weeks of seven times seven years, that were terminated by the year of jubilee; and finally weeks of seven days. And it is remarkable that, from the earliest times, sacrifices were offered by sevens. Thus, in the patriarch Job’s days, “seven bullocks and seven rams were offered up for a burnt offering” of atonement, by the divine command, Job xiii, 8. The Chaldean diviner, Balaam, built seven altars, and prepared seven bullocks and seven rams, Num. xxiii, 1. And the Cumæan sibyl, who came from Chaldea, or Babylonia, gives the same directions to Æneas, that Balaam did to Balak:

_Nunc grege de intacto septem mactare juvencos Præstiterit, totidem lectas, de more, bidentes._

“Seven bullocks, yet unyoked, for Phœbus choose, And for Diana seven unspotted ewes.” DRYDEN.

And when the ark was brought home by David, the Levites offered seven bullocks and seven rams, 1 Chronicles xv, 26. And hence we may account for the peculiar sanctity of the seventh day, among the older Heathen writers, even after the institution of the Sabbath fell into disuse, and was lost among them.

THE FALLOW OR SABBATIC YEAR. Agricultural labour among the Jews ceased every seventh year. Nothing was sown and nothing reaped; the vines and the olives were not pruned; there was no vintage and no gathering of fruits, even of what grew wild; but whatever spontaneous productions there were, were left to the poor, the traveller, and the wild beast, Lev. xxv, 1–7; Deut. xv, 1–10. The object of this regulation seems to have been, among others, to let the ground recover its strength, and to teach the Hebrews to be provident of their income and to look out for the future. It is true, that extraordinary fruitfulness was promised on the sixth year, but in such a way as not to exclude care and foresight, Lev. xxv, 20–24. We are not to suppose, however, that the Hebrews spent the seventh year in absolute idleness: they could fish, hunt, take care of their bees and flocks, repair their buildings and furniture, manufacture cloths of wool, linen, and of the hair of goats and camels, and carry on commerce. Finally, they were obliged to remain longer in the tabernacle or temple this year, during which the whole Mosaic law was read, in order to be instructed in religious and moral duties, and the history of their nation, and the wonderful works and blessings of God, Deut. xxxi, 10–13. This seventh year’s rest, as Moses predicted, Lev. xxvi, 34, 35, was for a long time neglected, 2 Chron. xxxvi, 21; after the captivity it was more scrupulously observed.

As a period of seven days was every week completed by the Sabbath, so was a period of seven years completed by the sabbatic year. It seems to have been the design of this institution, to afford a longer opportunity than would otherwise have been enjoyed for impressing on the memory the great truth, that God the Creator is alone to be worshipped. The commencement of this year was on the first day of the seventh month Tishri, or October. During the continuance of the feast of tabernacles this year, the law was to be publicly read for eight days together, either in the tabernacle or temple, Deut. xxxi, 10–13. Debts, on account of there being no income from the soil, were not collected, Deut. xv, 1, 2; they were not, however, cancelled, as was imagined by the Talmudists, for we find in Deut. xv, 9, that the Hebrews are admonished not to deny money to the poor on account of the approach of the sabbatical year, during which it could not be exacted; but nothing farther than this can be educed from that passage. Nor were servants manumitted on this year, but on the seventh year of their service, Exodus xxi, 2; Deut. xv, 12; Jer. xxxiv, 14.

THE YEAR OF JUBILEE followed seven sabbatic years; it was on the fiftieth year, Lev. xxv, 8–11. To this statement agree the Jews generally, their rabbins, and the Caraites; and say farther, that the argument of those who maintain that it was on the forty-ninth, for the reason that the omission to till the ground for two years in succession, namely, the forty-ninth and fiftieth, would produce a famine, is not to be attended to. It is not to be attended to, simply because these years of rest being known long beforehand, the people would of course lay up provision for them. It may be remarked farther in reference to this point, that certain trees produced their fruits spontaneously, particularly the fig and sycamore, which yield half the year round, and that those fruits could be preserved for some months; which explains at once how a considerable number of the people might have obtained no inconsiderable portion of their support. The return of the year of jubilee was announced on the tenth day of the seventh month, or Tishri, October, being the day of propitiation or atonement, by the sound of trumpet, Lev. xxv, 8–13; xxvii, 24; Num. xxxvi, 4; Isa. lxi, 1, 2. Beside the regulations which obtained on the sabbatic year, there were others which concerned the year of jubilee exclusively: 1. All the servants of Hebrew origin on the year of jubilee obtained their freedom, Lev. xxv, 39–46; Jer. xxxiv, 7, &c. 2. All the fields throughout the country, and the houses in the cities and villages of the Levites and priests which had been sold on the preceding years, were returned on the year of jubilee to the sellers, with the exception of those which had been consecrated to God, and had not been redeemed before the return of the said year, Lev. xxv, 10, 13–17, 24–28; xxvii, 16–21. 3. Debtors, for the most part, pledged or mortgaged their lands to the creditor, and left it to his use till the time of payment, so that it was in effect sold to the creditor, and was, accordingly, restored to the debtor on the year of jubilee. In other words, the debts for which land was pledged were cancelled; the same as those of persons who had recovered their freedom after having been sold into slavery, on account of not being able to pay. Hence it usually happened in the later periods of Jewish history, as we learn from Josephus, that, at the return of jubilee, there was a general cancelling of debts.

ZABII, or ZABÆANS, or ZABIANS, or SABIANS. The Sabians mentioned in Scripture were evidently a nation, or perhaps a wandering horde, such as fell upon Job’s cattle, Job i, 15; men of stature, Isa. xiv, 14; a people afar off, Joel iii, 8. But we speak here of the Zabians as a sect, probably the first corrupters of the patriarchal religion; and so called, as is believed, from _tsabiim_, the “hosts,” that is, of heaven; namely, the sun, moon, and stars, to whom they rendered worship; first immediately, and afterward through the medium of images; this particularly distinguished them from the magi, whose idolatry was confined to the solar orb, and its earthly representative, the fire. If the above derivation be right, the Zabians were originally Chaldeans, though afterward the same sect arose in Arabia. Their study of the heavenly bodies led them, not only to astronomy, but to astrology, its degenerate daughter, which was for many ages the favourite pursuit of the oriental nations.

The following account is abridged from Dr. Townley’s “Essays;”--The Zabii, or Zabians, were a sect of idolaters who flourished in the early ages of the world, considerable in their numbers, and extensive in their influence. The denomination of Zabii, given to these idolaters, appears to have been derived from the Hebrew צבא, a _host_; with reference to the צכא השמים or, _host of heaven_, which they worshipped; though others have derived it from the Arabic _tsaba_ “to apostatize,” “to turn from one religion to another;” or from צביים, or the Arabic _Tsabin_, “Chaldeans,” or “inhabitants of the east.” Lactantius considers Ham, the son of Noah, as the first seceder from the true religion after the flood; and supposes Egypt, which was peopled by his descendants, to have been the country in which Zabaism, or the worship of the stars, first prevailed. That the worship of the heavenly bodies prevailed in the east at a very early period, is certain from the words of Job, who thus exculpates himself from the charge of idolatry: “If I beheld the sun when it shined, or the moon walking in brightness, and my heart hath been secretly enticed, or my mouth hath kissed my hand; this also were an iniquity to be punished by the judge: for I should have denied the God that is above,” Job xxii, 26–28. It would appear that the idolatrous opinions of the Zabii originated with the posterity of Ham, at a very early period after the flood, in Egypt or Chaldea; but spread so rapidly and extensively, that in a very short time nearly the whole of the descendants of Noah were infected with their pestiferous sentiments and practices. Maimonides says, “This people,” that is, the Zabii, “had filled the whole world.” Their first and principal adoration was directed to the host of heaven, or the stars. They were _ignicolæ_, or “worshippers of fire.” The city of Ur, in Chaldea, seems to have had its name from the inhabitants being devoted to the worship of fire. They dedicated images to the sun and the other celestial orbs, supposing that, by a formal consecration of them to those luminaries, a divine virtue was infused into them, by which they acquired the faculty of understanding, and the power of conferring prophecy and other gifts upon their worshippers. These images were formed of various metals, according to the particular star to which any of them was dedicated. They also regarded certain trees as being appropriated to particular stars, and, when idolatrously dedicated, as being possessed of very singular virtues. From these opinions sprang the adoption of astrology by them, in all its various forms. They maintained the doctrine of the eternity of the world. “All the Zabii,” says Maimonides, “believe in the eternity of the world; for, according to them, the heavens are God.” Holding the eternity of the world, they easily became Pre-Adamites, affirming that Adam was not the first man. They also fabled concerning him, that he was the apostle of the moon, and the author of several works on husbandry. Of Noah, they taught, that he was a husbandman, and was imprisoned for dissenting from their opinions. They add, that Seth was another of those who forsook the worship of the moon. They held agriculture in the highest estimation, regarding it as intimately connected with the worship of the heavenly bodies. On this account, it was deemed criminal, by the major part of them, to slay or feed upon cattle. Goats were also reputed to be sacred animals, because the demons whom they worshipped were said to appear in the woods and deserts in the forms of goats or of satyrs. Of their superstitious practices, some were dangerous, as the sacrifices of lions, tigers, and other wild beasts. Certain of their rites were cruel, as the passing of their children through the fire, and branding themselves also with fire. Some of their practices were loathsome and disgustful; such as eating blood, believing it to be the food of demons, &c. Others were frivolous and tedious; as offering bats and mice to the sun, various and frequent ablutions, lustrations, &c. Some of them were obscene and beastly, as the rites practised on engrafting a tree, or to obtain rain. Many of the rites were magical. These Maimonides divides into three kinds:--“The first is that which respects plants, animals, and metals. The second consists in the limitation and determination of the times in which certain works ought to be performed. The third consists in human gestures and actions, as leaping, clapping the hands, shouting, laughing, lying down, or stretching at full length upon the ground, burning particular things, raising a smoke, and, lastly, repeating certain intelligible or unintelligible words. Some things cannot be completed without the use of all these rites.” It is generally acknowledged that some traces of Zabianism are still to be found both among the Hindoos and Chinese in the east, and the Mexicans and other nations in the south. The Guebres, or Parsees, who inhabit Persia, and are scattered through various parts of Hindostan, are the acknowledged worshippers of fire, or the supreme Deity under that symbol. “That the Persians,” says Hyde, “were formerly Sabians or Zabii, is rendered probable by Ibn Phacreddin Angjou, a Persian, who, in his book ‘_Pharhangh Gjihanghiri_,’ treating of the Persians descended from Shem, says in the preface, ‘Their religion, at that time, was Zabianism; but at length they became magi, and built fire temples.’ And the author of the book ‘_Mu’gjizat Pharsi_,’ adopts the same opinion: ‘In ancient times, the Persians were of the Zabian religion, worshipping the stars, until the time of Gushtasp, son of Lohrasp.’ For then Zoroaster reformed their religion.” The modern Sabians, who inhabit the country round about Mount Libanus, believe the unity of God, but pay an adoration to the stars, or the angels and intelligences which they suppose reside in them, and govern the world under the supreme Deity. They are obliged to pray three times a day, and they fast three times a year. They offer many sacrifices, but eat no part of them; and abstain from beans, garlic, and some other pulse and vegetables. They greatly respect the temple of Mecca and the pyramids of Egypt, fancying these last to be the sepulchres of Seth, and of Enoch and Sabi, his two sons, whom they look on as the first propagators of their religion. At these structures, they sacrifice a cock and a black calf, and offer up incense. Their principal pilgrimage, however, is to Haran, the supposed birth place of Abraham. Such is the account of this sect given by Sale, D’Herbelot, and Hyde.

ZACCHEUS, chief of the publicans; that is, farmer general of the revenues, Luke xix, 1, &c. This is all that is known concerning this person. See PUBLICANS and SYCAMORE.

ZADOK, son of Ahitub, high priest of the Jews, of the race of Eleazar. At the death of Ahimelech, or Abiathar, he came to the pontificate, A. M. 2944. For some time there were two high priests in Israel, 2 Sam. viii, 17; xv, 24, &c; xix, 11, 12; 1 Kings i, 8, &c. After the death of David, 1 Kings ii, 35, Solomon excluded Abiathar from the high priesthood, because he espoused the party of Adonijah, and made Zadok high priest alone.

ZAMZUMMIM, or ZUZIM, a gigantic race of people, who, together with the Rephaim and Emim, men of like stature, occupied, in the time of Abraham, the country east of Jordan and the Dead Sea, where they were routed by Chedorlaomer, and from which they were afterward expelled by the Ammonites, Deut. ii, 20, 21. These, together with the Anakim, another family of giants, were all evidently of a race foreign to the original inhabitants of the countries where they were found; they were probably tribes of invading Cushites. The Vulgate and the Septuagint say, they were conquered with the Rephaim in Ashteroth-Karnaim. The Chaldee interpreters have taken Zuzim in the sense of an appellative, for stout and valiant men; and the Septuagint have rendered the word Zuzim, ἔθνη ἰσχυρὰ, _robust nations_. We meet with the word Zuzim only in Gen. xiv, 5.

ZEAL. The original word, in its primary signification, means heat; such as the heat of boiling water. When it is figuratively applied to the mind, it means any warm emotion or affection. Sometimes it is taken for envy: so we render it, Acts v, 17, where we read, “The high priest, and all that were with him, were filled with envy,” ἐπλήσθησαν ζήλου: although it might as well be rendered, “were filled with zeal.” Sometimes it is taken for anger and indignation; sometimes, for vehement desire. And when any of our passions are strongly moved on a religious account, whether for any thing good, or against any thing which we conceive to be evil, this we term religious zeal. But it is not all that is called religious zeal which is worthy of that name. It is not properly religious or Christian zeal, if it be not joined with charity. A fine writer (Bishop Sprat) carries the matter farther still. “It has been affirmed,” says he, “no zeal is right, which is not charitable, but is mostly so. Charity, or love, is not only one ingredient, but the chief ingredient, in its composition.” May we not go farther still? May we not say, that true zeal is not mostly charitable, but wholly so? that is, if we take charity, in St. Paul’s sense, for love; the love of God and our neighbour. For it is a certain truth, although little understood in the world, that Christian zeal is all love. It is nothing else. The love of God and man fills up its whole nature. Yet it is not every degree of that love to which this appellation is given. There may be some love, a small degree of it, where there is no zeal. But it is, properly, love in a higher degree. It is fervent love. True Christian zeal is no other than the flame of love. This is the nature, the inmost essence of it. Phinehas is commended for having expressed much zeal against those wicked persons that violated the law of the Lord, Num. xxv, 11, 13; and in Psalm lxix, 9, the psalmist says, “The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up;” my earnest desire to have all things duly ordered about thy worship, and my just displeasure and indignation at all abuses in it, have wasted my natural moisture and vital spirits.

ZEBOIM, one of the four cities of the Pentapolis, consumed by fire from heaven, Gen. xiv, 2; xix, 24. Eusebius and St. Jerom speak of Zeboim as of a city remaining in their time, upon the western shores of the Dead Sea. Consequently, after the time of Lot this city must have been rebuilt near the place where it had stood before. Mention is made of the valley of Zeboim, 1 Sam. xiii, 18, and of a city of the same name in the tribe of Benjamin, Neh. xi, 34.

ZEBULUN, the sixth son of Jacob and Leah, Gen. xxx, 20. He was born in Mesopotamia, about A. M. 2256. His sons were Sered, Elon, and Jahleel, Gen. xlvi, 14. Moses acquaints us with no particulars of his life; but Jacob, in his last blessing, said of Zebulun, “Zebulun shall dwell at the haven of the sea; and he shall be for a haven of ships; and his border shall be unto Zidon,” Gen. xlix, 13. His portion extended along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, one end of it bordering on this sea, and the other on the sea of Tiberias, Joshua xix, 10, &c. In the last words of Moses, he joins Zebulun and Issachar together, saying, “Rejoice Zebulun, in thy going out, and Issachar in thy tents. They shall call the people unto the mountain, there shall they offer sacrifices of righteousness. For they shall suck of the abundance of the seas, and of treasures hid in the sand,” Deut. xxxiii, 18; meaning, that these two tribes being at the greatest distance north, should come together to the temple at Jerusalem, to the holy mountain, and should bring with them such of the other tribes as dwelt in their way; and that being situated on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, they should apply themselves to trade and navigation, and to the melting of metals and glass, denoted by those words, “treasures hid in the sand.” The river Belus, whose sand was very fit for making glass, was in this tribe. When the tribe of Zebulun left Egypt, it had for its chief Eliab the son of Elon, and comprehended fifty-seven thousand four hundred men able to bear arms, Num. i, 9–30. In another review thirty-nine years afterward, this tribe amounted to sixty thousand five hundred men of age to bear arms, Num. xxvi, 26, 27. The tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali distinguished themselves in the war of Barak and Deborah against Sisera, the general of the armies of Jabin, Judges iv, 5, 6, 10; v, 14, 18. It is thought these tribes were the first carried into captivity beyond the Euphrates by Pul and Tiglath Pileser, kings of Assyria, 1 Chron. v, 26. They had also the advantage of hearing and seeing Jesus Christ in their country, oftener and longer than any other of the twelve tribes, Isa. ix, 1; Matthew iv, 13, 15.

ZECHARIAH, king of Israel, 2 Kings xiv, 29. He succeeded his father Jeroboam II. A. M. 3220. He reigned but six months, and was murdered.

2. ZECHARIAH, son of Jehoiada, high priest of the Jews; probably the same as Azariah, 1 Chron. vi, 10, 11. He was put to death by the order of Joash, A. M. 3164, 2 Chron. xxiv, 20–22. Some think this is the Zacharias mentioned Matt. xxiii, 35.

3. ZECHARIAH, the eleventh of the twelve lesser prophets, was the son of Barachiah, and the grandson of Iddo. He was born during the captivity, and came to Jerusalem when the Jews were permitted by Cyrus to return to their own country. He began to prophesy two months later than Haggai, and continued to exercise his office about two years. Like his contemporary Haggai, Zechariah begins with exhorting the Jews to proceed in the rebuilding of the temple; he promises them the aid and protection of God, and assures them of the speedy increase and prosperity of Jerusalem; he then emblematically describes the four great empires, and foretels the glory of the Christian church when Jews and Gentiles shall be united under their great High Priest and Governor, Jesus Christ, of whom Joshua the high priest, and Zerubbabel the governor, were types; he predicts many particulars relative to our Saviour and his kingdom, and to the future condition of the Jews. Many moral instructions and admonitions are interspersed throughout the work. Several learned men have been of opinion that the last six chapters were not written by Zechariah; but whoever wrote them, their inspired authority is established by their being quoted in three of the Gospels, Matt. xxvi, 31; Mark xiv, 27; John xix, 37. The style of Zechariah is so remarkably similar to that of Jeremiah, that the Jews were accustomed to observe, that the spirit of Jeremiah had passed into him. By far the greater part of this book is prosaic; but toward the conclusion there are some poetical passages which are highly ornamented. The diction is in general perspicuous, and the transitions to the different subjects are easily discerned.

