'€ )^s^^^^y,:iP^-\'.:y- . ■ .■■■ tJ>-^/^.^ f"V^ ^ y/U £ en shall speak, they shall give an account thereof in the day of judgment.' The original IS, Ot( irav prjfia dpySu, h ihv Ka\7](rcii(Tiu ol avQpwTTOi, airoSwcovcn rrepl avrov x6yov ev VP-^p'^ Kplffeais. The whole question depends upon the meaning or rather force of the term ^TJjj-a dpySy, rendered ' idle word,' concerning which there has been no little difference of opinion. Many understand it to mean ' wicked and in- jurious words,' as if apy6y were the same as 7Tovii]p6v, which is indeed found as a gloss in Cod. 126. The sense is there taken to be as follows : — ' Believe me, that for every wicked and injurious word men shall hereafter render an account.' And our Lord is supposed to have intended in this passage to reprehend the Pharisees, who had spoken impiously against Him, and to threaten them with the severest punishments ; inasmuch as every one of their injurious and impious words should one day be judged. This interpretation of the word dpy6v is, however, reached by a somewhat cir- cuitous process of philological reasoning, which is examined with much nicety by J. A. H. Tittmann, and shown to be untenable. He adds : ' This in- terpretation, moreover, would not be in accordance with what precedes in verses 33-35, nor with what follows in verse 37. For it is not any wicked discourse which is there represented ; but the feigned piety of the Piiarisees, and their afi'ected zeal for the public welfare. In order to avoid a charge of levity and indifference, they had de- manded " a sign," ffTi/jLeiov ; as if desirous that both they and others might know whether Jesus was truly the Messiah. Against this dissimula- tion in those who uttered nothing sincerely and from the heart, Jesus had inveighed in severe and appropriate terms in verses 33-35, using the com- parison of a tree, which no one judges to be good and useful unless it bears good fruit, and from which, if it be bad, no one expects good fruit. But if now the sense of verse 36 is such as these interpreters would make it, there is added in it a sentiment altogether foreign to what pre- cedes, and apy6v becomes not only destitute of effect and force, but involves a sentiment incon- gruous with that in verse 37. For where our Lord says that hereafter every one shall be judged according to his words. He cannot be understood to mean that every one will be capable of proy- IDOLATRY. ing his integrity and goodness merely by Hil words alone — a sentiment surely as far as possible from the intention of our Divine Master. We must, therefore, necessarily understand a certain kind of words or discourse, which, under the appearance of sincerity or candour, is often the worst possible, and fcoToSj/ccE^et thv ivOpcanoy, " con- demns a man," because it is uttered with an evil purpose. If, then, we interpret apySv according to established Greek usage, there arises a natural and very appropriate sense, namely, apySv is the same as tiepyov, otiostis, vain, idle ; then, void of effect, without result, followed by no corre- sponding event. Therefore ^vjyua apyov is empty or vain icords or discourse, i. e. void of truth, and to which the event does not correspond. In short, it is the empty, inconsiderate, insincere language of one who says one thing and means another ; and in this sense apySs is very fre- quently employed by the Greeks.' This Tittmann confirms by a number of citations ; and then deduces from the whole that the sense of the pas- sage under review is : ' Believe me, he who uses false and insincere language shall sutler grievous prmishmeiit : your words, if uttered with sincerity and ingenuousness, shall be approved ; but if they are dissembled, although they bear the strongest appearance of sincerity, they shall be condemned' (See Tittmann, Ow the Principal Causes of Forced Interpretations of the Neio Testament, in Am. Bib. Repository for 1831, pp. 481-484). IDOLATRY. In giving a summary view of the forms of idolatry which are mentioned in the Bible, it is expedient to exclude all notice of those illegal images which were indeed designed to bear some symbolical reference to the worship of the true God, but which partook of the nature of idolatry ; such, for example, as tlie golden calf of Aaron (cf Neh. ix. 18); those of Jeroboam; the singular ejjhods of Gideon and Micah (Judg. viii. 27 ; xvii. 5) ; and the Teraphim. Idolatry was the most heinous oil'ence against the Mosaic law, which is most jDarticular in de- fining the acts which constitute the crime, and severe in apportioning the punishment. Thus, it is forbidden to make any image of a strange God ; to prostrate oneself before such an image, or before those natural objects whicli were also worshipped without images, as the sun and moon (Deut. iy. 19) ; to sufl'er the altars, images, or groves of ides to stand (Exod. xxxiv. 