A Biblical and Theological Dictionary explanatory of the history, manners, and customs of the Jews, and neighbouring nations (part 10 of 11)

A Biblical and Theological Dictionary explanatory of the history, manners, and customs of the Jews, and neighbouring nations (part 10 of 11)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SLAVE. See SERVANT.

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

SLINGS. See ARMS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SPEECH. See LANGUAGE.

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

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

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

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

_Nardo vina merebere: Nardi parvus onyx eliciet cadum._

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TALMUD. See JEWS.

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

TARGUM. See JEWS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TIMBRELS. See MUSIC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TOWER OF BABEL. See BABEL.

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

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

TRADITION. See CABBALA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us