ZEDEKIAH, or MATTANIAH, was the last king of Judah before the captivity of Babylon. He was the son of Josiah, and uncle to Jehoiachin his predecessor, 2 Kings xxiv, 17, 19. When Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem, he carried Jehoiachin to Babylon, with his wives, children, officers, and the best artificers in Judea, and put in his place his uncle Mattaniah, whose name he changed into Zedekiah, and made him promise, with an oath, that he would continue in fidelity to him, A. M. 3405, 2 Chron. xxxvi, 13; Ezek. xvii, 12, 14, 18. He was twenty-one years old when he began to reign at Jerusalem, and he reigned there eleven years. He did evil in the sight of the Lord, committing the same crimes as Jehoiakim, 2 Kings xxiv, 18–20; 2 Chron. xxxvi, 11–13; and regarded not the menaces of the Prophet Jeremiah, from the Lord; but hardened his heart. The princes of the people, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, imitated his impiety, and abandoned themselves to all the abominations of the Gentiles. In the first year of his reign, Zedekiah sent to Babylon Elasah, the son of Shaphan, and Gemariah, the son of Hilkiah, probably to carry his tribute to Nebuchadnezzar. By these messengers Jeremiah sent a letter to the captives at Babylon, Jer. xxix, 1–23. Four years afterward, either Zedekiah went thither himself, or at least he sent thither; for the Hebrew text may admit either of these interpretations, Jer. li, 59; Baruch i, 1; Jer. xxxii, 12. The chief design of this deputation was to entreat Nebuchadnezzar to return the sacred vessels of the temple, Baruch i, 8. In the ninth year of his reign, he revolted against Nebuchadnezzar, 2 Kings xxv. It was a sabbatical year, in which the people should set their slaves at liberty, according to the law, Exod. xxi, 2; Deut. xv, 1, 2, 12; Jer. xxxiv, 8–10. Then King Nebuchadnezzar marched his army against Zedekiah, and took all the fortified places of his kingdom, except Lachish, Azekah, and Jerusalem. He sat down before the last-mentioned city on the tenth day of the tenth month of the holy year, which answers to our January. Some time afterward, Pharaoh Hophrah, king of Egypt, marched to assist Zedekiah, Jer. xxxvii, 3–5, 10. Nebuchadnezzar left Jerusalem, and went to meet him, defeated him, and obliged him to return into Egypt; after which he resumed the siege of Jerusalem. In the mean while, the people of Jerusalem, as if freed from the fear of Nebuchadnezzar, retook the slaves whom they had set at liberty, which drew upon them great reproaches and threatenings from Jeremiah, xxxiv, 11, 22. During the siege Zedekiah often consulted Jeremiah, who advised him to surrender, and pronounced the greatest woes against him if he should persist in his rebellion, Jer. xxxvii, 3, 10; xxi. But this unfortunate prince had neither patience to hear, nor resolution to follow, good counsels. In the eleventh year of Zedekiah, on the ninth day of the fourth month, (July,) Jerusalem was taken, 2 Kings xxv, 2–4; Jer. xxxix, 2, 3; lii, 5–7. Zedekiah and his people endeavoured to escape by favour of the night; but the Chaldean troops pursuing them, they were overtaken in the plains of Jericho. He was seized and carried to Nebuchadnezzar, then at Riblah, a city of Syria. The king of Chaldea, reproaching him with his perfidy, caused all his children to be slain before his face, and his eyes to be put out; then loading him with chains of brass, he ordered him to be sent to Babylon, 2 Kings xxv, 4–7; Jer. xxxii, 4–7; lii, 4–11. Thus were accomplished two prophecies which seemed contradictory: one of Jeremiah, who said that Zedekiah should see and yet not see, Nebuchadnezzar with his eyes, Jer. xxxii, 4, 5; xxxiv, 3; and the other of Ezek. xii, 13, which intimated that he should not see Babylon, though he should die there. The year of his death is not known. Jeremiah had assured him that he should die in peace; that his body should be burned, as those of the kings of Judah usually were; and that they should mourn for him, saying, “Ah, lord!” Jer. xxxiv, 4, 5.

ZEPHANIAH was the son of Cushi, and was probably of a noble family of the tribe of Simeon. He prophesied in the reign of Josiah, about B. C. 630. He denounces the judgments of God against the idolatry and sins of his countrymen, and exhorts them to repentance; he predicts the punishment of the Philistines, Moabites, Ammonites, and Ethiopians, and foretels the destruction of Nineveh; he again inveighs against the corruptions of Jerusalem, and with his threats mixes promises of future favour and prosperity to his people; whose recall from their dispersion shall glorify the name of God throughout the world. The style of Zephaniah is poetical; but it is not distinguished by any peculiar elegance or beauty, though generally animated and impressive.

ZERUBBABEL, or ZEROBABEL, was son of Salathiel, of the royal race of David. St. Matthew, i, 12, and 1 Chron. iii, 17, 19, make Jeconiah king of Judah to be father to Salathiel; but they do not agree as to the father of Zerubbabel. The Chronicles say Pedaiah was father of Zerubbabel; but St. Matthew, St. Luke, Ezra, and Haggai, constantly make Salathiel his father. We must therefore take the name of son in the sense of grandson, and say that Salathiel having educated Zerubbabel, he was always afterward looked upon as his father. Some think that Zerubbabel had also the name of Sheshbazzar, and that he has this name in Ezra i, 8. Zerubbabel returned to Jerusalem long before the reign of Darius, son of Hystaspes. He returned at the beginning of the reign of Cyrus, A. M. 3468, fifteen years before Darius. Cyrus committed to his care the sacred vessels of the temple with which he returned to Jerusalem, Ezra i, 11. He is always named first, as being the chief of the Jews that returned to their own country, Ezra ii, 2; iii, 8; v, 2; he laid the foundations of the temple, Ezra iii, 8, 9; Zech. iv, 9, &c; and restored the worship of the Lord, and the usual sacrifices. When the Samaritans offered to assist in rebuilding the temple, Zerubbabel and the principal men of Judah refused them this honour, since Cyrus had granted his commission to the Jews only, Ezra iv, 2, 3.

ZIKLAG, a city of the Philistines, first assigned to the tribe of Judah, and afterward to that of Simeon, Joshua xv, 31; xix, 5; but it does not appear that the Philistines were ever driven out; as, when David fled into their country from Saul, Achish gave the city to him, 1 Sam. xxvii, 5, 6. It was afterward burned by the Amalekites, 1 Sam. xxx, 1. But it appears to have been rebuilt, as the author of the First Book of Samuel, when relating its being given to David, adds, that it pertained to the kings of Judah in his time.

ZION. See SION.

ZUZIM. See ZAMZUMMIM.

AN ALPHABETICAL TABLE OF THE PROPER NAMES

IN

THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS;

WITH

THEIR PRONUNCIATION,

AND

THE CHIEF MEANING OR LEADING SIGNIFICATION OF EACH WORD IN ITS ORIGINAL LANGUAGE.

AARON, _Ay´-ron_, lofty, mountainous. ABAD´DON, the destroyer. ABAGTHA, _Ab-ag´-tha_, father of the wine press. ABANA, _Ab-ay´-nah_, stony. ABARIM, _Ab´-a-rim_, passages. AB´ARON, strength. AB´BA, father. AB´DA, a servant. AB´DI, my servant. ABDIEL, _Ab´-de-el_, a servant of God. AB´DON, a servant. ABED-NEGO, _A-bed´-ne-go_, servant of light. A´BEL, vanity, vapour, mourning. ABEL-BETH-MAACHAH, _Ay´-bel-beth-ma-ay´-kah_, mourning of the house of Maachah. A´BEL-MA´IM, the mourning of the waters. ABEL-MEHOLAH, _Ay´-bel-me-ho´-lah_, mourning of weakness, of sickness. ABEL-MIZRAIM, _Ay´-bel-miz-ra´-im_, the mourning of the Egyptians. A´BEL-SHIT´TIM, mourning of the thorns. A´BEZ, an egg, muddy. ABI, _A´-be_, my father. ABIAH, _Ab-i´-ah_, the Lord is my father. ABI´AHIL, the father of light or praise. ABI-ALBON, _Ab-e-al´-bon_, intelligent father. AB´IAM, the father of the sea. ABI-AS´APH, a gathering or consuming father. ABIATHAR, _Ab-i´-a-thar_, excellent father. A´BIB, green fruits, ears of corn. ABI´DAH, father of knowledge. ABI´DAN, father of judgment. ABIEL, _Ab´-e-el_, God my father. ABIEZER, _Ab-e-e´-zer_, father of help. ABI-EZRITE, _Ab-e-ez´-rite_. ABIGAIL, _Ab´-e-gal_, the joy of the father. ABI´-GIBEON, the father of the cup, father of Gibeon. ABIHAIL, _Ab-e-hay´-il_, the father of strength. ABI´HU, he is my father, or his father. ABI´HUD, the father of praise or confession. ABIJAH, _Ab-i´-jah_, the will of the Lord. ABI´JAM, father of the sea. ABILENE, _Ab-e-le´-ne_, the father of the apartment, or of mourning. ABIMAEL, _Ab-be-may´-el_, a father sent from God, my father comes from God. ABIMELECH, _Ab-im´-me-lek_, father of the king. ABINADAB, _Ab-in´-na-dab_, father of willingness, my father is a prince. ABINOAM, _Ab-in´-no-am_, father of beauty or comeliness, my father is beautiful. ABIRAM, _Ab-i´-ram_, a high father, father of fraud. ABISHAG, _Ab´-be-shag_, ignorance of the father. ABISHAI, _Ab-bish´-a-i_, the present of my father, the father of the sacrifice. ABISHALOM, _Ab-bish´-a-lom_, the father of peace, the recompence of the father. ABISHUA, _Ab-bish´-u-a_, father of salvation or of magnificence. ABISHUR, _Ab´-be-shur_, the father of the wall or of uprightness. ABITAL, _Ab´-be-tal_, the father of the dew. ABITUB, _Ab´-be-tub_, father of goodness. ABIUD, _Ab´-be-ud_, father of praise. AB´NER, father of light, the son of the father. A´BRAHAM, the father of a great multitude. A´BRAM, a high father, the father of elevation. AB´SALOM, father of peace. ACCAD, _Ak´-ad_, a pitcher, a sparkle. ACCHO, _Ak´-ko_, close, pressed together. ACELDAMA, _A-kel´-da-mah_, the field of blood. ACHAIA, _A-kay´-yah_, grief, trouble. ACHAICUS, _A-kay´-e-kus_, a native of Achaia. ACHAN, ACHAR, _A´-kan_, _A´-kar_, he that troubles and bruises. ACHBOR, _Ak´-bor_, a rat, bruising. ACHIM, _A´-kim_, preparing, confirming, revenging. ACHIR, _A´-ker_, the brother’s light. ACHISH, _A´-kish_, thus it is, how is this? ACHMETHA, _Ak´-me-thah_. ACHOR, _A´-kor_, trouble. ACHSAH, _Ak´-sah_, adorned, bursting of the veil. ACHSHAPH, _Ak´-shaph_, poison, tricks, one that breaks, the brim of any thing. ACHZIB, _Ak´-zib_, liar, one that runs. ADADAH, _Ad´-a-dah_, the testimony of the assembly. ADAH, _Ay´-dah_, an assembly. ADAIAH, _Ad-a´-yah_, the witness of the Lord. ADALIAH, _Ad-a-ly´-ah_, one that draws water, poverty, cloud, death. AD´AM, earthy, taken out of red earth. ADAMAH, _Ad´-da-mah_, red earth. ADAMI, _Ad´-da-my_, my man, red, earthy. A´DAR, high, eminent. ADBEEL, _Ad´-be-el_, a vapour, a cloud of God, a vexer of God. AD´DI, my witness, adorned, passage, prey. AD´DON, basis, foundation, the Lord. ADIEL, _Ad´-i-el_, the witness of the Lord. ADIN, _Ad´-din_, adorned, dainty. ADITHAIM, _Ad-e-thay´-im_, assemblies, testimonies. ADLAI, _Ad-lay´-i_, my witness, my ornament. AD´MAH, earthy, red earth. ADMATHA, _Ad´-ma-thah_, a cloud of death, a mortal vapour. AD´NAH, rest, testimony, eternal. ADONA´I, my Lord. ADONI-BEZEK, _Ad´-o-ne-bee´-zek_, the lightning of the Lord, the Lord of Bezek. ADONIJAH, _Ad-o-ny´-jah_, the Lord is my master. ADONIKAM, _Ad-o-ny´-kam_, the Lord is raised, my Lord hath raised me. ADONIRAM, _Ad-o-ny´-ram_, my Lord is most high, the Lord of might and elevation. ADONI-ZEDEK, _Ad´-o-ne-zee´-dek_, justice of the Lord. ADORAIM, _Ad-o-ray´-im_, strength or power of the sea. ADORAM, _Ad-o´-ram_, their beauty, their power, their praise. ADRAMMELECH, _Ad-ram´-me-lek_, the cloak or glory of the king. ADRAMYTTIUM, _Ad-ra-mit´-te-um_, the court of death. ADRIA, _Ay´-dre-ah_, the name of a city, which gives name to the Adriatic Sea, now the Gulf of Venice. A´DRIEL, the flock of God. ADULLAM, _Ad-ul´-lam_, their testimony, their prey, their ornament. ADUM´MIM, earthly or bloody things. Æ´NEAS, praised. AGABUS, _Ag´-ga-bus_, a locust, the feast of the father. AGAG, _Ay´-gag_, roof, floor. A´GAGITE, of the race of Agag. AGA´PÆ, love feasts. AGAR, see Hagar. AGI´E, a valley, deepness. AGRIPPA, _A-grip´-pah_, one who at his birth causes great pain. A´GUR, a stranger, gathering. A´HAB, the brother of the father. AHA´RAH, a sweet brother, an odoriferous meadow. AHAR´HEL, another host, another sorrow, the sleep of the brother. AHASBA´I, trusting in me, brother compassing. In Syriac, a brother of age. AHASUERUS, _A-has-u-e´-rus_, prince, chief. AHAVA, _A-hay´-vah_, essence, generation. A´HAZ, one that takes and possesses. AHAZIAH, _A-ha-zy´-ah_, possession, vision of the Lord. AHI, my brother, my brethren. AHIAH, _A-hy´-ah_, brother of the Lord. AHIAM, _A-hy´am_, brother of the mother, brother of the nation. AHIAN, _A-hy´-an_, brother of wine. AHIE´ZER, brother of assistance. AHI´HUD, brother of vanity, a brother of praise. AHIJAH, _the same_ as Ahiah. AHIKAM, _A-hy´-kam_, a brother that raises up. AHI´LUD, a brother born. AHIM´AAZ, brother of the council. AHI´MAN, a brother prepared. AHIMELECH, _A-him´-me-lek_, my brother is a king. AHIMOTH, _A´-he-moth_, brother of death. AHIN´ADAB, a willing brother, a brother of a vow, brother of the prince. AHINOAM, _A-hin´-no-am_, the beauty and comeliness of the brother. AHI´O, his brother, his brethren. AHIOR. See Achior. AHIRA, _A-hy´-rah_, brother of iniquity or of the shepherd. AHIRAM, _A-hy´-ram_, brother of craft, protection. AHISAMACH, _A-his´-sa-mak_, brother of strength or of support. AHISHABAR, _A-his´-sa-bar_, brother of the morning or dew, brother of blackness. AHI´SHAR, brother of a prince. AHITHOPHEL, _A-hit´-to-fel_, brother of ruin or folly. AHI´TUB, brother of goodness. AH´LAB, which is of milk, is fat. AH´LAI, beseeching, sorrowing, beginning, brother to me. AHO´AH, a thistle, a thorn, a fish hook, brotherhood. AHO´HI, a living brother, my thistle or thorn. AHO´LAH, his tabernacle, his tent. AHOLIAB, _A-ho´-le-ab_, the tent or tabernacle of the father. AHOLIBAH, _A-ho´-le-bah_, my tent and my tabernacle in her. AHOLIBAMAH, _A-ho´-le-bay´-mah_, my tabernacle is exalted. AHRAN. See Charan. AHU´MAR, a meadow of waters, brother of waters. AHU´ZAM, their taking possession, vision. AHUZ´ZAH, possession, apprehension, vision. AI, or HAI, _Ay´-i_, mass, heap. AI´AH, a raven, a vulture, alas, where is it? AI´ATH, an hour. AI´N, an eye, a fountain. AIOTH, _the same as_ Ai. AJALON, _Ad´-ja-lon_, a chain, strength, a stag. AK´KUB, the print of the foot where any creature hath gone, supplantation. ALAMMELECH, _Al-am´-me-lek_, God is king. AL´CIMUS, strong, of strength. AL´EMETH, a hiding, youth, worlds, upon the dead. AL´EMIS, strength. ALEXAN´DER, one that assists men, one that turns away evil. ALEXANDRIA, _Al-ex-an´-dre-a_, the city of Alexander. ALLELUIA, _Al-le-lu´-yah_, praise the Lord. A´LIAN, high. AL´LON, an oak. ALLON-BACHUTH, _Al´-lon-bak´-kuth_, the oak of weeping. ALMO´DAD, measure of God. AL´MON, hidden. AL´MON-DIB´LATHAIM, a hiding, a heap of fig trees. ALPHA, _Al´-fah_, the first letter of the Greek alphabet, marked A. ALPHEUS, _Al-fe´-us_, a thousand, chief. A´MAD, a people of witness, people everlasting. AM´ALEK, a people that licks up or uses ill. AMAL´EKITES, people descended from Amalek. A´MAM, mother, fear of them, people. AMANA, _Am-ay´-nah_, integrity and truth. AMARIAH, _Am-a-ry´-ah_, the Lord says, the excellency of the Lord. AMASA, _Am-ay´-sah_, a forgiving people, the burden of the people. AMAZIAH, _Am-a-zy´-ah_, the strength of the Lord. A´MI. See Amam. AM´MAH, my people. AMMI, the same as Ammah. AMMIHUD, _Am´-me-hud_, people of praise. AMMINADAB, _Am-min´-na-dab_, prince of the people, a people that vows. AMMISHADDAI, _Am-me-shad´-day-i_, the people of the Almighty. AM´MON, the son of my people. AM´MONITES, a people descended from Benammi, son of Lot. AM´NON, faithful and true, foster father. AMON, _Ay´-mon_, faithful, true. AM´ORITE, bitter, a rebel, a babbler. AMOS, _Ay´-mos_, loading, weighty. AMOZ, _Ay´-moz_, strong, robust. AMPHIPOLIS, _Am-fip´-po-lis_, a city encompassed by the sea. AMPLIAS, _Am´-ple-as_, large, extensive. AM´RAM, an exalted people, handfuls of corn. AMRAPHEL, _Am´-ra-fel_, one that speaks of hidden things or of ruin. AM´ZI, strong, mighty. A´NAB, a grape, a knot. ANAH, _Ay´-nah_, one who answers or sings, poor, afflicted. ANAK, _Ay´-nak_, a collar, an ornament. ANAKIMS, _An´-ak-ims_. See Anak. ANAMMELECH, _An-am´-me-lek_, answer, song of the king. A´NAN, a cloud, a prophecy. ANANIAS, _An-a-ny´-as_, the cloud of the Lord. ANATHOTH, _An´-a-thoth_, answer, affliction. ANDREW, _An´drue_, a stout and strong man. ANDRONICUS, _An-dron´-ne-kus_, a man excelling others. ANER, _Ay´-ner_, answer, song, affliction. AN´NA, gracious, merciful. AN´NAS, one that answers, that afflicts. AN´TICHRIST, an adversary to Christ. ANTIOCH, _An´-te-ok_, instead of a chariot. AN´TIPAS, against all. ANTIPATRIS, _An-te-pay´-tris_, against his own father. APELLES, _A-pel´-lees_, to exclude, to separate. APHEK, _Ay´-fek_, a stream, vigour. APOLLONIA, _Ap-po-lo´-ne-ah_, perdition. APOL´LOS, one that destroys and lays waste. APOLLYON, _A-pol´-le-on_, one that exterminates or destroys. APPHIA, _Af´-e-ah_, that is fruitful. APPII-FORUM, _Ap´-pe-i-fo´-rum_, a town so called from Appius Claudius, whose statue was erected there. AQUILA, _Ak´-we-lah_, an eagle. AR, awaking, uncovering. ARA´BIA, evening, a place wild and desert; mixtures, because this country was inhabited by different kinds of people. ARA´BIAN, an inhabitant of Arabia. A´RAD, a wild ass, a dragon. A´RAM, magnificence, one that deceives. ARARAT, _Ar´-ra-rat_, the curse of trembling. ARAUNAH, _A-raw´-nah_, ark, song, curse. AR´BA, the city of the four. ARCHELAUS, _Ar-ke´-lay-us_, the prince of the people. ARCHIPPUS, _Ar-kip´-pus_, governor of horses. ARCTURUS, _Ark-tew´-rus_, a gathering together. ARD, one that commands. ARELI, _Ar-e´-lie_, the light or vision of God. AREOPAGITE, _A-re-op´-a-gyte_, belonging to the council called Areopagus. AREOPAGUS, _A-re-op´-a-gus_, the hill of Mars; a place where the magistrates of Athens held their supreme council; from ἀρεῖος, “of Mars,” and ϖάγος, “a hill.” ARETAS, _A-re´-tas_, one that is agreeable or virtuous. AR´GOB, a turf of earth, curse of the well. ARIEL, _Ay´-re-el_, the altar, light, lion of God. ARIMATHEA, _Ar-re-ma-the´-ah_, a lion dead to the Lord. Ramath, or Ramah, a city where Samuel dwelt. ARIOCH, _Ar´-e-ok_, long, your drunkenness, your lion. ARISTARCHUS, _A-ris-tar´-kus_, the best prince. ARISTOBULUS, _A-ris-tob´-bu-lus_, a good counsellor. ARMAGEDDON, _Ar-ma-ged´-don_, the mountain of Megiddo, of the gospel, of fruits. ARMENIA, _Ar-me´-ne-ah_, a province which is supposed to take its name from Aram. AR´NON, rejoicing, their ark. AR´OER, heath, tamarisk, the nakedness of the skin or of the enemy. AR´PAD, the light of redemption, that lies down. ARPHAXAD, _Ar-fak´s-ad_, one that heals or releases. ARTAXERXES, _Ar-taks-erk´s-es_, in Hebrew, Artachsasta, the silence of light. ARTEMAS, _Ar´-te-mas_, whole, sound. ASA, _Ay´-sah_, physician, cure. ASAHEL, _As´-a-el_, the work or creature of God. ASAIAH, _As´-a-i-ah_, the Lord hath wrought. ASAPH, _Ay´-saf_, one that assembles together. ASENATH, _As´-e-nath_, peril, misfortune. A´SHAN, vapour, smoke. ASH´DOD, inclination, a wild open place. ASH´ER, blessedness. AS´HIEL, the work of God. ASHIMA, _Ash´-e-mah_, crime, position, fire of the sea. ASHKENAZ, _Ash´-ke-naz_, a fire that distils or spreads. ASHTAROTH, _Ash´-ta-roth_, flocks, riches. ASH´UR, one that is happy. ASH´VATH, making vestments. ASIA, _Ay´-she-a_, muddy, boggy. AS´KELON, weight, balance, fire of infamy. ASNAP´PER, unhappiness, fruitless. ASSIR, prisoner, fettered. AS´SOS, approaching. ASSYRIA, _As-sir´-re-a_. ASSYRIAN, _As-sir´-re-an_. ASYNCRITUS, _A-sin´-kre-tus_, incomparable. A´TAD, a thorn. ATA´ROTH, crowns, counsel of making full. ATHALIAH, _Ath-a-ly´-ah_, the time of the Lord. ATHENIANS, _Ath-ee´-ne-ans_, inhabitants of Athens. ATH´ENS, so called from Athene, Minerva. ATTALIA, _At-ta-ly´-ah_, that increases or sends. A´VEN, iniquity, force, riches. AUGUS´TUS, increased, majestic. AZARIAH, _Az-a-ry´-ah_, assistance, he that hears the Lord. AZEKAH, _Az-ee´-kah_, strength of walls. AZ´GAD, a strong army, a gang of robbers. AZNOTH-TABOR, _Az´-noth-tay´-bor_, the ears of Tabor, of choice, purity, contrition. AZO´TUS, _the same as_ Ashdod. A´ZUR, he that assists, that is assisted.