13); or to keep tiie gold and silver of which their images were made, and to suffer it to enter the house (Deut. vii. 25, 26); to sacrifice to idols, most especially to offer human sacrifices ; to eat of the victims offered to idols by others ; to prophesy in the name of a strange god ; and to adopt any of the rites used in idol- atrous worship, and to transfer them to the wor- ship of the Lord (Deut. xii, 30, 31). As for punishment, the law orders that if an individual committed idolatry he should be stoned to death (Deut. xvii. 2-5) ; that if a town was guilty of this sin, its inhabitants and cattle sliould be slain, and its spoils burnt together with tiie town itself (Deut. xiii. 12- IS). To what degree also the whole spirit of the Oltl Testament is abhorrent from idolatry, is evident (besides legal prohibitions, prophetic denunciations, and energetic appeab like that in Isa. xliv. 9-20) from the literal sense of the terms which are used as synonyme3 for idols and IDOLATRY. their worship. Thus idols are called D''7vNn, the inane (Lev. xix. 4) ; Dv^n, vanities — the to. udraia of Acts xiv . 15— (Jer. il. 5) ; \Mi,notkinff (Isa. Ixvi. 3) ; D^V'lpK', abominations (1 Kings xi. 5) ; Dvl73, stercora (Ezek. vi. 4) ; and their worship is called wkoredotn, which is expressed by the derivatives of HiDT- The early existence of idolatry is evinced by Josh. xxiv. 2, where it is stated that Abram and nis immediate ancestors dwelling in Mesopotamia ' served other gods.' The terms in Gen. xxxi. 53, and particularly the plural form of the verb, leem to show that some members of Terah's family had each different gods. From Josh. xxiv. 14, and Ezek. xx. 8, we learn that the Israelites, during their sojourn in Egypt, were seduced to worship the idols of that country ; although we possess no particular account of their transgression. In Amos v. 25, and Acts vii. 42, it is stated that they committed idolatry in their journey through the wilderness ; and in Num. xxv. 1, sq., that they worshipped the Moabite idol Baal-peor at Sliittim. After the Israelites had obtained pos- session of the -[iromised land, we find that they were continually tempted to adopt the idolatries of the Canaanite nations with which they came in contact. The book of Judges enumerates several successive relapses into this sin. The gods which they served during this period were Baal and Ashtoreth, and their modifications ; and Syria, Sidon, Moab, Ammon, and Philistia, are named in Judg. x. 6, as the sources from which they derived their idolatries. Then Samuel ap- pears to have exercised a beneficial influence in weaning the people from this foDy (T Sam. vii.) ; and the worship of the Lord acquired a gradually increasing hold on the nation until the time of Solomon, who was induced in his old age to per- mit the establishment of idolatry at Jerusalem. On the division of the nation, the kingdom of Israel (besides adhering to the sin of Jeroboam to the last) was specially devoted to the worship of Baal, which Ahab had renewed and carried to an unprecedented height ; and although the energetic measures adopted by Jehu, and afterwards by the priest Jehoiada, to suppress this idolatry, may have been tlie cause why there is no later express •nention of Baal, yet it is evident from 2 Kings xiii. 6, and xvii. 10, tliat the worship of Aslierah continued until the deportation of the ten tribes. This event also introduced the peculiar idolatries of the Assyrian colonists into Samaria. In the kingdom of Judah, on the other hand, idolatry continued during the two succeeding reigns ; was suppressed for a time by Asa (1 Kings xv. 12) ; was revived in consequence of Joram marrying into the family of Ahab; was continued by Ahaz; received a check from Hezekiah ; broke out again more violently under Manasseh ; until Josiah made the most vigorous attempt to suppress it. But even Josiah's efforts to restore the worship of flie Lord were ineffectual ; for the later prophets, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, still continue to utter reproofs against idolatry. Nor did the capture of Jerusalem under Jehoiachim awaken this peculiarly sensual people ; for Ezekiel (viii.) shows that those who were left in Jerusalem under the government of Zedekiah had given themselves up to many kinds of idolatry; and Jeremiah (xliv. 8) charges those inhabitants of Judah who IDOLATRY. 