BAAL, _Bay´-al_, he that rules and subdues. BAALAH, _Bay´-al-ah_, her idol, a spouse; the name of a city. BAAL-BERITH, _Bay´-al-be´-rith_, idol of the covenant. BAAL-GAD, _Bay´-al-gad´_, the idol of the troop, the Lord is master of the troop. BAAL-HAMON, _Bay´-al-hay´-mon_, one that rules a multitude, a populous place. BAAL-HAZER, _Bay´-al-hay´-zer_, lord of court, possessor of grace. BA´AL-HER´MON, the possessor of destruction, of a thing devoted to God. BA´ALI, my idol, or master. BA´ALIM, idols, masters. BA´ALIS, a rejoicing, proud lord. BAAL-MEON, _Bay´-al-me´-on_, the idol, the master of the house. BAAL-PEOR, _Bay´-al-pe´-or_, master of the opening. BAAL-PERAZIM, _Bay´-al-per´-a-zim_, master, or god of divisions. BAAL-SHALISHA, _Bay´-al-shal´-e-shah_, the third idol, the third husband. BAAL-TAMAR, _Bay´-al-tay´-mar_, master of the palm tree. BAAL-ZEBUB, _Bay´-al-ze´-bub_, the master of flies. BAAL-ZEPHON, _Bay´-al-ze´-fon_, the idol of the north, secret. BAANAH, _Bay´-a-nah_, in the answer, in affliction. BAA´RAH, a flame, purging. BAASHAH, _Ba-ay´-shah_, in the work, he that demands, who lays waste. BA´BEL, confusion, mixture. BABYLON, _Bab´-be-lon_. See Babel. BABYLONIANS, _Bab-be-lo´-ne-ans_. BABYLONISH, _Bab-be-lo´-nish_. BACA, _Bay´-kah_, mulberry tree. BAHURIM, _Ba-hew´-rim_, choice, warlike. BA´JITH, a house. BALAAM, _Bay´-lam_, the old age or ancient of the people, without the people. BALA´DAN, one without rule or judgment, ancient in judgment. BA´LAK, who lays waste, who laps. BA´MAH, an eminence. BARABBAS, _Bar-ab´-bas_, son of the father or of confusion. BARACHEL, _Bar´-a-kel_, who blesses God. BARACHIAS, _Bar´-a-ky-as_, the same as Barachel. BA´RAK, thunder, in vain. BAR-JE´SUS, son of Jesus. BAR-JO´NA, son of Jona or of a dove. BAR´NABAS, the son of the prophet or of consolation. BAR´SABAS, son of return, of rest, of swearing. BARTHOL´OMEW, a son that suspends the waters. BARTIMEUS, _Bar-te-me´-us_, the son of Timeus or of the honourable. BARUCH, _Bay´-ruk_, who is blessed, who bends the knee. BARZILLAI, _Bar-zil´-la-i_, made of iron, son of contempt. BA´SHAN, in the tooth, in the change or sleep. BASHEMATH, _Bash´-e-math_, perfumed, in desolation. BATH-SHEBA, _Bath-she´-bah_ or _Bath´-she-bah_, the seventh daughter, the daughter of an oath. BATHSHU´A, the daughter of salvation. BE´DAD, alone, in friendship. BE´DAN, only, in the judgment. BEEL-ZEBUB, _Be-el´-ze-bub_. See Baal-zebub. BEER, _Be´-er_, a well, the name of a city. BEER-LAHAI-ROI, _Be´-er-la-hay´-e-roy_, the well of him that liveth and seeth me. BEER-SHEBA, _Be´-er-she´-bah_, the well of an oath, of satiety, the seventh well. BE´KAH, half a shekel. BEL, ancient, nothing, subject to change. BELIAL, _Bee´-le-al_, wicked, the devil. BELSHAZ´ZAR, master of the treasure. BELTESHAZ´ZAR, who lays up treasures in secret, secretly endures pain and pressure. BENAIAH, _Ben-ay´-yah_, son of the Lord, the Lord’s building. BEN-AM´MI, the son of my people. BENHA´DAD, the son of Hadad, of noise. BEN´JAMIN, the son of the right hand. BEN´JAMITE, a descendant of Benjamin. BENONI, _Ben-o´-ny_, son of my grief. BE´OR, burning, mad, beast. BERACHAH, _Ber´-a-kah_, blessing. BERÆA, _Be-ree´-ah_, heavy, from βάρος. BE´RITH, covenant. BERNICE, _Ber-ny´-se_, one that brings victory. BE´SOR, glad news, incarnation. BE´TAH, confidence. BETHABARA, _Beth-ab´-ba-rah_, the house of passage, of anger. BETH´ANY, the house of song, of affliction, of obedience, the grace of the Lord. BETH-A´VEN, the house of vanity, of strength. BETH-BIREI, _Beth-bir´-re-i_, the house of my Creator. BETH´-CAR, the house of the lamb, of knowledge. BETH-DA´GON, the house of corn, of the fish, of the god Dagon. BETH-DIBLATHAIM, _Beth-dib-la-thay´-im_, the house of dry figs. BETH´EL, the house of God. BETHELITE, _Beth´-el-ite_, an inhabitant of Bethel. BE´THER, division, in the turtle, in the trial. BETHES´DA, the house of effusion, of pity. BETH-E´ZEL, a neighbour’s house. BETH-GAMUL, _Beth-gay´-mul_, the house of recompense, of the weaned, of the camel. BETH-HACCEREM, _Beth-hak´-ke-rem_, the house of the vineyard. BETH-HO´RON, the house of wrath, of the hole, of liberty. BETHJESH´IMOTH, the house of desolation. BETH´-LEHEM, the house of bread, of war. BETH-LEHEM-EPHRATAH, _Beth´-le-hem-eff-ray´-tah_ or _eff´-ra-tah_. BETH´-LEHEM-JU´DAH. BETH´-LEHEMITE, an inhabitant of Bethlehem. BETH-PE´OR, the house of gaping. BETHPHAGE, _Beth´-fa-je_, the house of the mouth, of early figs. BETHSAIDA, _Beth-say´-dah_, the house of fruits, of hunters. BETH´-SHAN, the house of the tooth, of change, of sleep. BETH-SHE´MESH, the house of the sun. BETHUEL, _Beth-ew´-el_, filiation of God. BEULAH, _Bew´-lah_, married. BEZALEEL, _Bez-a-lee´-el_, in the shadow of God. BE´ZEK, lightning, in chains. BICHRI, _Bick´-ry_, first-born, in the ram. BID´KAR, in compunction, in sharp pain. BIG´THAN, giving meat. BIL´DAD, old friendship. BIL´HAH, who is old, troubled, confused. BIR´SHA, in evil, son that beholds. BITHIAH, _Be-thy´-ah_, daughter of the Lord. BITH´RON, division, in his examination, daughter of the song, of anger, of liberty. BITHYNIA, _Be-thin´-e-ah_, violent precipitation. BLAS´TUS, one that sprouts and brings forth. BOANERGES, _Bo-a-ner´-jes_, the sons of thunder; James and John, the sons of Zebedee. BO´AZ, or BO´OZ, in strength, in the goat. BOCHIM, _Bo´-kim_, the place of weeping, of mulberry trees. BO´ZEZ, mud, in the flower. BOZ´RAH, in tribulation or distress. BUL, changeable, perishing. BUZ, despised, plundered. BUZI, _Bew´-zye_, my contempt. BUZITE, _Bew´-zyte_, a descendant from Buz.

CABUL, _Kay´-bul_, displeasing, dirt. CÆSAR, _See´-sar_, one cut out. CÆSAREA, _Ses-a-ree´-a_, a bush of hair. CAIAPHAS, _Kay´-a-fas_, a searcher. CAIN, _Kay´n_, possession. CAINAN, _Kay´-nan_, possessor, one that laments. CA´LAH, good opportunity, as the verdure. CA´LEB, a dog, a crow, a basket. CALEB-EPHRATAH, _Kay´-leb-ef-ray´-tah_ or _ef´-ra-tah_, a place so called by a conjunction of the names of Caleb and his wife Ephratah. CALNEH, _Kal´-nay_, our consummation, all we, as murmuring. CAL´NO, our consummation, quite himself. CAL´VARY, the place of a skull. CA´MON, his resurrection. CA´NA, zeal, possession, nest, cane. CANAAN, _Kay´-nan_, a merchant, a trader. The son of Ham, who gave name to the land of Canaan. CANAANITE, _Kay´-nan-ite_, an inhabitant of Canaan. CANDACE, _Kan-day´-se_, who possesses contrition. CAPERNAUM, _Ka-per´-na-um_, the field of repentance, city of comfort. CAPHTOR, _Kaf´-tor_, a sphere, a buckle, a hand, doves, those that seek and inquire. CAPPADOCIA, _Kap-pa-do´-she-a_, in Hebrew, Caphtor. CARCAS, _Kar´-kas_, the covering of a lamb. CARCHEMISH, _Kar´-ke-mish_, a lamb, as taken away. CAR´MEL, a circumcised lamb, harvest, vineyard of God. CARMELITE, _Kar´-me-lyte_, an inhabitant of Mount Carmel. CAR´MI, my vineyard, the knowledge or the lamb of the waters. CAR´PUS, fruit, fruitful. CASIPHIA, _Ka-se-fy´-a_, money, covetousness. CAS´TOR, a beaver. CEDRON, _See´-dron_ or _Kee´-dron_, black, sad. CENCHREA, _Senk´-re-a_, millet, small pulse. CEPHAS, _See´-fas_ or _Kee´-fas_, a rock or stone. CE´SAR. See Cæsar. CESAREA, _Ses-a-ree´-a_. See Cæsarea. CHALCOL, _Kal´-kol_, who nourishes, sustains the whole. CHALDEA, _Kal-dee´-a_, as demons, as robbers. CHALDEAN, _Kal-dee´-an_, an inhabitant of Chaldea. CHALDEES, _Kal-deez´_, the same as Chaldeans. CHARRAN, _Kar´-ran_, a singing, the heat of wrath. CHEBAR, _Ke´-bar_, strength or power. CHEDORLAOMER, _Ke´-dor-la-o´-mer_, as a generation of servitude. CHEMARIMS, _Kem´-a-rims_, the name of Baal’s priests. CHEMOSH, _Ke´-mosh_, as handling, as taking away. CHENANIA, _Ke-na-ny´-ah_, preparation, rectitude of the Lord. CHERETHIMS, _Ker´-eth-ims_, who cuts, tears away. CHERETHITES, _Ker´-eth-ites_. See Cherethims. CHERITH, _Ke´-rith_, cutting, piercing, slaying. CHESED, _Ke´-sed_, as a devil, a destroyer. CHILEAB, _Kil´-le-ab_, totality or perfection of the father. CHILION, _Kil´-le-on_, finished, complete. CHILMAD, _Kil´-mad_, as teaching or learning. CHIMHAM, _Kim´-ham_, as they, like to them. CHIOS, _Ky´-os_, open, opening. CHISLEU, _Kis´-lu_, rashness, confidence. CHITTIM, _Chit´-tim_, those that bruise, gold, staining. CHIUN, _Ky´-un_, an Egyptian god, whom some think to be Saturn. CHLOE, _Klo´-e_, green herb. CHORAZIN, _Ko-ray´-zin_, the secret, here is a mystery. CHUSHAN-RISHATHAIM, _Kew´-shan-rish-a-thay´-im_, Ethiopian, blackness of iniquities. CHUZA, _Kew´-zah_, the prophet, Ethiopian. CILICIA, _Sil-ish´-e-a_, which rolls or overturns. CLAUDA, _Klaw´-dah_, a broken voice, a lamentable voice. CLAUDIA, _Klaw´-de-ah_, lame. CLE´MENT, mild, good, merciful. CLEOPHAS, _Klee´-o-fas_, the whole glory. COLOSSE, _Ko-los´-see_, punishment, correction. CONIAH, _Ko-ny´-ah_, the strength or stability of the Lord. CO´RINTH, which is satisfied, beauty. CORIN´THIANS, inhabitants of Corinth. CORNE´LIUS, a horn. COZ´BI, a liar, as sliding away. CRESCENS, _Kres´-sens_, growing, increasing. CRETE, _Kree´t_, carnal, fleshly. CRETES, _Kree´ts_, inhabitants of Crete. CRETIANS, _Kree´-she-ans_, the same as Cretes. CRISPUS, _Kris´-pus_, curled. CUSH, Ethiopian, black. CUSH´AN, Ethiopia, blackness, heat. CUSH´I, the same as Cushan. CYPRUS, _Sy´-prus_, fair, fairness. CYRENE, _Sy-re´-ne_, a wall, coldness, meeting, a floor. CYRENEANS, _Sy-re´-ne-ans_, people of Cyrene. CYRENIUS, _Sy-re´-ne-us_, who governs. CYRUS, _Sy´-rus_, as miserable, as heir, the belly.

DABBASHETH, _Dab´-ba-sheth_, flowing with honey, causing infamy. DABERATH, _Dab´-be-rath_, word, thing, bee, submissive. DA´GON, corn, a fish. DALMANUTHA, _Dal-ma-new´-thah_, a bucket, leanness, branch. DALMATIA, _Dal-may´-she-a_, deceitful lamps, vain brightness. DAMARIS, _Dam´-a-ris_, a little woman. DAMAS´CUS, a sack full of blood, similitude of burning. DAN, judgment, he that judges. DAN´IEL, judgment of God. DA´RA, generation, house of the shepherd, companion, race of wickedness. DARIUS, _Da-ry´-us_, he that inquires and informs himself. DA´THAN, laws, rites. DA´VID, beloved, dear. DEB´ORAH, a word, a bee. DECAPOLIS, _De-kap´-po-lis_, a Greek word compounded of δέκα, _ten_, and ϖόλις, a _city_, because this country contained ten cities. DE´DAN, their breasts, friendship, uncle. DEDANIM, _Ded´-an-im_, descendants of Dedan. DEL´ILAH, poor, head of hair, bucket. DE´MAS, popular. DEMETRIUS, _De-me´-tre-us_, belonging to Ceres, to corn. DER´BE, a sting. DEUEL, _De-ew´-el_, the knowledge of God. DIANA, _Dy-ay´-nah_, luminous, perfect. DI´BON, understanding, abundance of building. DI´BON-GAD, abundance of sons, happy and powerful. DIDYMUS, _Did´-e-mus_, a twin. DI´MON, where it is red. DI´NAH, judgment, who judges. DIN´HABAH, she gives judgment. DIONYSIUS, _Dy-o-nish´-e-us_, divinely touched; from δῖος, _divine_, and νεύω, _I move_. DIOTREPHES, _Di-ot´-re-feez_, nourished by Jupiter; from δῖος, of _Jupiter_, and τρὲφος, _a foster-child_. DO´EG, who acts with uneasiness, a fisherman. DOR, generation, habitation. DOR´CAS, the female of a roe-buck. DO´THAN, the law, custom. DRUSILLA, _Drew-sil´-lah_, watered by the dew; from δρόσος, _the dew_. DUMAH, _Dew´-mah_, silence, resemblance. DURA, _Dew´-rah_, generation, habitation.

EASTER, _Ee´s-ter_, the passover, a feast of the Jews. E´BAL, a heap, collection of old age. E´BED, a servant or labourer. EBED-MELECH, _Ee´-bed-me´-lek_, the king’s servant. EBEN-EZER, _Eb-en-ee´-zer_, the stone of help. E´BER, one that passes, anger, wrath. EBIASAPH, _E-by´-a-saf_, a father that gathers together. ED, witness. E´DEN, pleasure, delight. E´DOM, red, earthy, red earth. E´DOMITE, a descendant of Esau, of Edom. EDREI, _Ed´-re-i_, a very great mass, cloud, death of the wicked. EG´LAH, heifer, chariot, round. EGLAIM, _Eg-lay´-im_, drops of the sea. EG´LON, the same as Eglah. E´GYPT, in Hebrew, Mizraim; that binds or straitens, that troubles or oppresses. EGYP´TIAN, an inhabitant of Egypt. E´HUD, he that praises. EK´RON, barrenness, torn away. EK´RONITES, inhabitants of Ekron. E´LAH, an oak, oath, imprecation. E´LAM, a young man, a virgin, secret, an age. E´LAMITES, descendants of Elam. E´LATH, a hind, strength, an oak. EL-BETH´EL, the God of Bethel. EL´DAD, loved or favoured of God. ELEALEH, El-e-ay´-leh ascension or burnt-offering of God. ELEAZAR, _El-e-ay´-zar_, the help or court of God. EL-ELOHE-ISRAEL, _El-el-ho´-he-is´-ra-el_, God, the God of Israel. ELHA´NAN, grace, gift, or mercy of God. E´LI, _E´li_, my God, my God. E´LI, the offering or lifting up. ELI´AB, God my father. ELIADA, _E-ly´-a-da_ or _E-le-ay´-da_, the knowledge of God. ELIAKIM, _E-ly´-a-kim_, the resurrection of God, God the avenger. ELI´AM, the people of God. ELI´AS. See Elijah. ELIASHIB, _E-ly´-a-shib_, the God of conversion. ELIATHAH, _E-ly´-a-thah_, thou art my God, my God comes. ELIEZER, _E-le-ee´-zer_, help or court of my God. ELIHOREPH, _E-le-ho´-ref_, the God of winter, of youth. ELI´HU, he is my God himself. ELI´JAH, God the Lord, the strong Lord. ELI´KA, pelican of God. E´LIM, the rams, the strong, the stags, the valleys. ELIMELECH, _E-lim´-me-lek_, my God is king. ELIOENAI, _El-e-o´-en-a-i_, toward him are my eyes, my fountains, toward him is my poverty or misery. ELIPHALET, _E-lif´-fa-let_, the God of deliverance. ELIPHAZ, _E-ly´-faz_, the endeavour of God. ELISABETH, _E-liz´-a-beth_, God hath sworn, the fulness of God. ELI´SHA, salvation of God. ELI´SHAH, son of Javan; it is God, God that gives help. ELISHAMAH, _E-lish´-a-mah_, God hearing. ELISHEBA, _E-lish´-e-ba_. See Elisabeth. ELISHUA, _El-e-shew´-ah_, God is my salvation. ELIUD, _E-ly´-ud_, God is my praise. ELI´ZUR, God is my strength, my rock. ELKA´NAH, God the jealous, the reed of God. ELMO´DAM, the God of measure, of the garment. ELNA´THAN, God has given. E´LON, oak, grove, strong. E´LUL, cry, outcry. ELUZAI, _E-lu´-za-i_, God is my strength. ELYMAS, _El´-e-mas_, in Arabic, a magician. E´MIMS, fears of terrors, people. EMMAUS, _Em-may´-us_ or _Em´-ma-us_, people despised. EM´MOR, an ass. E´NAM, a fountain or well, the eyes of them. EN´DOR, fountain or eye of generation. ENE´AS, laudable; from ἀινέω, “I praise.” EN-EGLAIM, _En-eg-lay´-im_, the eye of the calves, of the chariots, of roundness. EN-GEDI, _En-ge´-dy_, fountain of the goat, of happiness. EN-MISH´PAT, fountain of judgment. ENOCH, _Ee´-nok_, dedicated, disciplined, well regulated. ENON, _Ee´-non_, cloud, his fountain. ENOS, _Ee´-nos_, fallen man, subject to all kind of evil. EX-ROGEL, _En-ro´-gel_, the fuller’s fountain. EN-SHEMESH, _En-she´-mesh_, fountain of the sun. EPAPHRAS, _Ep´-pa-fras_, covered with foam. EPAPHRODITUS, _E-paf-ro-dy´-tus_, agreeable, handsome. EPENETUS, _E-pe-nee´-tus_, laudable, worthy of praise. EPHAH, _Ee´-fah_, weary, to fly as a bird. EPHES-DAMMIM, _E´-fez-dam´-mim_, the effusion or drop of blood. EPHESIANS, _E-fee´-se-ans_, the people of Ephesus. EPHESUS, _Ef´-fe-sus_, desirable; chief city of Asia Minor. EPHPHATHA, _Ef´-fa-tha_, be opened. EPHRAIM, _Ee´-fra-im_, that brings forth fruit or grows. E´PHRAIMITE, a descendant of Ephraim. EPHRATAH, _Eff-ray´-tah_, abundance, bearing fruit. EPHRATH, _Eff´-rath_, See Ephratah. EPHRATHITE, _Eff´-rath-ite_, an inhabitant of Ephratah, or a descendant from Ephraim. EPHRON, _Ef´-ron_, dust. EPICUREANS, _Ep-e-kew-re´-ans_, who gives assistance; from the Greek ἐπικȣρέω, I help. ER, watch, enemy. ERAS´TUS, lovely, amiable. E´RECH, length, health. ESAIAS, _E-zay´-e-as_. See Isaia. ESAR-HADDON, _E´-sar-had-´don_, that binds, joy, or closes the point. E´SAU, he that does or finishes. E´SEK, contention. ESH-BA´AL, the fire of the idol. ESH´COL, a bunch of grapes. ESHTAOL, _Esh´-ta-ol_, stout, strong woman. ESHTEMOA, _Esh-te-mo´-a_, which is heard, the bosom of a woman. ES´LI, near me, he that separates. ES´ROM, the dart of joy, division of the song. ESTHER, _Ess´-ter_, secret, hidden. E´TAM, their bird or covering. E´THAM, their strength or sign. E´THAN, strong, the gift of the island. ETHANIM, _Eth´-an-im_, strong, valiant. ETHBAAL, _Eth-bay´-al_, toward the idol, he that rules. ETHIOPIA, _Ee-the-o´-pe-a_, in Hebrew, Cush, blackness; in Greek it signifies heat, from ἄιθω, _I burn_, and ὄψις, _face_. ETHIOPIANS, _Ee-the-o´-pe-ans_, Africans. EUBULUS, _Yew´-bu-lus_, a prudent counsellor. EUNICE, _Yew-ny´-se_, good victory. EUODIAS, _Yew-o´-de-as_, sweet scent. EUPHRATES, _Yew-fray´-tes_, that makes fruitful. EUROC´LYDON, the north-east wind. EUTYCHUS, _Yew´-te-kus_, happy, fortunate. EVE, living, enlivening. EVIL-MERODACH, _Ee´-vil-me-ro´-dak_, or _mer´-o-dak_, the fool of Merodach, despising the bitterness of the fool. EZEKIEL, _E-zee´-ke-el_, the strength of God. E´ZEL, going abroad, distillation. EZION-GEBER, _E´-ze-on-ge´-ber_, the wood of the man, counsel of the man, of the strong. EZ´RA, a helper.

FE´LIX, happy, prosperous. FES´TUS, festival, joyful. FORTUNA´TUS, happy, prosperous.

GAAL, _Gay´al_, contempt, abomination. GAASH, _Gay´-ash_, tempest, overthrow. GABBATHA, _Gab´-ba-tha_, high, elevated. In Greek, _lithostrotos_, paved with stones. GA´BRIEL, God is my strength. GAD, a band, happy, armed and prepared. GADARENES, _Gad-a-ree´ns_, surrounded, walled. GAD´DI, my happiness, my troop, a kid. GADDIEL, _Gad´-de-el_, goat of God, the Lord is my army. GADITES, _Gad´-dites_, descendants of Gad. GAIUS, _Gay´-e-us_, lord, an earthly man. GALATIA, _Gal-ay´-she-a_, white, of the colour of milk. GALATIANS, _Gal-ay´-she-ans_, born in Galatia. GALBANUM, _Gal´-ba-num_, a gum, sweet spice. GALEED, _Gal´-e-ed_, the heap of witness. GALILEE, _Gal´-le-lee_, wheel, revolution, heap. GALILEANS, _Gal-le-lee´-ans_, inhabitants of Galilee. GAL´LIM, who heap up, cover, roll. GAL´LIO, he that sucks or lives upon milk. GAMA´LIEL, recompense, camel, weaned of God. GAM´MADIMS, soldiers placed in the towers of Tyrus; men who came from Gammade, a town of Phenicia. GA´TAM, their lowing, their touch. GATH, a press. GATH-RIM´MON, the press of the granite, exalted press. GA´ZA, strong, a goat. GE´BA, a hill, a cup. GE´BAL, bound, limit. GE´BIM, grasshoppers, height. GEDALIAH, _Ged-a-ly´-ah_, God is my greatness, fringe of the Lord. GEHAZI, _Ge-hay´-zye_, valley of sight, of the breast. GEMARI´AH, accomplishment of the Lord. GENNESARET, _Gen-ness´-a-ret_, or _Jen-ness´-a-ret_, the garden or protection of the prince. GENUBATH, _Gen´-u-bath_, theft, garden or protection of the daughter. GE´RA, pilgrimage, dispute. GE´RAH, the twentieth part of a shekel. GE´RAR. See Gera. GERGESENES, _Ger´-ge-seens_, those who come from pilgrimage or from fight. GERIZIM, _Ger´-re-zim_, cutters. GER´SHOM, a stranger there, a traveller of reputation. GER´SHON, his banishment, the change of pilgrimage. GE´SHUR, the sight of the valley, the vale of the ox or the wall. GESHURITES, _Gesh´-u-rytes_, inhabitants of Geshur. GE´THER, the vale of trial, of searching, the press of inquiry. GETHSEMANE, _Geth-sem´-a-ne_, a very fat valley. GIAH, _Gy´-ah_, to guide, draw out, a sigh. GIBEAH, _Gib´-e-ah_, a hill. GIB´EON, hill, cup, that which is without. GIB´EONITES, people of Gibeon. GID´EON, he that bruises, cutting off iniquity. GIHON, _Gy´-hon_, valley of grace, impetuous. GILBOAH, _Gil´-bo-ah_, revolution of inquiry. GILEAD, _Gil´-le-ad_, the mass of testimony. GILEADITES, _Gil´-le-ad-ites_, the inhabitants of Gilead. GIL´GAL, wheel, revolution, heap. GILOH, _Gy´-loh_, he that rejoices, overturns, or discovers. GILONITE, _Gy´-lo-nite_. GIRGASHITE, _Gir´-ga-shite_, who arrives from pilgrimage. GITTITE, _Git´-tite_, a wine press. GOB, cistern, grasshopper, eminence. GOG, roof, covering. GO´LAN, passage, revolution. GOL´GOTHA, a heap of skulls. GOLI´ATH, revolution, discovery, heap. GO´MER, to finish, accomplish, a consumer. GOMOR´RAH, a rebellious people. GO´SHEN, approaching, drawing near. GO´ZAN, fleece, pasture, nourishing the body. GRECIA, _Gree´-she-a_, Greece, the country of the Greeks. GRECIANS, _Gree´-she-ans_, Greeks, the inhabitants of Greece. GUR, the young of a beast, dwelling, fear. GURBA´AL, the whelp of the governor.

HABAKKUK, _Hab´-a-kuk_, he that embraces, a wrestler. HACHALIAH, _Hak-a-ly´-ah_, who waits for the Lord. HACHILAH, _Hak´-e-lah_, my trust is in her. HA´DAD, joy, noise. HADADEZER, _Hay´-dad-ee´-zer_, the beauty of assistance. HADAD-RIMMON, _Hay´-dad-rim´-mon_, the voice of height, the invocation of Rimmon, a god of the Syrians. HADAS´SAH, a myrtle, joy. HADO´RAM, their beauty, power, praise. HADRACH, _Hay´-drak_, point, joy of tenderness, your chamber. HA´GAR, a stranger, that fears. HAGARENES, _Hay´-gar-eens_, of the family of Hagar. HAGARITES, _Hay´-gar-ites_. See Hagarenes. HAGGAI, _Hag´-ga-i_, feast, solemnity. HAG´GITH, rejoicing. HAK´KATAN, little. HALLELUIAH, _Hal-le-lu´-yah_, praise the Lord. HAM, hot, brown. HA´MAN, noise, tumult, he that prepares. HA´MATH, anger, heat, a wall. HAMMEDATHA, _Ham-med´-a-thah_, or _Ham-me-day´-thah_, he that troubles the law. HA´MON-GOG, the multitude of Gog. HA´MOR, an ass, clay, wine. HA´MUL, godly, merciful. HAMU´TAL, the shadow of his heat, the heat of the dew. HANAMEEL, _Han-am´-e-el_, or _Han-am-ee´-el_, grace or pity from God. HANANEEL, _Han-an-ee´-el_, mercy of God. HANANI, _Han-ay´-ny_, my grace or mercy. HANANI´AH, grace or mercy of the Lord. HAN´NAH, gracious, merciful, taking rest. HA´NOCH, dedicated. HA´NUN, gracious, merciful, he that rests. HA´RAN, mountainous country, which is enclosed. HARBO´NAH, his destruction or dryness. HA´ROD, astonishment, fear. HAROSHETH, _Har-o´-sheth_, agriculture, silence, vessel of earth, forest. HASHMO´NAH, diligence, enumeration, embassy, present. HA´TACH, he that strikes. HAVILAH, _Hav´-e-lah_, that suffers pain, brings forth, declares to her. HAVOTH-JAIR, _Hay´-voth-jay´-ir_, villages that enlighten. HAZAEL, _Haz´-a-el_, that sees God. HAZARMAVETH, _Hay´-zar-may´-veth_, court or dwelling of death. HAZELELPONI, Hay´-zel-el-po´-ny, shade, sorrow of the face. HAZEROTH, _Haz-ee´-roth_, villages, court. HA´ZOR, court, hay. HE´BER, one that passes, anger. HE´BREWS, descended from Heber. HE´BRON, society, friendship, enchantment. HEGAI, or HEGE, _Heg´-a-i_, meditation, word, separation. HE´LAM, their army, trouble, or expectation. HEL´BON, milk, fatness. HELDAI, _Hel´-da-i_, or _Hel-day´-i_, the world. HE´LI, ascending, climbing up. HEL´KATH-HAZ´URIM, the field of strong men, of rocks. HE´MAN, their trouble, their tumult, much. HEN, grace, quiet. HEPHER, _Hee´-fer_, a digger or delver. HEPHZI-BAH, _Hef´-ze-bah_, my pleasure. HER´MES, _Mercury_, gain, refuge. HERMOGENES, _Her-moj´-e-nes_, begotten of Mercury, of lucre. HER´MON, anathema, destruction. HER´MONITES, the inhabitants of Hermon. HEROD, _Her´-rod_, the glory of the skin. HERODIANS, _He-ro´-de-ans_. HERO´DIAS, the wife of Herod. HERODION, _He-ro´-de-on_, song of Juno. HESH´BON, invention, industry, thought, he that hastens to understand. HETH, trembling, fear. HETH´LON, fearful dwelling, his covering. HEZEKI´AH, strong in the Lord. HEZ´RON, the dart of joy, division of the song. HIDDAI, _Hid´-da-i_, praise, cry. HIDDEKEL, _Hid´-de-kel_, a sharp voice. HI´EL, the life of God. HIERAPOLIS, _Hy-er-ap´-po-lis_, holy city. HIGGAION, _Hig-gay´-e-on_, meditation. HILKI´AH, God is my portion, the Lord’s gentleness. HIL´LEL, praising folly, Lucifer. HIN´NOM, there they are, their riches. HI´RAM, exaltation of life, their whiteness, he that destroys. HIT´TITES, who are broken or fear. HI´VITES, wicked, bad, wickedness. HO´BAB, favoured and beloved. HO´BAH, love, friendship, secrecy. HOG´LAH, his festival, his dance. HOPHNI, _Hoff´-ni_, he that covers, my fist. HOR, who conceives, shows. HO´REB, desert, destruction, dryness. HOR-HAGIDGAD, _Hor-ha-gidd´-gad_, hill of felicity. HOR´MAH, devoted to God, destruction. HORONAIM, _Hor-o-nay´-im_, anger, raging. HORONITE, _Hor´-o-nyte_, anger, fury, liberty. HOSEA, and HOSHEA, _Ho-zee´-a_, and _Ho-shee´-a_, Saviour. HUL, infirmity, bringing forth children. HUL´DAH, the world, a prophetess. HUR, liberty, whiteness, cavern. HUSHAI, _Hew´-sha-i_, their haste, sensuality, or silence. HUZ´ZAB, molten. HYMENEUS, _Hy-men-ee´-us_, nuptial, marriage.