3 had found an asylum in Egypt, with having turned to serve the gods of that country. On the restoration of the Jews after the Babylon'an cap- tivity, they appear, for the first time in their his- tory, to have been permanently impressed with a sense of the degree to which their former idolatries had been an insult to God, and a degradation of their own understanding — an advance in the cul- ture of the nation which may in part be ascribed to the influence of the Persian abhorrence of images, as well as to the effects of the exile as a chastisement. In this state they continued until Antiochus Epiphanes made the last and fruitless attempt to establish the Greek idolatry in Pales- tine (1 Mace. i.). The particular forma of idolatry into which the Israelites fell are described under the names of the different gods which they worshipped [Ash- toreth, Baai-, &c.] : the general features of their idolatry require a brief notice here. According to Movers (Die Phonizier, i. 148), the religion of all the idolatrous Syro-Arabian nations was a deification of the powers and laws of nature, an adoration of those objects in which these powers are considered to abide, and by which they act. The deity is thus the invisible power in nature itself, that power which manifests itself as the generator, sustainer, and destroyer of its works. This view admits of two modifications : either the separate powers of nature are regarded as so many- different gods, and the objects by which these powers are manifested — as the sun, moon, &c. — are regarded as their images and supporters ; or the power of nature is considered to be one and indivisible, and only to differ as to the forms under which it manifests itself. Both views co- exist in almost all religions. The most simple and ancient notion, however, is that which con- ceives tlie deity to be in human form, as male and female, and which considers the male sex to be the type of its active, generative, and de- structive power ; while that passive power of na- ture whose function is to conceive and bring forth, is embodied uiider the female form. The human form and the diversity of sex lead natu- rally to the different ages of life — to the old man and the youth, the mati-on and the virgin — ac- cording to the modifications of the conception ; and the myths which represent the influences, the changes, the laws, and the relations of these na- tural powers under the sacred histories of sucli gods, constitute a harmonious development of such a religious system. Those who saw the deity manifested by, or conceived him as resident in, any natural objects, could not fail to regard the sun and moon as the potent rulers of day and night, and the sources of those influences on which all animated nature depends. Hence star-worship forms a prominent feature in all the false religions mentioned in the Bible. Of this character chiefly were the Egyptian, the Canaanite, the Chaldaean, and the Persian re- ligions. The Persian form of astrolatry, liowevts, deserves to be distinguished from the others ; for it allowed no images nor temples of the god, but worshipped him in his purest symbol, fire. It is understood that this form is alluded to in most of those passages which mention the worship of the sun, moon, and heavenly host, by incense, on heights (2 Kings xxiii. 5, 12 ; Jer. xix. U). The other form of astrolatry, in which the idea of the 4 IDUMyEA. sun, moon, and planets, is blended with the wor- ship of the god in the form of an idol, and with the addition of a mythology (as may be seen in the relations of Baal and his cognates to the sun), easily degenerates into lasciviousness and cruel rites. Tiie images of the gods, the standard terms for which are PIIVD, 3Vy, and D?^, were, as to material, of stone, wood, silver, and gold. The first two sorts are called ?D3, as being hewn or carved ; those of metal liad a trunk or stock of wood, and were covered witli plates of silver or gold (Jer. X. 4); or were cast (HSDO). The general rites of idolatrous worship consist in burning incense; in offering bloodless sacrifices, as the dough-cakes (D'*313) and libations in Jer. yii. 18, and the raisin-cakes (Q^ajy ^^^'^tJ'J^) in Hos. iii. 1 ; in sacrificing victims (1 Kings xvi.i. 26), and especially in human sacrifices [Moloch]. These offerings were made on high places, hills, and roofs of houses, or in shady groves and valleys. Some forms of idolatrous worship had libidinous orgies [Ashtoheth]. Divinations, oracles (2 Kings i. 2), and rabdo- mancy (Hos. iv. 12) form a part of many of these false religions. The priesthood was generally a immerous body ; and where persons of both sexes were attached to the service of any god (like the D^K^np and fllK^lp of Ashtoreth), that service was infamously immoral. It is remarkable that the Pentateuch makes no mention of any temple of idols; afterwards we read often of such. — J.N. IDUMtEA. 