IB´HAR, election, he that is chosen. ICHABOD, _Ik´-a-bod_, where is the glory? ICONIUM, _I-ko´-ne-um_, from ἵκω, “I come.” ID´DO, his hand, power, praise, witness. IDUMEA, _Id-ew-mee´-a_, red, earthy. IGDALI´A, the greatness of the Lord. I´JON, look, eye, fountain. ILLYRICUM, _Il-lir´-re-kum_, joy, rejoicing. IM´LAH, plenitude, repletion, circumcision. IMMAN´UEL, a name given to our Lord Jesus Christ, signifying, God with us. IM´RAH, a rebel, changing. INDIA, _In´-de-a_, praise, law. IPHEDEIAH, _If-fe-dy´-ah_, or _If-fe-dee´-ah_, the redemption of the Lord. I´RA, city, watch, spoil, heap of vision. I´RAD, wild ass, heap of descents, of empire. IRIJAH, _I-ry´-jah_, the fear, vision, or protection of the Lord. ISAAC, _I´-zak_, laughter. ISAIAH, _I-zay´-yah_, or _I-zay´-e-ah_, the salvation of the Lord. ISCAH, _Is´-kah_, he that anoints, or covers. ISCARIOT, _Is-kar´-re-ot_, is thought to signify a native of the town of Iscarioth. ISH´BAK, empty, forsaken, abandoned. ISHBI-BENOB, _Ish´-by-bee´-nob_, he that sits in the prophecy, conversion. ISH-BOSHETH, _Ish´-bo-sheth_, a man of shame. ISHMAEL, _Ish´-ma-el_, God who hears. ISHMAELITES, _Ish´-ma-el-ites_, the posterity of Ishmael. ISRAEL, _Is´-ra-el_, a prince with God, prevailing with God, that wrestleth with God. ISRAELITES, _Is´-ra-el-ites_, the posterity of Israel, or Jacob. ISSACHAR, _Is´-sa-kar_, price, reward. ITALIAN, _I-tal´-e-an_, belonging to Italy. ITALY, _It´-ta-le_, a Latin word that has its original from _vitulus_, or _vitula_, “a calf,” or from a king called _Italus_. ITH´AMAR, island of the palm tree, wo to the palm or change. ITHIEL, _Ith´-e-el_, God with me, sign. ITHREAM, _Ith´-re-am_, excellence of the people. ITUREA, _It-u-ree´-a_, which is guarded, a country of mountains. I´VAH, iniquity.

JAALAM, _Ja-ay´-lam_, hidden, young man, kids. JAAZANIA, _Ja-az-a-ny´-ah_, whom the Lord will hear, the balances, the arms. JA´BAL, which glides away, produces. JAB´BOK, evacuation, dissipation. JA´BESH, dryness, confusion, shame. JABESH-GILEAD, _Jay´-besh-gil´-e-ad_. JA´BEZ, sorrow, trouble. JA´BIN, he that understands, he that builds. JABNEEL, _Jab´-ne-el_, building, or understanding of God. JACHIN, _Jay´-kin_, that strengthens. JA´COB, he that supplants, the heel. JA´EL, he that ascends, a kid. JAH, the everlasting God. JA´HAZ, dispute, going out of the Lord. JAHAZA, _Ja-hay´-za_, the same as Jahaz. JAIR, _Jay´-er_, my light, who diffuses light. JAIRUS, _Jay´-e-rus_ or _Ja-i´-rus_, is enlightened. JAM´BRES, the sea with poverty. JAMES, _the same as_ Jacob. JAN´NA, who speaks, who answers, affliction. JANNES, _Jan´-nez_, the same as Janna. JAPHETH, _Jay´-feth_, persuades, handsome. JAPHIA, _Ja-fy´-ah_, which enlightens, groans. JA´REB, a revenger. JA´RED, he that descends or commands. JA´SHER, righteous. JA´SON, he that cures, that gives medicines. JA´VAN, that deceives, clay. JA´ZER, assistance, he that helps. JE´BUS, treads under foot, contemns. JEB´USITES, inhabitants of Jebus. JECONI´AH, preparation or steadfastness of the Lord. JEDDI´EL, the knowledge or joy of God. JEDIDAH, _Jed-dy´-dah_, well-beloved, amiable. JEDIDIAH, _Jed-e-dy´-ah_, beloved of the Lord. JEDUTHUN, _Jed-ew´-thun_ or _Jed´-ew-thun_, his law, who gives praise. JEGAR-SAHADUTHA, _Je´-gar-say-ha-dew´-tha_, the heap of witnessing. JEHOAHAZ, _Je-ho-ay´-haz_, the prize or possession of the Lord. JEHO´ASH, the fire or victim of the Lord. JEHOIACHIN, _Je-hoy´-a-kin_, preparation or strength of the Lord. JEHOIADA, _Je-hoy´-a-dah_, knowledge of the Lord. JEHOIAKIM, _Je-hoy´-a-kim_, the resurrection of the Lord. JEHON´ADAB. See Jonadab. JEHO´RAM, exaltation, rejected of the Lord. JEHOSH´APHAT, God judges. JEHO´VAH, the incommunicable name of God, self-existing. JEHOVAH-JIREH, _Je-ho´-vah-jy´-rey_, the Lord will see or provide, will be manifested. JEHO´VAH-NIS´SI, the Lord my banner. JEHOVAH-SHALOM, _Je-ho´-vah-shay´-lom_ or _shal´-lom_, the Lord send peace. JEHO´VAH-SHAM´MAH, the Lord is there. JEHO´VAH-TSID´KENU, the Lord our righteousness. JEHU, _Je´-hew_, he that is or exists. JEHUDIJAH, _Je-hew-di´-jah_, praise of the Lord. JEMI´MA, handsome as the day. JEPHTHAH, _Jef´-thah_, he that opens. JEPHUNNEH, _Je-fun´-neh_, he that beholds. JE´RAH, the moon, to scent or smell. JERAHMEEL, _Je-ram´-me-el_, mercy or love of God. JEREMI´AH, grandeur of the Lord. JERICHO, _Jer´-re-ko_, his moon, sweet smell. JER´IMOTH, eminences, he that fears or rejects death. JEROBO´AM, fighting against, increasing the people. JERUBBAAL, _Jer-uh-bay´-al_, he that revenges the idol, let Baal defend his cause. JERUBBESHETH, _Je-rub´-be-sheth_, let the idol of confusion defend itself. JERU´SALEM, the vision or possession of peace. JERU´SHA, he that possesses the inheritance, exiled. JESHIMON, _Jesh´-e-mon_, solitude, desolation. JESHUA, _Jesh´-u-a_, a Saviour. JESHURUN, _Jesh-ew´-run_, upright. JES´SE, to be, my present. JESUI, _Jes´-u-i_, who is equal, flat country. JESUITES, _Jes´-u-ites_, the posterity of Jesui. JE´SUS, the holy name Jesus, Saviour, who saveth his people from their sins. JE´THER, he that excels, remains, searches. JETH´RO, his excellence or posterity. JE´TUR, he that keeps, succession, mountainous. JE´USH, devoured, gnawed by the moth. JEW, _Jews_, so called from Judah. JEW´ESS, JEW´ISH, JEW´RY. JEZ´EBEL, island of the habitation, wo to the habitation, isle of the dunghill. JEZRAHIAH, _Jez-ra-hy´-ah_, the Lord is the east, the Lord arises, JEZREEL, _Jez´-re-el_ or _Jez-ree´-el_, seed of God, dropping of the friendship of God. JEZREELITE, _Jez´-re-el-ite_ or _Jez-ree´-el-ite_, an inhabitant of Jezreel. JIDLAPH, _Jid´-laf_, he that distils, hands joined. JO´AB, paternity, having a father, voluntary. JO´AH, who has a brother, brother of the Lord. JOAN´NA, the grace or mercy of the Lord. JO´ASH, who despairs, burns, is on fire. JOB, he that weeps, cries, or speaks out of a hollow place. JOCHEBED, _Jok´-ke-bed_, glorious, honourable, a person of merit, the glory of the Lord. JO´EL, that wills, commands, or swears. JOEZER, _Jo-ee´-zer_, he that aids. JO´HA, who enlivens and gives life. JOHA´NAN, who is liberal and grants favour. JOHN, the gift or mercy of the Lord. JOK´SHAN, hard, difficult, scandalous. JOK´TAN, small, disgust, weariness, dispute. JON´ADAB, who acts in good earnest. JO´NAH, or JO´NAS, a dove, he that oppresses. JON´ATHAN, given of God. JOP´PA, beauty, comeliness. JO´RAM, to cast, elevated. JOR´DAN, the river of judgment, that rejects judgment, descent. JO´RIM, he that exalts the Lord. JO´SE, raised, who exists, or pardons, Saviour. JOSEPH, _Jo´-sef_, increase, addition. JOSES, _Jo´-sez_. See Jose. JOSH´UA, the Lord, the Saviour. JOSI´AH, the fire of the Lord. JO´THAM, perfection of the Lord. JUBAL, _Jew´-bal_, he that runs, he that produces, a trumpet. JUBILEE, _Jew´-be-lee_, a feast of the Jews, every fiftieth year; in Hebrew, _Jobel_, a ram’s horn, or a trumpet by which the jubilee year was proclaimed. JU´DAH, the praise of the Lord. JU´DAS, the same as Judah. JUDEA, _Jew-dee´-a_, a country. JU´LIA, downy; from ἴουλος, “down.” JU´LIUS, _the same_ as Julia. JU´NIA, from _Juno_, or from _juventus_, youth. JUPITER, _Jew´-pe-ter_, as if it were _juvans pater_, the father that helpeth. JUS´TUS, just, upright.

KABZEEL, _Kab´-ze-el_, the congregation of God. KA´DESH, holiness. KADESH-BARNEA, _Kay´-desh-bar´-ne-a_ or _bar-nee´-ah_, holiness of an inconstant son, of the corn, of purity. KAD´MIEL, God of rising. KE´DAR, blackness, sorrow. KEDEMAH, _Ked´-de-mah_, oriental. KEDEMOTH, _Ked´-de-moth_, old age, orientals. KEILAH, _Ky´-lah_, she that divides or cuts. KEMUEL, _Kem´-u-el_, God is risen. KE´NAZ, this nest, lamentation, possession. KE´NITES, possession, lamentation, nest. KEREN-HAPPUCH, _Kee´-ren-hap´-puk_, the horn or child of beauty. KERIOTH, _Ker´-re-oth_, the cities, the callings. KETURAH, _Ke-tew´-rah_, he that burns or makes the incense to fume, odoriferous. KEZIAH, _Ke-zy´-ah_, superficies, angle, cassia. KE´ZIZ, end, extremity. KIBROTH-HATTAAVAH, _Kib´-roth-hat-tay´-a-vah_, the graves of lust. KID´RON, obscurity, obscure. KIR, a city, a wall, a meeting. KIR-HARASETH, _Kir-har´-ra-seth_, the city of the sun. KIRIATHAIM, _Kir´-e-ath-ay´-im_, the two cities, the callings. KIR´-JATH, city, vocation, lesson, meeting. KIR´-JATH-AR´BA, the city of four. KIR´JATH-A´RIM, city of cities, the city of those that watch. KIR´JATH-BA´AL, the city of Baal, of those that command, of those that possess. KIRJATH-JEARIM, _Kir´-jath-je´-a-rim_, the city of woods. KIR´JATH-SAN´NAH, the city of the bush, of enmity. KIRJATH-SEPHER, _Kir´-jath-see´-fer_, the city of letters, of the book. KISH, hard, difficult, straw. KIS´RON, making sweet, perfuming. KIT´TIM, they that bruise, gold, colouring. KO´HATH, congregation, obedience, to make blunt. KOHATHITES, _Ko´-hath-ites_, the posterity of Kohath. KO´RAH, bald, frozen.

LA´BAN, white, shining, gentle. LACHISH, _Lay´-kish_, she walks, who exists of himself. LA´EL, to God, to the Almighty. LAH´MI, my bread, my war. LA´ISH, a lion. LA´MECH, poor, made low, who is struck. LAODICEA, _Lay-o-de-see´-a_, just people. LAODICEANS, _Lay-o-de-see´-ans_, inhabitants of Laodicea. LAPEDOTH, _Lap´-pe-doth_, enlightened, lamps. LAZARUS, _Laz´-za-rus_, the help of God. LE´AH, weary, tired. LEB´ANON, white, incense. LEBBEUS, _Leb-bee´-us_, a man of heart. LEHABIM, _Le´-ha-bim_ or _Le-hay´-bim_, flames, the points of a sword. LE´HI, jaw bone. LEM´UEL, God with them. LE´VI, who is held and associated. LE´VITES, the posterity of Levi. LIB´NAH, LIB´NI, white, whiteness. LIBYA, _Lib´-e-a_, in Hebrew, Lubim, the heart of the sea. LIBYANS, _Lib´-e-ans_, the people of Libya. LI´NUS, nets. LO-AM´MI, not my people. LO´IS, better. LO-RUHAMAH, _Lo-ru-hay´-mah_, not having obtained mercy, not pitied. LOT, wrapt up, myrrh, rosin. LU´CAS, luminous. LU´CIFER, _Lu´-se-fer_, bringing light. LUCIUS, _Lu´-she-us_. See Lucas. LUD, maturity, generation. LUKE. See Lucas. LUZ, separation, departure. LYCAONIA, _Ly-ka-o´-ne-a_, she-wolf. LYD´DA, the name of a city. LYSA´NIAS, that drives away sorrow. LYS´TRA, that dissolves or disperses.

MAACHAH, _May´-a-kah_, to squeeze. MAASEIAH, _Ma-a-sy´-ah_, the work of the Lord. MACEDONIA, _Mas-se-do´-ne-a_, adoration, prostration. MACHIR, _May´-kir_, he that sells or knows. MACHPELAH, _Mak-pee´-lah_, double. MAGDALA, _Mag´-da-lah_, tower, greatness. MAGDALENE, _Mag´-da-le´-ne_, tower, grand, elevated. MA´GOG, roof, that dissolves. MAGOR-MISSABIB, _May´-gor-mis´-sa-bib_, fear, round about. MAHALALEEL, _Ma-ha-la-lee´-el_, he that praises God. MAHALATH, _Ma-hay´-lath_, melodious song, infirmity. MAHANAIM, _Ma-ha-nay´-im_, the two fields or armies. MAHER-SHALAL-HASH-BAZ, _May´-er-shal´-al-hash´-baz_, making speed to the spoil. MAH´LAH, _the same as_ Mahalath. MAH´LON, song, infirmity. MAKKEDAH, _Mak´-ke-dah_, adoration, prostration. MALCHAM, _Mal´-kam_, their king. MALCHI-SHUA, _Mal´-ke-shew´-ah_, my king is a saviour. MALCHUS, _Mal´-kus_, king or kingdom. MAM´MON, riches. MAM´RE, rebellious, bitter, that changes. MANAEN, _Man´-a-en_, or _Ma-nay´-en_, a comforter, he that conducts them. MANAS´SEH, forgetfulness, he that is forgotten. MANEH, _May´-neh_, a species of money. MANOAH, _Ma-no´-ah_, rest, a present. MA´ON, house, crime. MA´RA, bitterness. MA´RAH, _the same as_ Mara. MAR´CUS, polite, shining. MARK, _the same as_ Marcus. MARS-HILL´, the place where the judges of Athens held their supreme council. MAR´THA, who becomes bitter. MA´RY, exalted, bitterness of the sea, mistress of the sea. MASREKAH, _Mas´-re-kah_, whistling, hissing. MAS´SAH, temptation. MA´TRI, rain, prison. MAT´TAN, the reins, the death of them. MATTATHIAS, _Mat-ta-thy´-as_, the gift of the Lord. MAT´THAT, gift, he that gives. MATTH´EW, given, a reward. MATTHIAS, _Ma-thy´-as_. See Mattathias. MAZ´ZAROTH, the twelve signs. ME´DAD, he that measures, the water of love. ME´DAN, judgment, process, measure, covering. MEDES, _Mee´ds_, people of Media. MEDIA, _Mee´-de-a_, measure, covering, abundance. MEGIDDO, _Me-gid´-do_, that declares, his precious fruit. MEGIDDON, _Me-gid´-don_, the same as Megiddo. MEHETABEL, _Me-het´-ta-ble_, how good is God! MEHUJAEL, _Me-hu-jay´-el_, who proclaims God, God that blots out. MELCHI, _Mel´-ky_, my king, my counsel. MELCHIZEDEK, _Mel-kiz´-ze-dek_, king of righteousness. MELITA, _Me-ly´-ta_ or _Me-lee´-ta_, affording honey. MEMPHIS, _Mem´-fis_, by the mouth. MEMUCAN, _Me-mew´-kan_, impoverished, to prepare, certain, true. MENAHEM, _Men´-na-hem_, comforter, who conducts them. MENE, _Mee´ne_, who reckons, who is counted. MEPHIBOSHETH, _Me-fib´-bo-sheth_, out of my mouth proceeds reproach. ME´RAB, he that fights, he that multiplies. MERARI, _Me-ray´-ry_, bitter, to provoke. MERCU´RIUS, a false god; from the Latin word mercari, “to buy or sell,” because he presided over merchandise; in Greek, _hermes_, “orator” or “interpreter.” MERIB-BAAL, _Mer-ib´-ba-al_ or _Mer´-ib-bay´-al_, rebellion, he that resists Baal, and strives against the idol. MERIBAH, _Mer´-re-bah_, dispute, quarrel. MERODACH, _Mer´-ro-dak_, bitter, contrition; in Syriac, the little lord. MERODACH-BALADAN, _Mer´-ro-dak-bal´-la-dan_ or _ba-lay´-dan_, who creates contrition, the son of death, of thy vapour. ME´ROM, eminences, elevations. ME´ROZ, secret, leanness. MESHACH, _Mee´-shak_, that draws with force, that surrounds the waters. MESHECH, _Mee´-shek_, who is drawn by force, shut up, surrounded. MESHELEMIAH, _Mesh-el-e-my´-ah_, peace, perfection, retribution of the Lord. MESOPOTAMIA, _Mes-o-po-tay´-me-a_, in Hebrew, _Aramnaharaim_, that is, “Syria of the two rivers.” In Greek it also signifies “between two rivers;” from μέσος, “middle,” and ϖόταμος, “river.” MESSIAH, _Mes-sy´-ah_, anointed. ME´THEG-AM´MAH, the bridle of bondage. METHUSAEL, _Me-thew´-sa-el_, who demands his death. METHUSELAH, _Me-thew´-se-lah_, he has sent his death. MI´CAH, poor, humble, who strikes, is there. MICAIAH, _My-kay´-e-ah_, who is like to God? the lowliness of God. MICHAIAH, _My-kay´-e-ah_, MICHAEL, _My´-ka-el_, the same as Micaiah. MICHAL, _My´-kal_, who is it that has all? who is perfect? MICHMASH, _Mik´-mash_, he that strikes, the poor taken away. MIDIAN, _Mid´-de-an_, judgment, measure, covering. MIDIANITES, _Mid´-de-an-ites_, people of Midian. MIG´DOL, a tower, greatness. MIG´RON, fear, a barn, from the throat. MIL´CAH, queen. MIL´COM, their king. MILETUM, _My-lee´-tum_, red, scarlet. MIL´LO, fulness, repletion. MIN´NI, disposed, reckoned. MIN´NITH, counted, prepared. MIRIAM, _Mir´-re-am_, exalted, bitterness of the sea, mistress of the sea. MIS´GAB, the high fort or rock. MISHAEL, _Mish´-a-el_, asked for, lent, God takes away. MISREPHOTH-MAIM, _Mis´-re-foth-may´-im_, the burnings of the waters, furnaces where metals are melted. MITYLENE, _Mit-e-lee´-ne_, purity, press. MI´ZAR, little. MIZ´PAH, a sentinel, speculation, that waits for. MIZ´PEH, _the same as_ Mizpah. MIZRAIM, _Miz-ray´-im_, tribulations, in straits. MNASON, _Nay´-son_, a diligent seeker, betrothing, an exhorter. MO´AB, of the father. MO´ABITES, _Mo´-ab-ites_, the descendants of Moab. MOLADAH, _Mol´-a-dah_, or _Mo-lay´-dah_, birth, generation. MOLECH, _Mo´-lek_, king. MOLOCH, _Mo´-lok_, the same as Molech. MORDECAI, _Mor´-de-kay_, contrition, bitter bruising; in Syriac, pure myrrh. MORI´AH, bitterness or fear of the Lord. MOSERA, _Mo-see´-ra_, MOSEROTH, _Mo-see´-roth_, erudition, discipline, bond. MO´SES, taken out of the water. MU´SHI, he that touches, withdraws himself. MY´RA, from μύρω, _I flow_, _pour out_, _weep_. MYSIA, _Mish´-e-a_, criminal, abominable.