'iSou/iaia is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Edom, or, according to Josephus {Antiq. ii. I. 1), it is only a more agreeable mode of pronouncing what would otherwise be 'A5ai/ia (comp. Jerome on Ezek. xxv. 12). In the Sep- tuagint we sometimes meet with 'ES&S^, but more generally with 'iSovfiaia (the people being called 'iSov/xcuot), which is the uniform orthograpliy in the Apocrypha as well as in Mark iii. 8, the only passage in the New Testament where it occurs. Our Authorized Version has in tliree or four places substituted for Edom ' Idumea,' which is the name employed by the writers of Greece and Rome, thougli it is to be noted that they, as well as Josephus, include under that name the south of Palestine, and sometimes Pales- tine itself, because a large portion of that coun- try came into possession of the Edomites of later times. The Hebrew D^X Edom, as the name of the people is masculine (Num. xx. 22) ; as the name of the country, feminine (Jer. xlix. 17). We often meet with the phrase Eretz-Edom, 'the Land of Edom,' and once with tlie poetic form Sedch-Edom, ' the Field of Edom ' (Judg. v. 4). The inhabitants are sometimes styled Beni-Edom, * the Children of Edom,' and poetically Bath- Edom, ' the Daugliter of Edom' (Lam. iv. 21, 22). A single person was called ''IZ'Mi Adomi, 'an Edomite ' (Deut. xxiii. 8), of which the femi- nine plural n^DTX Adomith occurs in I Kings xi. 1. The name was derived from Isaac's son Edom, otherwise called Esaii, tiie elder tivin- brother of Jacob [Esau]. It signifies red, and seems fkst to have been suggested by his appear- ance at his birtli, when • he came out all red ' '». e. covered with red hair, Gen. xxv. 25), and IDUMEA. was afterwards more formally and permanently imposed on him on account of his unworthy dis" posal of his birth-right for a mess of red lentilea (Gen. xxv. 30). The region which came to bear his name, is the mountainous tract on the east side of the great valleys El Ghor and El Araba, extending between the Dead Sea and theElanitio Gulf of the Red Sea. Some have conjectured that the latter sea was called ' Red,' because it waslied the shore of ' Edom ;' but it never bears in Hebrew the name of Yam-Edom : it is uniformly designated Yam-Suph, i. e. ' the Sea of Madre- pores.' Into this district Esau removed during hia lather's life-time, and his posterity gradually ob- tained possession of it as tlie country which God had assigned for tiieir inheritance in the prophetic blessing pronounced by his father Isaac (Gen, xxvii. 39, 40; xxxii. 3; Deut. ii. 5-12, 22). Previously to their occupation of the country, it was called T'^b' *in. Mount Seir, a designation indeed which it never entirely lost. The word seir means hairy (being thus synonymous with Esau), and, when applied to a country, may sig- nify rugged, mountainous, and so says Josephus (Antiq. i. 20. 3) : ' Esau named the country " Roughness " from his own hairy roughness.' But in Gen. xxxvi. 20, we read of an individual of the name of Seir, wlio had before this inhabited the land, and from whom it may have received its first appellation. Part of the region is still called 'Esh-Sherah, in which some find a trace of Seir, but the two words have no etymological relation : the former wants the y, a letter which is never dropped, and it signifies ' a tract, a pos session,' and sometimes ' a mountain.' The first mention made of Mount Seir in Scrip- ture is in Gen. xiv. 6, where Chedorlaomer and his confederates are said to have smitten ' the Horim in their Mount Seir.' Among the earliest human habitations were caves, either formed by nature or easily excavated, and for the construc- tion of these the mountains of Edom afforded peculiar facilities. Hence the designation given to the Aboriginal inhabitants — Horim, i. e. cave- dwellers (from "in, a ' cave'), an epithet of similar import with the Greek Troglodytes. Even in the days of Jerome ' the whole of tlie southern part ot Idumsea, from Eleutheropolis to Petra and Ada, was full of caverns used as dwellings, on account of the sun's excessive heat ' (Jeiome on Obadiah, ver. 1); and there is reason to believe that the possessors of the country in every age occupied similar habitations, many traces of which are yet seen in and near Petra, the renowned metropolis. We are informed in Deut. ii. 12, tiiat ' the children of Esau succeeded [inarg. inherited] the Horim when they had destroyed them from be- fore them, and dwelt in tlieir stead, as Israel did unto the land of his possession, which Je- hovah gave unto them.' From this it may be inferred, that the extirpation of the Horim by the Esauites was, like that of the Canaaiiites by Israel, very gradual and slow. Some think this supposition is confirmed by the genealogical tables preserved in the 36th chapter of Genesis (comp. 1 Chron. 1.), where we have, along with a list of tlie chiefs of Edom, a similar catalogue of Horite chieftains, who are presumed to have been their contemporaries. But for the ehronology ct these ancient documents we possess no data what* soever, and very precarious, therefore, must ba IDUM.EA. «ny deductiom that are drawn from them. This much, however, we there learn of the political con- stitution of the Seirite Aborigines, that, like the Esauites and Israelites, they were divided into tribes, and these tribes were sub-divided into families — the very polity which still obtains amoug the Arabs by whom Idumaea is now peopled. Eacii tribe had its own Alluf — a term which is unhappily rendered in the English Ver- sion by ' Duke ' — for though that has, no doubt, the radical meaning of the Latin dux, a ' leader,' it now only suggests the idea of a feudal title of nobility. Of these chiefs of the Horites seven are enumerated, viz., Lotan, Shobal, Zibeon, Anah, Dishon, Ezer, and Dishan. The only one of these who is spoken of as related to the other is Anah, the son of Zibeon. The primitive and Eastoral character of the people is incidentally rought out by the circumstance that this Anah, though a chieitain"s son, was in the habit of tend- ing his father's asses. It was when thus employed that he found in the wilderness eth-ha-yemhn, ren- dered in the English Version by ' the mules,' but meaning more probably ' the hot springs ;' and thus interpreted, the passage seems to be an inti- mation that he was tlie first to discover the faculty with which asses and other animals are endowed, of snuSing the moisture of the air, and thus sometimes leading to the opportune discovery of hidden waters in the desert. There is in the country to the south-east of the Dead Sea (which formed part of the Seirite possessions), a place, Kallirhov, celebrated among the Greeks and Romans for its waim baths, and which has been visited by modern tiavellers (Josephus, De Bkil. Jud. i. 33. 5; Pliny, But. Nat. v. 3. 17 ; Legh's TVavels). Esau first manied into two Canaanitish families of the Hittite and Hivite tribes (Gen. xxvi. 34 ; xxxvi. 2; in one or other of which places, how- ever, the text seems corrupt) ; but anxious to pro- pitiate his ofl'ended parents, he next formed a matrimonial alliance with one of the race of Abraham, viz., Mahalath, otherwise called Bashe- math, daughter of Ishmael, and sister of Ne- baioth, wliose descendants, the Nabathaeans, by a singular coincidence, obtained in after times pos- session of the land of Edom (Gen. xxviii. 9). Esau's first-born (by Adah or Bashemath, of the daughters of Heth) was Eliphaz, whose son Teman gave name to a district of the country (Gen. xxxvi. 11, 34 ; 1 Chron. i. 45 ; Ezek. xxv. 13; Obad. verse 9). The Temanites were re- nowned for their wisdom (Jer. xlix. 7, 20 ; Baruch iii. 22, 23). The chief speaker in the book of Job is another Eliphaz, a Temanite, — which is one of the circumstances that have led many to Flace the scene of that story in the land of Edom ^Job]. The name of Teman was preserved to tlie days of Eusebius in that of Thaiman, a small town five Roman miles from Petra. Another son of the first-mentioned Eliphaz was Amalek, who is not to be confounded, however, with the father of the Amalek ites, one of the doomed nations of Canaan, of whom we hear so early as the age of Abraham (Gen. xiv. 7). As a modern Arab sheikh is often found to ex- ercise influence far beyond the sphere of his here- ditary domain, so in the list of the Edomite embs preserved by Moses we have perhaps only the names of the more distinguished individuals who IDUMyEA. 5 acquired more or less authority over all the tribes. Tiiis oligarchy appears gradually to have changed into a monarchy, as happened too among the Israelites ; for in addition to the above mentioned lists, both of Horite and Esauite leaders, we have, at Gen. xxxvi. 