NAAMAN, _Na-ay´-man_, beautiful, agreeable, that prepares himself to motion. NAAMATHITE, _Na-ay´-ma-thite_, of Naamath. NAASHON, _Na-ash´-on_, that foretels, serpent. NA´BAL, a fool, senseless. NA´BOTH, words, prophecies, fruits. NA´DAB, free and voluntary gift, prince. NAGGE, _Nag´-gee_, brightness. NAHARAI, _Na-har´-ra-i_ or _Na-ha-ray´-i_, my nostrils, hoarse, hot. NAHASH, _Nay´-hash_, snake, one that foretels, brass. NA´HOR, hoarse, hot, angry. NAHSHON, _Nay´-shon_. See Naashon. NA´HUM, comforter, penitent, their guide. NA´IN, beauty, pleasantness. NAIOTH, _Nay´-e-oth_, beauties, habitations. NAOMI, _Na-o´-my_, beautiful, agreeable. NAPHISH, _Nay´-fish_, the soul, he that refreshes himself, that respires; in Syriac, that multiplies. NAPHTALI, _Naf´-ta-ly_, comparison, likeness, that fights. NARCISSUS, _Nar-sis´-sus_, astonishment. NA´THAN, who gives, or is given. NATHANAEL, _Na-than´-yel_, the gift of God. NATHAN-MELECH, _Nay´-than-me´-lek_, gift of the king. NA´UM. See Nahum. NAZARENE, _Naz-a-ree´n_, kept, flower. NAZARETH, _Naz´-a-reth_, separated, sanctified. NEAPOLIS, _Ne-ap´-po-lis_, new city. NEBAIOTH, _Ne-bay´-yoth_, prophecies, fruits. NE´BAT, that beholds. NE´BO, that speaks, prophesies, or fructifies. NEBUCHADNEZZAR, _Neb-ew-kad-nez´-zar_, tears and groans of judgment. NEBUZAR-ADAN, _Neb-ew-zar´-ra-dan_, fruits or prophecies of judgment, winnowed, spread. NECHO, _Nee´-ko_, lame, who was beaten. NEHELAMITE, _Ne-hel´-a-myte_, dreamer, vale, brook. NEHEMIAH, _Ne-he-my´-ah_, consolation, repentance, or rest of the Lord. NEHILOTH, _Ne-hee´-loth_, flute, hautboy, cornet. NEHUSHTA, _Ne-hush´-tah_, snake, soothsayer. NEHUSH´TAN, which is of brass or copper, a trifle of brass. NER, lamp, brightness, land new tilled. NEREUS, _Nee´-re-us_. See Ner. NERI, _Nee´-ry_, my light. NERI´AH, light and lamp of the Lord. NETHANEEL, _Ne-than´-ne-el_. See Nathanael. NETHANIA, _Neth-a-ny´-ah_, the gift of the Lord. NETHINIMS, _Neth´-e-nims_, given, offered. NIB´HAZ, that fructifies, to prophesy, to speak. NICANOR, _Ny-kay´-nor_, a conqueror, victorious. NICODEMUS, _Nik-o-dee´-mus_, innocent blood; in Greek, the victory of the people. NICOLAITANS, _Nik-o-lay´-e-tanz_, the followers of Nicolas. NICOLAS, _Nik´-o-las_, victor of the people; from νικάω, I overcome, and λαὸς, the people. NICOPOLIS, _Ny-kop´-po-lis_, the city of victory. NIGER, _Ny´-jer_, black. NIM´RIM, leopard, rebellion, change. NIM´ROD, rebellious, sleep of descent. NIM´SHI, rescued from danger, that touches. NINEVEH, _Nin´-ne-veh_, agreeable dwelling. NINEVITES, _Nin´-ne-vites_, people of Nineveh. NI´SAN, banner; in Syriac, a miracle. NIS´ROCH, flight, standard, proof. NO, stirring up, a forbidding. NOADI´AH, witness of the Lord. NO´AH, repose, rest, consolation. NOB, discourse, prophecy. NO´BAH, that barks or yelps. NOD, vagabond. NOPH, _Noff_, honey comb, a sieve, that drops. NUN, son, posterity, durable. NYMPHAS, _Nim´-fas_, spouse, bridegroom.

OBADI´AH, servant of the Lord. O´BAL, inconvenience of old age, of the flux. O´BED, a servant. O´BED-E´DOM, the servant of Edom, the Idumean, labourer of the man. O´BIL, that weeps, deserves to be bewailed, ancient. OC´RAN, disturber. O´DED, to sustain, to lift up. OG, a cake, bread baked in the ashes. O´HEL, tent, tabernacle, brightness. OLYMPAS, _O-lim´-pas_, heavenly. O´MAR, he that speaks, bitter. OMEGA, _O-mee´-ga_, the last letter of the Greek alphabet. OM´RI, a sheaf of corn, rebellion, bitter. ON, pain, force, iniquity. O´NAN, pain, strength, iniquity. ONESIMUS, _O-nes´-se-mus_, profitable, useful. ONESIPHORUS, _On-ne-sif´-fo-rus_, who brings profit. OPHEL, _O´-fel_, tower, obscurity. OPHIR, _O´-fir_, ashes. OPHRAH, _Off´-rah_, dust, fawn, lead. O´REB, a raven, caution, evening. ORION, _O-ry´-on_, the name of a constellation. OR´NAN, that rejoices, their bow or ark. OR´PAH, the neck, skull, nakedness of the mouth. OTH´NI, my time, my hour. OTHNIEL, _Oth´-ne-el_, the hour of God. O´ZEM, that fasts, their eagerness. OZIAS, _O-zy´-as_, strength from the Lord.

PAARAI, _Pay´-a-ray_ or _Pay-a´-ry_, opening. PADAN-ARAM, _Pay´-dan-ay´-ram_, _Padan_ of the field, and _Aram_ Syria. PAGIEL, _Pay´-je-el_, prevention or prayer of God. PALESTINA, _Pal-es-ty´-na_, which is covered. PAL´TI, deliverance, flight. PAMPHYLIA, _Pam-fil´-le-a_, a nation made up of every tribe; from ϖᾶς, _all_, and φυλὴ, a _tribe_. PAPHOS, _Pay´-fos_, which boils, is very hot. PA´RAN, beauty, glory, ornament. PAR´BAR, a gate or building belonging to the temple. PAR´MENAS, that abides and is permanent. PAROSH, _Pay´-rosh_, a flea, fruit of the moth. PARSHANDATHA, _Par-shan´-da-tha_, revelation of corporeal impurities, of his trouble. PARTHIANS, _Par´-the-ans_, horsemen. PARUAH, _Pa-rew´-ah_, flourishing, that flies away. PARVA´IM, supposed to be Peru or Ceylon. PASH´UR, that extends the hole, whiteness. PATARA, _Pa-tay´-rah_, which is trodden under foot; from ϖατέω, _I tread under foot_. PATHROS, _Path´-ros_ or _Pay´-thros_, mouthful of dew. PAT´MOS, mortal. PATROBAS, _Pat´-ro-bas_, paternal, that pursues the steps of his father. PAU, _Pay´-ew_, that cries aloud, appears. PAUL, PAUL´US, a worker. His former name was SAUL, a sepulchre, a destroyer. PEDAHZUR, _Ped-ah´-zur_, saviour, strong and powerful, stone of redemption. PEDAIAH, _Ped-ay´-e-ah_, redemption of the Lord. PE´KAH, he that opens, or is at liberty. PEKAHIAH, _Pek-a-hy´-ah_, it is the Lord that opens. PE´KOD, noble, rulers. PELATI´AH, let the Lord deliver. PE´LEG, division. PELETHITES, _Pel´-eth-ites_, judges, destroyers. PENIEL, _Pe-ny´-el_, face or vision of God. PENIN´NAH, precious stone, his face. PENU´EL. See Peniel. PEOR, _Pee´-or_, hold, opening. PER´GA, very earthy. PER´GAMOS, height, elevation. PERIZZITES, _Per´-iz-zytes_, the name of a people who dwell in villages. PER´SIA, _Per´sis_, that cuts, nail, horseman. PE´TER, a rock, a stone. PETHU´EL, mouth or persuasion of God. PHALEC, _Fay´-lek_. See Peleg. PHALLU, _Fal´-lu_, admirable, hidden. PHALTI, _Fal´-ty_, deliverance, flight. PHANUEL, _Fa-new´-el_, face or vision of God. PHARAOH, _Fay´-ro_, that disperses, that discovers; according to the Syriac, the revenger, the king, the crocodile. PHAREZ, _Fay´-rez_, division, rupture. PHARPAR, _Far´-par_, that produces fruits, fall of the bull. PHEBE, _Fee´-be_, shining, pure. PHENICE, _Fe-ny´-se_, red, purple. PHICHOL, _Fy´-kol_, the mouth of all, perfection. PHILADELPHIA, _Fil-a-del´-fe-a_, the love of a brother; from φιλία, _love_, and ἀδέλφος, a _brother_. PHILEMON, _Fil-ee´-mon_, or _Fy-lee´-mon_, that is affectionate. PHILETUS, _Fil-ee´-tus_ or _Fy-lee´-tus_, amiable, beloved. PHIL´IP, warlike, a lover of horses. PHILIPPI, _Fil-lip´-py_, the same as Philip. PHILISTIA, _Fil-lis´-te-a_ or _Fy-lis´-te-a_, the country of the Philistines. PHILISTINES, _Fil-lis´-tines_ or _Fil-lis´-tins_, those that dwell in villages. PHILOLOGUS, _Fil-lol´-lo-gus_, lover of learning. PHINEHAS, _Fin´-ne-has_, a bold countenance. PHLEGON, _Fle´-gon_, zealous, burning. PHRYGIA, _Frij´-e-a_, dry, barren. PHURAH, _Few´-rah_, that bears fruit, that grows. PHYGELLUS, _Fy-jel´-lus_, fugitive. PI-BE´SETH, the mouth of despite. PI-HAHIROTH, _Py-ha-hy´-roth_, the mouth, the pass of Hiroth, the opening of liberty. PI´LATE, who is armed with a dart. PI´NON, gem, that beholds. PIRATHON, _Pir´-a-thon_, his dissipation, deprivation; in Syriac, his vengeance. PIS´GAH, hill, eminence, fortress. PISIDIA, _Py-sid´-e-a_, pitch, pitchy. PI´SON, changing, doubling, extended. PI´THOM, their mouthful, bit, consummation. PI´THON, his mouth, his persuasion. POL´LUX, a boxer. PONTIUS, _Pon´-she-us_, marine, belonging to the sea. PON´TUS, the sea; from ϖόντος. PORATHA, _Por´-a-tha_, fruitful. PORCIUS, _Por´-she-us_. POTIPHAR, _Pot´-te-far_, bull of Africa, fat bull. POTI-PHERAH, _Pot-if´-fe-rah_ or _Pot-e-fee´-rah_, that scatters or demolishes the fat. PRISCA, _Pris´-kah_, ancient. PRISCILLA, _Pris-sil´-lah_, the same as Prisca. PROCHORUS, _Prok´-o-rus_, he that presides over the choirs. PUBLIUS, _Pub´-le-us_, common. PUDENS, _Pew´-dens_, shamefaced. PUL, bean, destruction. PU´NON, precious stone, that beholds. PUR, lot. PUTEOLI, _Pew-tee´-o-ly_, a city in Campania. PUTIEL, _Pew´-te-el_, God is my fatness.

QUAR´TUS, the fourth.

RAAMAH, _Ray´-a-mah_ or _Ra-ay´-mah_, greatness, thunder, evil, bruising. RAAMSES, _Ra-am´-ses_. See Rameses. RAB´BAH, powerful, contentious. RAB´-MAG, who overthrows a multitude, chief of the magicians. RAB´-SARIS, grand master of the eunuchs. RAB´-SHAKEH, cup-bearer of the prince, chamberlain. RACHAB, _Ray´-kab_, proud, strong, enlarged. RACHAL, _Ray´-kal_, injurious, perfumer. RACHEL, _Ray´-tshel_, a sheep. RAGAU, _Ray´-gaw_, a friend, a neighbour. RAGUEL, _Rag-ew´-el_, shepherd or friend of God. RA´HAB, proud, strong, quarrelsome. RA´HAB, large, extended, public place. RAK´KATH, empty, spittle. RAK´KON, vain, mountain of lamentations. RAM, elevated, who rejects. RAMAH, _Ray´-mah_, the same as Ram. RAMATH, _Ray´-math_, raised, lofty. RAMATHAIM-ZOPHIM, _Ra-math-ay´-im-zo´-fim_, the same as Ramah. RA´MATH-LE´HI, elevation of the jaw bone. RAMESES, _Ram´-e-ses_, thunder, he that destroys evil. RAMIAH, _Ram-i´-ah_, exaltation of the Lord. RA´MOTH, high places. RAPHA, _Ray´-fa_, relaxation, physic. RAPHAEL, _Ray-fay´-el_. See Rephael. RAPHU, _Ray´-few_, cured, comforted. RE´BA, the fourth, a square, that stoops. REBEK´AH, fat, quarrel appeased. RECHAB, _Re´-kab_, square, chariot, rider. RECHABITES, _Re´-kab-ites_, the posterity of Rechab. RE´GEM, _Re´-jem_, that stones, purple. REGEM-MELECH, _Re-jem´-me-lek_, he that stones the king, the purple of the king. REHABI´AH, breadth, place of the Lord. RE´HOB, breadth, extent. REHOBO´AM, who sets the people at liberty, space of the people. REHO´BOTH, spaces, places. RE´HUM, compassionate, friendly. RE´I, my shepherd, companion, my evil. REMALI´AH, the exaltation of the Lord. REM´MON, greatness, a pomegranate tree. REMPHAN, _Rem´-fan_, the name of an idol, which some think to be Saturn. REPHAEL, _Re´-fa-el_, the medicine of God. REPHAIM, REPHAIMS, _Re-fay´-im_, giant, physician, relaxed. REPHIDIM, _Ref´-e-dim_, beds, places of rest. RESIN, _Ree´-sen_, a bridle or bit. REU, _Ree´-ew_, his friend, his shepherd. REUBEN, _Rew´-ben_, who sees the son, vision of the son. REU´BENITES, the posterity of Reuben. REUEL, _Re-yew´-el_, shepherd or friend of God. REUMAH, _Re-yew´-mah_, lofty, sublime. REZEPH, _Ree´-zeff_, a pavement, burning coal. RE´ZIN, voluntary, runner. RE´ZON, lean, secret, prince. RHEGIUM, _Ree´-je-um_, rupture, fracture. RHESA, _Ree´-sah_, will, course. RHODA, _Ro´-dah_, a rose. RHODES, _Ro´des_, the same as Rhoda. RIB´LAH, quarrel that increases or spreads. RIM´MON, exalted, pomegranate. RIPHATH, _Ry´-fath_, remedy, release. RIS´SAH, watering, distillation, dew. RIZ´PAH, bed, extension, coal. ROGEL, _Ro´-jel_, a foot; in Syriac, custom. ROMAMTI-EZER, _Ro-mam-te-ee´-zer_, exultation of help. RO´MAN, strong, powerful. ROME, strength, power; from ῥωμὴ. ROSH, the head, the beginning. RU´FUS, red. RUHAMAH, _Ru-hay´-mah_, having obtained mercy. RU´MAH, exalted, rejected. RUTH, filled, satisfied.