31, a catalogue of eight kings (Bela, Jobab, Husham, Hadad, Sandah, Saul, Baal-hanan, Hadar or Hadad) who ' reigned in the land of Edom before there reigned any king over the childien of Israel.' It is not necessaiy to suppose that this was said by Moses propheti- cally; it is one of those passages which may have been inserted by Ezra when filially arranging the canon, inasmuch as it occurs also in the first book of Chronicles, of which he is the reputed compiler. The period when this change to regal government took place in Idumaea can only be matter of conjecture. In the Song of Moses (Exod. XV. 15) it is said that at the tidings of Israel's triumphant passage of the Red Sea the rulers or princes (^Alluf) of Edom trembled with afl'right, but when, some forty years afterwards, apjilication had to be made by the Israelites for leave to traverse tiie land of Edom, it was to the king (^Mclck) tiiat the request was addressed (Num. XX. 14). The road by which it was sought to penetrate the country was termed ' the king's highway ' (ver. 1 7), supposed by Robinson to be the Wady el-Ghuweir, for it is almost the only valley tliat affords a direct and easy passage through those mountains. From a comparison of these incidents it n^ay be inferred that the change in the form of government took place during tlie wanderings of the Israelites in tiie desert, unless we suppose, with Rosenmiiller, that it was only (Ji-is north-eastern part of Edom which was now- subject to a monarch, the rest of the country re- maining under the sway of its former chieftains. But whether the regal power at this period em- braced the whole territory or not, perhaps it did not sujiplant the ancient constitution, but was rather grafted on it, like the authority of the Judges in Israel, and of Saul, the first king, which did not materially interfere with the go- vernment diat previously existed. It further ap- pears, from the list of Idumaean kings, that the monarchy was not hereditary, but elective (for no one is spoken of as the son or relative of his pre- decessor) ; or probably that chieftain was acknow- ledged as sovereign who was best able to vindi- cate his claim by force of arms. Every succes- sive king appears to have selected his own seat of government : the places mentioned as having en- joyed that distinction are Dinhabah, Avith, Pagu or Pai. Even foreigners were not excluded from the throne, for the successor of Samlah of Masre- kah was Saul, or Shaul, ' of Rechoboth, on the river.' The word 'Rechoboth' means, literally, streets, and was a not uncommon name given to towns ; but the emphatic addition of ' the river,' points evidently to the Euphrates, and between Rakkah and Anah, on that river, there are still the remains of a place called by the Arabs Ra- chabath-Malik-Ibn Tank. In the age of Solo- mon we read of one Hadad, who 'was of the king's seed in Edom" (I Kings xi. 14); from which some have conjectured that by that period there was a royal dynasty of one particular family : bul all that tlie expression may imply is, that he waa a blood-relation of the last king of the country, Hadad was the name of one of the early 8070* 6 IDUM^A. reigns * who smote Midian in the field of Moab' (Gen. xxxvi. 35). The unbrotherly feud which arose between Esau and Jacob was prolonged for ages between their posterity. The Israelites, indeed, were com- manded 'not to abhor an Edomite, for he was their brother' (Deut. xxiii. 7) ; but a variety of circumstances occurred to provoke and perpetuate ine hostility. The first time they were brought into direct collision was when the Edomites, though entreated by their ' brother Israel,' refused the latter a passage through their territories; and they had consequently to make a retrograde and toil- some march to the Gulf of Elath, whence they nad to ' compass the land of Edom' by the moun- tain desert on the east. We do not again hear of the Edomites till the days of Saul, who warred against them with partial success (1 Sam, xiv. 47) ; but their entire subjugation was reserved for David, who first signally vanquished them in the Valley of Salt (supposed to be in the Ghor, beside Usdum, the Mountain of Salt) ; and, finally, placed garrisons in all their countiy (2 Sam. viii. 14; 1 Chron. xviil. 11-13; 1 Kings xi. 15. Comp. the inscription of Ps. Ix. and v. S, 9 ; cviii. 9, 10, where ' the strong city' may denote Selah or Petra). Then were fulfilled the prophecies in Gen. xxv. 23 and xxvii. 40, that the 'elder should serve the younger;' and also the prediction of Balaam (Num. xxiv. 18), that Edom and Seir should be for possessions to Israel. Solomon created a naval station at Ezion-geber, at the head of the Gulf of Elath, the modem Akaba (1 Kings ix. 26 ; 2 Chron. viii. 18). To- wards the close of his reign an attempt was made to restore the independence of the country by one Hadad, an Idumsean prince, who, when a child, had been carried into Egypt at the time of David's invasion, and had there married the sister of Tah- panhes the queen (1 Kings xi. 14-23) [Hadad]. If Edom then succeeded in shaking off the yoke, it was only for a season, since in the days of Jeho- shapliat, the fourth Jewish monarcli from Solomon, it is said, ' there was no king in Edom ; a deputy was king ;' t. e. he acted as viceroy for the king of Judah. For that the latter was still master of the country is evident from the fact of his having fitted out, like Solomon, a fleet at Ezion-geber (1 Kings xxii. 47, 48 ; 2 Chron. xx. 36, 37). It was, no doubt, his deputy (called ki7i(;) who joined the confederates of Judah and Israel in their attack upon Moab (2 Kings iii. 9, 12, 2G). Yet there seems to have been a partial revolt of the Edomites, or at least of the mountaineers of Seir, even in the reign of Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. XX. 22) : and under his successor, Jehoram, they wliolly rebelled, and ' made a king over them- selves' (2 Kings viii. 20, 22 ; 2 Chron. xxi. 8, 10). From its being added that, notwithstanding the temporary suppression of the rebellion, ' Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah unto this day,' it is probable that tlie Jewish dominion was never completely restored. Amaziah, indeed, invaded the coimtry, and having taken the chief city, Selah or Petra, he, in memorial of the con- quest, changed its name to Joktheel (q. d. sub- dued of God); and his successor, Uzziah, re- tained possession of Elath (2 Kings xiv. 7 ; 2 Chron. xxv. 11-14; xxvi. 3). But in the reign of Ahaz, hordes of Edomites made incursions into Judah, and carried away captives (2 Chron. xxviii. IDUM^A. 17). About the same period Rezin, king of Syria, expelled the Jews from Elath, which (according tc the correct reading of 2 Kings xvi. 6) was thence- forth occupied by the Edomites. In our version it is said, 'the Syrians dwelt in Elath;' but the Kcri, or marginal Masoretic reading, instead of D'JS'lX, Aramaeans, has CDIIN, Edomites, the letter T being substituted for 1 ; and this is fol- lowed by many MSS., as well as by the Sept. and Vulgate, and best accords with historical fact. But then, to make both clauses of the verse to correspond, we must, with Le Clerc and Houbi- gant, read the whole thus : ' At that time Rezin, king of Aram, recovered Elath to Edom, and drove the Jews from Elath ; and the Edomites came to Elath, and continued there unto this day.' Now was fulfilled the other part of Isaac's jirediction, viz. that, in couree of time, Esau * should take his brother's yoke from oft" his neck' (Gen. xxvii. 40). It appears from various inci- dental expressions in the later profjliefs, that the Edomites employed their recovered power in the enlargement of their territory in all directions. They spread as far south as Dedan in Arabia, and northward to Bozrah in the Hhauran ; though it is doubtful if the Bozrah of Scripture may not have been a place in Idumaea Proper (Isa. xxxiv. 6 ; Ixiii. 1 ; Jer. xlix. 7, 8-20 ; Ezek. xxv. 13 ; Amos i. 12). When the Chaldaeans invaded Judah, under Nebuchadnezzar, the Edomites be- came their willing auxiliaries, and triumphed with fiendish malignity over the ruin of their kinsmen the Jews, of whose desolated land they hoped to obtain a large portion to themselves (Obad. verses 10-16 ; Ezek. xxv. 12-14 ; xxxv. 3-10; xxxvi. 5; Lament, iv. 21). By this cir- cumstance the hereditary hatred of the Jews was rekindled in greater fury than ever, and hence the many dire denunciations of the ' daughter of Edom,' to be met with in the Hebrew prophets (Ps. cxxxvii. 7-9; Oh&A. passim ; Jer. xlix. 7; Ezek. xxv. and xxxv.). From the language of Malachi (i. 2, 3), and also from the accounts pre- served by Josephus (Antiq. x. 9. 7), it would seem that the Edomites did not wholly escape the Chal- daean scourge ; but instead of being carried captive, like the Jews, they not only retained possession of their own territory, but became masters of the soutli of Judah, as far as Hebron (1 Mace. v. 65, comp. with Ezek. xxxv. 10 ; xxxvi. 5). Here, however, tliey were, in course of time, successfully at- tacked by the Maccabees, and about b.c. 125, were finally subdued by John Hyrcanus, who compelled them to submit to circumcision and othei' Jewish rites, with a view to incorporate them with the nation (1 Mace. v. 3, 65 ; 2 Mace. X. 16 ; xii. 32; Joseph. Antiq. xiii. 9. 1 ; 15. 