SABE´ANS, captivity, conversion, old age. SABTECHA, _Sab´-te-kah_, that surrounds. SA´DOC, just, justified. SA´LAH, mission, dart; according to the Syriac, that spoils. SALAMIS, _Sal´-la-mis_, shaken, tossed, beaten. SALATHIEL, _Sal-ay´-the-el_, I have asked of God. SA´LEM, complete, peace. SA´LIM. See Shalim. SAL´MON, peaceable, perfect, that rewards. SALMONE, _Sal-mo´-ne_, peaceable. SALOME, _Sa-lo´-me_. See Salmon. SAMARIA, _Sa-may´-re-a_, his guard, prison, or diamond; in Hebrew, _Shomeron_. SAMAR´ITANS, people of Samaria. SAM´LAH, raiment, his left hand, his name. SA´MOS, full of gravel. SAMOTHRACIA, _Sam-o-thray´-she-a_, an island so called because it was peopled by Samians and Thracians. SAM´SON, his sun; according to the Syriac, his service, here the second time. SAM´UEL, heard or asked of God. SANBAL´LAT, bush or enemy in secret. SAPH, _Saff_, rushes, end, threshold. SAPHIR, _Saf´fir_ or _Say´-fir_, a city. SAPPHIRA, _Saf-fy´-rah_, that tells, that writes books. SA´RAH, lady, princess of the multitude. SARAI, _Say´-ray_, my lady, my princess. SAR´DIS, prince or song of joy, what remains; in Syriac, a pot or kettle. SAREP´TA, a goldsmith’s shop, where metals used to be melted and tried. SAR´GON, who takes away protection, who takes away the garden; according to the Syriac, nets, snares. SA´RON. See Sharon. SARSECHIM, _Sar-see´-kim_, master of the wardrobe, of the perfumes. SARUCH, _Say´-ruk_, branch, layer, twining. SA´TAN, contrary, adversary, an accuser. SAUL, demanded, sepulchre, destroyer. SCEVA, _See´-vah_, disposed, prepared. SCYTHIAN, _Sith´-e-an_, tanner, leather-dresser. SE´BA, drunkard, that surrounds; according to the Syriac, old man. SE´BAT, twig, sceptre, tribe. SE´CUNDUS, the second. SE´GUB, fortified, raised. SEIR, _See´-er_, hairy, demon, tempest, barley. SE´LAH, a rock. SELEUCIA, _Se-lew´-she-a_, beaten by waves, runs as a river. SEMEI, _Sem´-me-i_, or _Se-mee´-i_, hearing, obeying. SE´NEH, bush. SE´NIR, a sleeping candle, a changing. SENNACHERIB, _Sen-nak´-ke-rib_, bush of the destruction of the sword, of drought. SEPHAR, _See´-far_, a book, scribe; in Syriac, a haven. SEPHARAD, _See-fay´-rad_, a book, descending, ruling. SEPHARVAIM, _Sef-ar-vay´-im_, two books, two scribes. SE´RAH, lady of scent, song, the morning. SERAIAH, _Se-ra-i´-ah_ or _Se-ray´-yah_, prince of the Lord. SERGIUS, _Ser´-je-us_, a net. SE´RUG. See Saruch. SETH, put, who puts. SHAALBIM, _Shay-alb´-im_, that beholds the heart. SHAARAIM, _Shay-a-ray´-im_, gates, valuation, hairs, barley, tempests, demons. SHAASHGAZ, _Shay-ash´-gaz_, he that presses the fleece. SHADRACH, _Shay´-drak_, tender nipple, tender field. SHA´LIM, fox, fist, path. SHALISHA, _Shal´-e-shah_, three, the third, prince. SHAL´LECHETH, a casting out. SHAL´LUM, perfect, peaceable. SHAL´MAN, peaceable, perfect, that rewards. SHALMANEZER, _Shal-ma-nee´-zer_, peace tied, perfection and retribution. SHAM´GAR, named a stranger, he is here a stranger, surprise of the stranger. SHAM´HUTH, desolation, astonishment. SHA´MIR, prison, bush, lees. SHAM´MAH, loss, desolation, astonishment. SHAMMUAH, _Sham´-mew-ah_, that is heard or obeyed. SHAPHAN, _Shay´-fan_, a rabbit, wild rat, their lip. SHAPHAT, _Shay´-fat_, a judge. SHARAI, _Shar´-a-i_ or _Sha-ray´-i_, my lord, my song. SHAREZER, _Shar-ee´-zer_, overseer of the treasury. SHA´RON, his plain, field, song. SHA´SHAK, a bag of linen, the sixth bag. SHA´VEH, the plain, that makes equality. SHEALTIEL, _She-al´-te-el_, I have asked of God. SHEARIAH, _She-a-ry´-ah_, gate or tempest of the Lord. SHE´AR-JA´SHUB, the remnant shall return. SHE´BA, captivity, compassing about, repose, old age. SHEBANIAH, _Sheb-a-ny´-ah_, the Lord that converts, that recals from captivity, that understands. SHEB´NA, who rests himself, who is now captive. SHECHEM, _Shee´-kem_, portion, the back, shoulders. SHEDEUR, _Shee´-de-ur_ or _Shed´-e-ur_, field, destroyer of fire. SHE´LAH, that breaks, that undresses. SHELEMIAH, _Shel-le-my´-ah_, God is my perfection, my happiness. SHELEPH, _Shee´-lef_, who draws out. SHEL´OMITH, my happiness, my recompense. SHELUMIEL, _Shel-ew-my´-el_, happiness, retribution of God. SHEM, name, renown, he that places. SHEMAIAH, _She-ma-i´-ah_ or _Shem-ay´-yah_, that obeys the Lord. SHEMARIAH, _Shem-a-ry´-ah_, God is my guard, diamond. SHEMEBER, _Shem´-me-ber_, name of force, fame of the strong. SHEMER, _Shee´-mer_, guardian, thorn. SHEMIDA, _She-my´-dah_, name of knowledge, that puts knowledge, the science of the heavens. SHEMINITH, _Shem´-me-nith_, the eighth. SHEMIRAMOTH, _She-mir´-ra-moth_, the height of the heavens, the elevation of the name. SHEN, tooth, change, he that sleeps. SHENIR, _Shee´-nir_, lantern, light that sleeps, he that shows. SHEPHATIAH, _Shef-a-ty´-ah_, the Lord that judges. SHESHACH, _Shee´-shak_, bag of flax, the sixth bag. SHESHBAZZAR, _Shesh-baz´-zar_, joy in tribulation, or of vintage. SHETH. See Seth. SHETHER-BOZNAI, _Shee´-ther-boz´-na-i_, that makes to rot and corrupt. SHE´VA, vanity, elevation, fame, tumult. SHIBBOLETH, _Shib´-bo-leth_, burden, ear of corn. SHICRON, _Shy´-kron_, drunkenness, his wages. SHIGGAION, _Shig-gay´-yon_, a song of trouble. SHIGIONOTH, _Shig-gy´-on-oth_, mournful music. SHILOAH, _Shy-lo´-ah_. See Siloah. SHI´LOH, sent, the Apostle. SHI´LOH, peace, abundance. SHILONITE, _Shy´-lo-nyte_, of the city of Shiloh. SHIMEAH, _Shim´-me-ah_, that hears, that obeys. SHIMEI, _Shim´-me-i_, that hears, name of the heap, my reputation. SHIMSHAI, _Shim´-shay_, my sun. SHINAR, _Shy´-nar_, the watching of him that sleeps, change of the city. SHIPHRAH, _Shif´-rah_, handsome, trumpet, that does good. SHI´SHAK, present of the bag, of the pot, of the thigh. SHIT´TIM, that turn away, scourges, rods. SHO´A, tyrants. SHO´BAB, returned, turned back. SHO´BACH, your bonds, your nets, his captivity; according to the Syriac, a dove house. SHOCHOH, _Sho´-koh_, defence, a bough. SHOSHAN´NIM, lilies of the testimony. SHU´AH, pit, humiliation, meditation. SHU´AL, fox, hand, fist, traces, way. SHU´HITE, a descendant of Shuah. SHU´LAMITE, peaceable, perfect, that recompenses. SHU´NAMITE, a native of Shunem. SHU´NEM, their change, their sleep. SHUR, wall, ox. SHU´SHAN, lily, rose, joy. SHU´THELAH, plant, verdure, moist pot. SIB´MAH, conversion, captivity, old age, rest. SICHEM, _Sy´-kem_. See Shechem. SI´DON, hunting, fishing, venison. SIGIONOTH, _Sig-gy´-o-noth_, according to variable tunes. SI´HON, rooting out, conclusion. SI´HOR, black, trouble, early in the morn. SI´LAS, three, the third. SILOAS, _Sil´-o-as_ or _Sy-lo´-as_, SILOAM, _Sil´-o-am_ or _Sy-lo´-am_, sent, dart, branch. SILOE, _Sil´-o-e_ or _Sy-lo´-e_, the same as Siloas. SILVA´NUS, one who loves the woods. SIM´EON, that hears or obeys. SI´MON, that hears or obeys. SIN, bush. SINAI, _Sy´-nay_ or _Sy´-nay-i_, bush, according to the Syriac, enmity. SI´NIM, the south country. SI´ON, noise, tumult. SI´RAH, turning aside, rebellion. SIRION, _Sir´-re-on_, a breastplate, deliverance. SISERA, _Sis´-se-rah_, that sees a horse or swallow. SI´VAN, bush, thorn. SMYR´NA, myrrh. SO, a measure for grain or dry matters. SO´COH, tents, tabernacles. SO´DI, my secret. SODOM, _Sod´-dom_, their secret, their lime, their cement. SODOMITES, _Sod´-dom-ites_, inhabitants of Sodom. SOL´OMON, peaceable, perfect, one who recompenses. SOPATER, _So-pay´-ter_, who defends or saves his father. SO´REK, hissing, a colour inclining to yellow. SOSIPATER, _So-se-pay´-ter_. See Sopater. SOSTHENES, _Sos´-the-nes_, a strong and powerful saviour. SPAIN, rare, precious. STACHYS, _Stay´-kis_, spike; from ϛάχυς. STEPHANAS, _Stef´-fa-nas_, a crown, crowned. STE´PHEN, _the same as_ Stephanas. SUC´COTH, tents, tabernacles. SUC´COTH-BE´NOTH, the tabernacles of young women. SUK´KIIMS, covered, shadowed. SUR, that withdraws or departs. SUSAN´NA, a lily, a rose, joy. SUSI, _Su´-sy_, horse, swallow, moth. SYCHAR, _Sy´-kar_, the name of a city. SYENE, _Sy-ee´-ne_, bush; according to the Syriac, enmity. SYNTYCHE, _Sin´-te-ke_, that speaks or discourses. SYRACUSE, _Sir´-ra-kewse_, that draws violently. SYRIA, _Sir´-re-a_, in Hebrew, _Aram_, sublime, deceiving. SYRIAC, SYRIAN, _Sir´-re-ak_, _Sir´-re-an_, of Syria. SYRIANS, _Sir´-re-ans_, inhabitants of Syria. SYRO-PHENICIAN, _Sy´-ro-fe-nish´-e-an_, purple, drawn to; from σύρω, _I draw_, and φοῖνιξ, _red palm tree_.

TAANACH, _Tay´-a-nak_, or _Ta-ay´-nak_, who humbles or answers thee. TAB´BATH, good, goodness. TABEAL, _Tay´-be-al_ or _Tab-ee´-al_, good God. TABEEL, _Tay´-be-el_ or _Tab-ee´-el_, the same as Tabeal. TABERAH, _Tab´-e-rah_ or _Tab-ee´-rah_, burning. TABITHA, _Tab´-e-tha_, in Syriac, clear sighted; she is also called Dorcas, wild goat. TA´BOR, choice; in Syriac, contrition. TABRIMON, _Tab´-re-mon_, good promegranate. TAD´MOR, palm tree, change. TAHAPANES, _Ta-hap´-pa-nes_, secret temptation. TAHPENES, _Tah´-pe-nes_, standard, flight. TALITHA-CUMI, _Tal´-le-tha-kew´-my_, young woman, arise. TALMAI, _Tal´-may_, my furrow, heap of waters. TA´MAR, a palm, palm tree. TAM´MUZ, abstruse, concealed. TANHUMETH, _Tan-hew´-meth_ or _Tan´-hu-meth_, consolation, repentance. TAPHATH, _Tay´-fath_, little girl. TAR´PELITES, ravishers, wearied. TAR´SHISH, contemplation of the marble. TAR´SUS, winged, feathered. TAR´TAK, chained, bound, shut up. TAR´TAN, that searches the gift of the turtle. TATNAI, _Tat´-nay_, that gives. TE´BAH, murder, a cook. TE´BETH, the Babylonish name of the tenth month of the Hebrews. TE´KEL, weight. TEKOA, _Te-ko´-ah_, sound of the trumpet. TEL´ABID, a heap of new grain. TEL-HARSA, _Tel-har´-sah_, heap, suspension of the plough or of the head. TE´LIETH, goodness. TEL-MELAH, _Tel´-me-lah_ or _Tel-mee´-lah_, heap of salt or of mariners. TE´MA, admiration, perfection. TE´MAN, the south, Africa. TE´MANITE, an inhabitant of Teman. TE´RAH, to breathe, to scent, to blow. TERAPHIM, _Ter´-ra-fim_, an image, an idol. TERTIUS, _Ter´-she-us_, the third. TERTUL´LUS, a liar, an impostor. TETRARCH, _Tet´-rark_ or _Tee´-trarck_, governor of a fourth part of a kingdom. THADDEUS, _Thad-dee´-us_, that praises. THA´HASH, that makes haste, or keeps silence. THA´MAH, that blots out or suppresses. THA´MAR. See Tamar. THAM´MUZ. See Tammuz. THE´BEZ, muddy, silk. THELASAR, _The-lass´-ar_, that unbinds and grants the suspension or heap. THEOPHILUS, _The-of´-fe-las_, a friend of God. THESSALONICA, _Thes-sa-lo-ny´-kah_, victory against the Thessalians. THEUDAS, _Thew´-das_, a false teacher. THOMAS, _Tom´-mas_, a twin. THUM´MIM, truth, perfection. THYATIRA, _Thy-a-ty´-rah_, a sweet savour of labour or sacrifice of contrition. TIBERIAS, _Ti-bee´-re-as_, good vision. TIBERIUS, _Ti-bee´-re-us_, son of Tiber. TIB´NI, straw, understanding. TI´DAL, that breaks the yoke. TIGLATH-PILESER, _Tig´-lath-pi-lee´-zer_, that takes away captivity, miraculous. TIK´VAH, hope, a congregation. TIMEUS, _Ti-mee´-us_, in Greek, perfect, honourable; in Hebrew, admirable. TIM´-NATH, image, enumeration. TIMNATH-HERES, _Tim´-nath-hee´-res_, image of the dumb. TI´MON, honourable. TIMO´THEUS, honour of God, valued of God. TIPHSAH, _Tif´-sah_, passage, passover. TIRHAKAH, _Tir-hay´-kah_ or _Tir´-ha-kah_, inquirer, law made dull. TIRSHATHA, _Tir-shay´-tha_, that overturns the foundation; in Syriac, that beholds the time. TIR´ZAH, benevolent, pleasant. TISH´BITE, that makes captives, that dwells. TI´TUS, honourable; from τίω, _I honour_. TO´AH, a weapon. TOB, good, goodness. TOB-ADONIJAH, _Tob´-ad-o-ny´-jah_, my good God. TOBI´AH, the Lord is good. TOGAR´MAH, which is all bone, strong. TO´HU, that lives or declares. TOI, _To´-i_, who wanders. TO´LA, worm, scarlet. TO´LAD, nativity. TOPHEL, _To´-fel_, ruin, folly, insipid. TOPHET, _To´-fet_, a drum, betraying. TRO´AS, penetrated. TROGYLLIUM, _Tro-jil´-le-um_, a city in the isle of Samos. TROPHIMUS, _Trof´-fe-mus_, well educated. TRYPHENA, _Try-fee´-nah_, delicate. TRYPHO´SA, thrice shining. TU´BAL, the earth, confusion. TU´BAL-CAI´N, worldly possession, jealous of confusion. TYCHICUS, _Tik´-e-kus_, casual, happening. TYRAN´NUS, a prince, one that reigns. TYRE, TY´RUS, in Hebrew, _Sor_ or _Tzur_, strength.

UCAL, _Yew´-kal_, power, prevalency. ULAI, _Yew´-la-i_ or _Yew-lay´_, strength. ULAM, _Yew´-lam_, the porch, their strength. UL´LA, elevation, holocaust, leaf. UN´NI, poor, afflicted. UPHAZ, _Yew´-faz_, gold of Phasis or Pison. UR, fire, light. URBA´NUS, civil, courteous. URI, _Yew´-ry_, my light or fire. URIAH, URIJAH, _Yew-ry´-ah_, _Yew-ry´-jah_, the Lord is my light or fire. URI´EL, God is my light or fire. URIM and THUMMIM, _Yew´-rim_ and _Thum´-mim_, lights and perfection. UZ, counsel; in Syriac, to fix. UZ´ZAH, strength, a goat. UZZEN-SHERAH, _Uz´-zen-shee´-rah_, ear of the flesh or of the parent. UZ´ZI, my strength, my kid. UZZI´AH, the strength of the Lord. UZZI´EL, the strength of God. UZZIELITES, _Uz-zy´-el-ites_, the posterity of Uzziel.

VASH´NI, the second. VASH´TI, that drinks, thread. VOPHSI, _Vof´-sy_, fragment, diminution.

ZAANA´NIM, movings. ZA´BAD, a dowry. ZAB´DI, portion, dowry. ZACCHEUS, _Zak-kee´-us_, pure, justified. ZACHARI´AH, memory of the Lord. ZA´DOK, just, justified. ZA´HAM, crime, impurity. ZAIR, _Zay´-ir_, little, afflicted. ZAL´MON, his shade, obscurity. ZALMO´NAH, the shade, your image. ZALMUN´NA, shadow, image. ZAMZUM´MIMS, thinking, wickedness. ZANO´AH, forgetfulness, this rest. ZAPHNATH-PAANEAH, _Zaf´-nath-pay-a-nee´-ah_, one that discovers hidden things; in the Egyptian tongue, a saviour of the world. ZA´RAH, east, brightness. ZAREPHATH, _Zar´-re-fath_, ambush of the mouth. ZARE´TAN, tribulation, perplexity. ZA´ZA, belonging to all; in Syriac, going back. ZEBADI´AH, portion of the Lord. ZE´BAH, victim, immolation. ZEB´EDEE, abundant portion. ZEBO´IM, deer, goats. ZE´BUL, a habitation. ZEB´ULUN, dwelling, habitation. ZECHARI´AH. See Zachariah. ZE´DAD, his side, his hunting. ZEDEKI´AH, the Lord is my justice. ZEEB, _Zee´-eb_, wolf. ZE´LEK, the noise of him that licks or laps. ZELOPHEHAD, _Ze-lo´-fe-ad_, the shade or tingling of fear. ZELOTES, _Ze-lo´-tes_, jealous, full of zeal. ZEL´ZAH, noontide. ZE´NAS, living. ZEPHANI´AH, the Lord is my secret, the mouth of the Lord. ZEPHATH, _Zee´-fath_, which beholds, attends. ZE´PHO, that sees and observes. ZER, perplexity, tribulation, a rock. ZE´RAH. See Zarah. ZEREDAH, _Zer´-e-dah_ or _Ze-ree´-dah_, ambush. ZE´RESH, misery, stranger. ZE´ROR, root, that straitens, a stone. ZERU´AH, leprous, hornet. ZERUBBABEL, _Ze-rub´-ba-bel_, banished, a stranger at Babylon, dispersion of confusion. ZERUIAH, _Zer-ew-i´-ah_, pain, tribulation. ZE´THAN, their olive. ZE´THAR, he that examines or beholds. ZI´BA, army, fight, strength, stag. ZIB´EON, iniquity that dwells, the seventh. ZIB´IAH, deer, goat, honourable and fine. ZICHRI, _Zic´-ry_, that remembers, a male. ZID´DIM, huntings; in Syriac, destructions. ZI´DON, hunting, fishing, venison. ZIDO´NIANS, inhabitants of Zidon. ZIF, this, that; according to the Syriac, brightness. ZIK´LAG, measure pressed down. ZIL´LAH, shadow, which is roasted, the tingling of the ear. ZIL´PAH, distillation, contempt of the mouth. ZIM´RAN, song, singer, vine. ZIM´RI, my field, my vine, my branch. ZIN, buckler, coldness. ZI´ON, a monument, sepulchre, turret. ZI´OR, ship of him that watches, ship of the enemy. ZIPH, _Ziff_, this mouth, mouthful. ZIP´POR, bird, crown; according to the Syriac, early in the morning, goat. ZIP´PORAH, beauty, trumpet. ZITH´RI, to hide, overturned. ZIZ, flower, a lock of hair; according to the Syriac, wing, feather. ZI´ZA. See Zaza. ZO´AN, motion. ZO´AR, little, small. ZO´BAH, an army, a swelling. ZO´HAR, white, shining, dryness. ZOHE´LETH, that creeps or draws. ZOPHAR, _Zo´-far_, rising early, crown; in Syriac, sparrow, goat. ZO´RAH, leprosy, scab. ZOROBABEL, _Zo-rob´-ba-bel_. See Zerubbabel. ZUAR, _Zew´-ar_, small. ZUPH, that observes, roof. ZUR, stone, plan, form. ZURI´EL, the rock or strength of God. ZURISHADDAI, _Zew´-ry-shad´-da-i_, the Almighty is my rock, splendour, beauty. ZU´ZIMS, the posts of a door, splendour; in Syriac, departing, money; in Chaldee, strong.

TABLES OF THE WEIGHTS, MEASURES, AND MONEY, MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE.

JEWISH WEIGHTS, REDUCED TO ENGLISH TROY WEIGHT.

lbs. ozs. pen. gr.

The Gerah, the twentieth part of a Shekel 0 0 0 12

The Bekah, half a Shekel 0 0 5 0

The Shekel 0 0 10 0

The Maneh, sixty Shekels 2 6 0 0

The Talent, fifty Maneh, or three thousand 125 0 0 0 Shekels

According to the bishop of Peterborough’s calculations, the Gerah is nearly equal to 11 grains Troy; the Bekah, to about 4¾ pennyweights; and the Shekel, to about 9⅛ pennyweights.

TABLES OF SCRIPTURE MEASURES OF LENGTH, REDUCED TO ENGLISH MEASURE.

SHORT MEASURES.

│ English Inches. │ feet.

│Digit 0 0.912

│ 4 Palm 0 3.684

│ 12 3 Span 0 10.944

│ 24 6 3 Cubit 1 9.888

│ 96 24 6 2 Fathom 7 3.552

│ 144 36 12 6 1.5 Ezekiel’s reed 10 11.328

│ 192 48 16 8 2 1.3 Arabian pole 14 7.104

│ 1920 480 160 80 20 13.3 10 Schœnus’s 145 11.04 │ meas’ng line

LONG MEASURES.

│ English Paces. Feet. │ miles.

│Cubit 0 0 1.824

│ 400 Stadium or Furlong 0 145 4.6

│ 2000 5 Sabbath day’s journey 0 729 3.0

│ 4000 10 2 Eastern mile 1 403 1.0

│ 12000 30 6 3 Parasang 4 153 3.0

│ 96000 240 48 24 8 A day’s journey 33 172 4.0

⁂ 5 Feet=1 Pace; 1056=1 mile. According to the bishop of Peterborough, a Parasang is equal to 4 miles, 116 paces. FOR TABLES OF TIME SEE THE ARTICLES “MONTHS” AND “DAY.”

TABLES OF SCRIPTURE MEASURES OF CAPACITY. MEASURES FOR LIQUIDS, REDUCED TO ENGLISH WINE MEASURE.

│ Gallons. Pints.

│Caph 0 0.625

│ 1.3 Log 0 0.833

│ 5.3 4 Cab 0 3.333

│ 16 12 3 Hin 1 2

│ 32 24 6 2 Seah 2 4

│ 96 72 18 6 3 Bath or Epha 7 4

│ 960 720 180 60 20 10 Chomer, Homer, 75 5 │ Kor, or Coros

The Omer was one-tenth of an Epha, and contained 6 pints; the Metretes of Syria, translated in John ii, 6, “firkins,” 7⅛ pints; and the eastern Cotyla, half a pint. This Cotyla, says the bishop of Peterborough, contains just 10 ounces Averdupois of rain water; the Omer, 100 ounces; the Epha, 1000; and the Chomer, 10,000 ounces. So by these weights all these measures of capacity may be expeditiously recovered to a near exactness.

MEASURES FOR THINGS DRY, REDUCED TO ENGLISH CORN MEASURE.

│ Pecks. Gals. Pints. │Gachal 0 0 0.1416 │ 20 Cab 0 0 2.8333 │ 36 1.8 Omer or Gomer 0 0 5.1 │ 120 6 3.3 Seah 1 0 1 │ 360 18 10 3 Epha 3 0 3 │ 1800 90 50 15 5 Letech 16 0 0 │ 3600 180 100 30 10 2 Chomer Homer, &c. 32 0 0

TABLES OF MONEY. JEWISH MONEY, REDUCED TO THE ENGLISH STANDARD.

│ £. s. d. │ Gerah 0 0 1.3687 │ 10 Bekah 0 1 1.6875 │ 20 2 Shekel 0 2 3.375 │ 1200 120 50 Maneh, or Mina Hebraica 5 14 0.75 │ 60,000 6000 3000 60 Talent 342 3 9

Solidus Aureus, or Sextula, was worth 0 12 0.5 Siclus Aureus, or Gold Shekel 1 16 6 Talent of Gold 5475 0 0

The bishop of Peterborough makes the Mina Hebraica to contain 60 Shekels, and to weigh 27 oz. 7½ dwts.; which, at 5_s._ per ounce, will amount to 6_l._ 16_s._ 10½_d._; and the Talent of Silver to contain 50 Minæ, which, at 5_s._, will equal the amount in this table, 342_l._ 3_s._ 9_d._

ROMAN MONEY, MENTIONED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, REDUCED TO THE ENGLISH STANDARD.

£. s. d. far. Mite (Assarium) 0 0 0 ¾ Farthing, (Quadrans,) about 0 0 0 1½ Penny, or Denarius (Silver) 0 0 7 3 Pound, or Mina 3 2 6 0

According to the bishop of Peterborough, the Roman Mite is one-third of our farthing; Quadrans, three-fourths of a farthing; the Assarium, a farthing and a half; and the Assis three farthings.

⁂ _In the preceding Tables, Silver is valued at 5s., and Gold at £4. per ounce._

SINCE the publication, in 1727, of Dr. Arbuthnot’s “Tables of Ancient Coins, Weights, and Measures,” that celebrated work has been regarded by the best divines as the general standard on these difficult subjects. More recently the bishop of Peterborough has rendered good service to this part of Biblical antiquity by entering into several nice and extensive calculations on the weights and measures mentioned in the Bible, which have, with very few exceptions, confirmed the previous investigations of Dr. Arbuthnot: and as the axiom, “What is new in theology is false,” holds good only in regard to the _doctrines_ of Scripture, and not to its _statics_ and _numismatics_, no hesitation has been felt in presenting the reader, under each of the preceding Tables, with some of the most important of the results which the bishop has thus obtained.

In the abstruse department of mensuration of superficies, the same learned prelate has also ably demonstrated, that _the altar of incense_, described in Exodus xxx, 2, as consisting of a cubit in length, and a cubit in breadth, and yet “four-square,” contained exactly one square cubit, that is, three English square feet, and about forty-seven square inches;--that _the table of_ _shew bread_, described in Exodus xxv, 23, as being two cubits long and one broad, and rectangular, contained above six English square feet;--that _the boards of the tabernacle_, described in Exodus xxvi, 16, as ten cubits in length and a cubit and a half in breadth, and rectangular, contained nearly fifty square feet of English measure;--that _the mercy seat_, which Moses is directed to make “two cubits and a half the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof,” Exodus xxv, 17, contained twelve and a half square feet;--that _the altar of incense_, which was directed to be “a cubit the length thereof and a cubit the breadth thereof, and four square,” Exodus xxx, 2, contained upward of three square feet;--that _the court of the tabernacle_, the orders concerning which were, “The length of the court shall be a hundred cubits, and the breadth fifty every where,” Exodus xxvii, 18, comprised upward of sixteen thousand six hundred and thirty-four square feet, or in English land measure one rood, twenty-one perches, and twenty-seven and a half feet;--and that _the Levites’ glebe_, which is thus described in Numbers xxxv, 3–5: “The cities they shall have to dwell in: and the suburbs of them shall be for their cattle, and for their goods, and for all their beasts. And the suburbs of the cities, which ye shall give unto the Levites, shall reach from the wall of the city and outward a thousand cubits round about. And ye shall measure from without the city on the east side two thousand cubits, and on the south side two thousand cubits,” &c; “and the city shall be in the midst;” contained three hundred and five acres, two roods, and one perch, which was, for each of the four sides, seventy-six acres, one rood, twenty perches, and eighty square feet.

Respecting the Egyptian _aroura_, which is sometimes mistranslated “acre,” the bishop remarks, “Reflecting upon Moses’ measure by cubits, and,” in the case of _the court of the tabernacle_, “finding them to be precisely five thousand square cubits, I observed that they were just half ten thousand, which I had observed from Herodotus to be the area of the Egyptian _aroura_, by which their land was as generally measured as ours is by acres and roods. I called also to mind a passage in Manetho, an Egyptian priest, cited by Josephus, in his first book against Apion, where he affirms, that Manetho, in his history of the reign, wars, and expulsion of the Pastors, (whom Africanus affirms to be Phenicians or Canaanites, and Josephus vainly believed to be Jews,) wrote out of the public records of Egypt, that these Pastors made at Abaris a very large and strong encampment, that encompassed ten thousand _arouræ_, sufficient to contain two hundred and forty thousand men, and long to maintain their cattle. Hence it appears, that not only the Egyptians, but also the Phenicians or Canaanites, that had dwelt among them, and had reigned there during the time of six kings successively, used this measure of land called _aroura_. Now this was long before the time of Moses; for the beginning of Amosis or Tethmosis, who expelled them out of Egypt, was very near the time of Abraham’s death. Wherefore I believe that Moses, who was skilled in all Egyptian learning, especially in surveying, did of choice make _the court of the tabernacle_ to be just half an _aroura_, which was a known measure to him and his people, and that divine authority directed him so to do.” In another part of his work he reduces the Egyptian _aroura_ into English measure, and finds it to be three roods, two perches, and fifty-five and a quarter square feet.

THE END.

UNDER THE ARTICLE APOSTLES’ CREED, for Creed, read _Confessions of Faith_.

Transcriber’s Note

Minor lapses in punctuation, including missing full stops and end-of-line hyphens, have been corrected with no further notice. In a work this large, it is inevitable that some inconsistencies in format will occur, which have been set right.

There are some variants of spelling which have, in general, been retained, given the wide range of sources employed by the author. The use of the diaeresis in words like ‘coöperate’ or ‘reëstablishment’ was not followed where the prefix appeared hyphenated on a line break (e.g. ‘re-establishment’). These have been rendered here using the diaeresis.

A passage from Chardin, cited on p. 250, has an un-opened quotation, the beginning of which has been placed as noted below, based on other commentaries citing Chardin on Psalms 90.4.

Most internal references refer to the main topics, which are typically in UPPERCASE characters, but on occasion refer to subtopics in mixed SMALLCAP font, or, rarely, to keywords in paragraphs (e.g., allegory).

The main entry for MOAB was printed in a normal font, and so could be easily missed. That has been corrected here to follow the conventional printing.

The Alphabetical Table of Proper Names, at the end of the text, also contains a number of internal references. These refer to other entries in that table.

In the article for CRANE, the Hebrew שיש (marble) is given for ‘crane’, from Jer. viii, 7. The word סיס, or ‘swift’ would seem to have been meant. In the alphabetical index of names, a reference to ‘Siloah’ has no obvious referent.

The article for REED directs the reader to an article for CANE, which is not in the text.

The following issues should be noted, along with the resolutions. The references in the first column are to the page, column, and line in the original text.

7.2.39 who gave Golia[t]h’s sword Added.

47.1.58 Καὶ ἐν τῷ μέσω ἀυτου ὡς ὅρασις ἠλεκτρȣ ἐν μέσῳ Replaced. [το͂ν/τοῦ] ϖυρὸς

90.2.69 has been much misrepresented[.] Added.

93.2.29 it is necessary, in order [] to his salvation _sic_: obtain?

94.2.47 as it does [ ] this day _sic_: to?

101.1.9 are undoub[t]edly mentioned Added.

111.1.52 in the habit of refer[r]ing with approbation Added.

113.2.20 the arguments of St. A[u]gustine Added.

116.2 observed[,] some remains of these enclosures Removed.

137.2.60 the Prophet says[./,] ‘Of the oaks of Bashan Replaced.

139.1.20 [the rendering of an equivalent:][)]'> Parenthesis added.

140.2.32 The following observations[./,] from Replaced.

143.1.42 exposed in the amp[h]itheatre to fight Added.

171.2.16 The word[,] is formed from the Gothic Removed.

160.1.25 the truth of the princ[i]pal facts Added.

185.1.8 “the Memphian” or Egyptian [“]boat is made Removed.

188.1.37 eso[r/t]etic, or concealed doctrine Replaced.

201.2.32 became permanently settled at the diet of Added. Au[g]sburg

202.1.48 and those who are not, accepted.[’] Probable.

207.1.59 is directed again[s]t Canaan Added.

207.2.9 in his de[s]cendants Added.

214.1.31 with hair standing [a/o]n end on it Replaced.

217.2.23 for their perusal.[”] Removed.

224.1.20 like that of the pine.[”] Added.

236.1.7 who holds her balance[,/.] Replaced.

236.2.12 more substantial world[l]y benefits Added.

236.2.48 Here the Christ[ai/ia]n Transposed.

241.2.4 which was to be pe[r]formed Added.

244.1.13 which have no s[pu/up]port from the magistracy Transposed.

250.1.36 that [“]as the people of the east have no Added. clocks

259.2.54 as it occurs in the [T/N]ew Testament Replaced.

268.2.9 whether they were gold or brass.[”] Added.

274.2.54 two birds are mentioned, the [שיש/סיס>] Replaced.

278.2.38 increases the p[io/oi] of the suffering Transposed.

285.1.19 Who call thee by thy name, am THE GOD OF Added. ISRAEL.[”]>

303.2.32 ‘all sick people,[’] that were taken with Removed. divers diseases

307.2.54 which occurs under the word, [סמפחת/מספחת], מס Lev. xiii, 6–8, 29. transposed.

318.2.47 “The earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness Added. thereof[”], Psalm xxiv, 1;

325.1.20 in his “Instit[ut]utes,” he confirmed Removed.

331.1.16 Volney’s account is suffic[i]ently descriptive Added.

333.2.25 placed by the Egy[p]tian task-masters Added.

336.1.24 as consisting in outward wor[l]dly Added. institutions

337.2.12 all visible ack[n]owledgment of them Added.

343.2.31 reckon the dog a filt[h]y creature Added.

348.2.24 I am with you alway[s] Added.

350.2.29 They have eleven dioces[s]es Removed.

352.1.58 and they were pun[n]ished for their Removed. presumption

356.2.31 answers to the artific[i]al conception Added.

372.1.15 can consisten[t]ly refuse to admit Added.

373.2.46 while the bride[./-]groom is with them? Replaced.

382.2.38 If, then, such was [s/t]he superstitious Replaced. homage

382.2.45 “is Arabic, and signifies _the fly_ in Added. general.[”]

394.1.17 in the amp[h]itheatre at Tiberias Added.

394.1.30 “They gave me ראש to eat[”]; Added.

415.1.50 the Egyptians, Prussians, Lithu[a]nians, Added. Samogitians, &c.

416.1.38 to kill his b[r]other Jacob Added.

424.2.31 not a bunch of grapes left [of/for] those who Replaced/ came to glean.

438.2.31 church of the[-first / first-]born Transposed.

438.2.55 to make a t[py/yp]ical atonement Transposed.

442.2.23 the gifts of the Holy [C/G]host Replaced.

445.2.1 Hebron is now called El [H/K]halil; Replaced.

450.2.3 [Σ/Ἐ]ν τῶ ἄρχοντι τῶν δαιμονίων Replaced.

452.2.39 the only su[r]viving male Added.

462.2.41 [B/b]y the ‘testimony of the Spirit,’ I mean, Replaced.

469.2.25 A spacious bowl th[e]’ admiring patriarch Removed. fills

474.1.47 “counterfeit,” signif[i]es also a profane Added. wicked man

481.1.47 according to their origin[i]al institution Removed.

487.2.46 are built upon the foundati[a/o]n of the Replaced. Apostles

493.2.65 was buried with Abraham by his sons Esau and Missing, Jacob, Gen. xxxv,[ 29.] provided.

498.1.40 when [“]the Edomites revolted Added.

501.1.56 admitted till after the fourth[,] century Removed.

524.1.42 simply as a p[r]ediction prior to the event Added.

531.1.19 who occasion[al]ly sent officers Added.

538.1.35 the total absence of eve[ry/n] the slightest Replaced. allusion

539.2.33 but inferior to the second.[”] Added.

547.1.24 to visit the tomb of Thomas-a[ /-]Becket Replaced.

567.2.7 when the pu[u/n]ishment of their iniquity Inverted. shall be accomplished

577.1.38 LEAD, עפרת, Exod. xv, 10; _sic_: עופרת

584.2.61 if any animalcule of this sort were concealed Added. in their garments.[”]

593.2.36 LUCIAN, a philosop[h]er and wit Added.

594.1.65 they are [t/j]oined by Isaiah, lxvi, 19, with Replaced. Pul

691.2.15 Thus, it was infallib[l]y certain Added.

630.1.9 the fancy far more viv[e/i]d, in the dreaming Replaced.

637.1.13 utte[r]ly> averse to oaths Added.

660.2.14 [Moab/MOAB] was the son of Lot Replaced.

684.2.24 bore the character of remarkable simplic[i]ty Added.

672.1.29 so that he “heark[e]ned> not unto them, as the Added. Lord had said,”

692.1.1 they acc[c]omplished the great designs of Removed. Heaven

697.2.67 to impugn his doct[r]ine Added.

743.2.1 popular sect among the [Jews the/Jews. The] Replaced. time when

751.2.67 means literally [“]_branches of oily_ or Added. _gummy plants_.”

788.1.45 the opin[i]ons of all sober persons Added.

789.1.30 or [גכר / נכר], also denotes a stranger Replaced.

791.1.50 differ, in this re[s]pect, from their Added. ancestors

796.2.69 and the sweet psalmist of Israel, said, Added. [‘]The Spirit of Jehovah

827.2.61 “The orientals hold,[”] says D’Herbelot, Added.

843.2.56 there should be one hundred [s/a]nd twenty Replaced. inhabitants

844.2.18 power and malice are rest[r]ained Added.

844.2.51 that can dignif[i]y human nature Removed.

845.1.4 and with which the ancients were Added. enraptured.[”]

845.2.46 will [b/h]e offer him a scorpion? Replaced.

858.1.13 that the s[k/h]ekel> was worth twenty gerahs Replaced.

865.2.51 Unto him that blasphemeth again[s]t the Holy Added. Ghost

866.2.52 has three tops of a ma[r]vellous height Added.

872.1.60 appearing to his di[s]ciples Added.

872.2.59 of all subsequent marty[r]s> Added.

882.1.21 that of Alexan[an]dria Removed.

905.1.27 that sacred [o/e]difice Replaced.

907.1.69 the _teraphim_ were hum[na/an] heads Transposed.

925.2.39 against the doct[r]ine itself Added.

936.2.1 like the horn of a reem,[’] Psalm xcii, 10. Added.

945.2.58 as they were then nearer the times [e/o]f the Replaced. Apostles

946.2.36 among the Protest[t]ants Removed.

959.2.61 more palatable and frag[r]ant with aromatics Added.

973.1.47 for purposes of secre[s/c]y Replaced.

977.2.31 [οτε/hότε] ἐπλήσθησαν ἡμέραι ὀκτὼ Replaced.