4). The amalgamation, however, of the two races seems never to have been efl'ected, for we after- wards hear of Antipater, an Idumsean by birth, being made by Caesar procurator of all Judaea; and his son, commonly called Herod the Great, was, at the time of Christ's birth, king of Judaea, including Idumaea ; and hence Roman writers often s\yeak of all Palestine under that name (Joseph. Antiq. xiv. 1. 3; 8.5; xv. 7. 9;xvii. 11. 4). Not long before the siege of Jerusalem by Titus, 20,000 Idumaeans were called in to the defence of the city by the Zealots ; but both par- ties gave themselves up to rapine and murder (Joseph. De Bell. Jud. iv. 4. 5 ; 6. 1 ; vii. 8. 1). IDUMvEA. IDUM^.\. This is the last mention made uf the Edomites in history. The author of a work on Job, once ascribed to Origen, says that their name an^ lan- guage had perished, and tliat, lilce the Ammonites ond Moabites, they had all become Arabs. In the second century Ptolemy limits the name Idumaea to the country west of the Jordan. 360. [Ravine in Idumaea.] But while, during the captivity of the Jews in Babylon, the Edomites had thus been extending their territory to the north-west, they were them- selves supplanted in the southern part of their native region by the Nabathaeans, the descendants of Ishmael's eldest son, and to the article Ne- BAiOTH, we must refer the reader for tlie subse- quent history of the land of Edom. From the era of the Crusades down to the pre- sent century the land of Esau was, to Europeans, a terra incognita. Its situation was laid down on the best maps more than a hundred miles from the true position, and as if lying in a direction where it is now known there is nothing but a vast expanse of desert. A'olney had his attention drawn towards it, when at Gaza, by the vague reports of the -A.rabs, and in 1807 the unfortunate Seetzen penetrated a certain way into the country, and heard of the wonders of the Wady Musa; but the first modern traveller who 'passed through the land of Edom ' was Burckhardt, in the year 1812. And it has been well remarked by Dr. Robinson (Atner. Bib. Reposit. vol. iii. p. 250), tliat ' had he accomplished nothing but his re- searches in these regions, his journey would have been worth all the labour and cost expended on it, although his discoveries thus shed their strongest light upon subjects which were not comprehended in the plan or purpose either of himself or his employers.' Burckliardt entered Idumaea from the north, and in the year 1818 he was followed in the same direction by Messrs. Legh, Baukca, Irby and Mangles. In 1828 Laborde and Linant found access from the soath ; and since then it has been visited and described by so many that the names of its localities have become familiar as household words. The limit of the wanderings of toe Israelites in the desert was the brook Zereil, after crossing which they found themselves in the territory of Moab (Deut. ii. 13-18). This brook is supposed to be identical with the Wady-el-Ahsy, which, rising near the Castle el-Ahsy, on the route to Mecca of the Syrian caravan upon the high eastern desert, penetrates through the whole chain of mountains to near the south-east corner of the Dead Sea. It was thus the southern border of Moab and the northern of Edom, whence the latter region extended southwards as far as to Elath on the Red Sea. The valley which runs between the two seas consists first of El-Ghor, which is comparatively low, but gradually rises into the more elevated plain of El-Arabah to the south. The country lying east of this great valley is the land of Idumaea. It is a mountain tract, consisting at the base of low hills of lime- stone or argillaceous rock, then lofty mountains of porphyry forming the body of the mountain ; above these, sandstone broken up into irregular ridges and grotesque groups of clifi's; and again farther back, and higher than all, long elevated ridges of limestone without precipices. East of all these stretches off indefinitely the high plateau of the great eastern desert. Robinson and Smith estimated the height of the porphyry cliffs at about 2000 feet above the Arabah ; the elevation of Wady Mttsa above the same is, perhaps, 2000 or 2200 feet, while the limestone rrdges further back probably do not fall short of 3000 feet. The whole breadth of the mountainous tract between the Arabah and the eastern desert does not exceed fifteen or twenty geographical miles. Of these mountains the most remark- able is Mount Hor, near the Wady Musa. [HoR, Mount]. While the mountains on the west of the -\rabah, though less elevated, are wholly barren, those of Idumaea seem to enjoy a sufficiency of rain, and are covered with tufts of herbs and occasional trees. The wadys, too, are full of trees and shrubs and flowers, while the eastern and higher parts are extensively culti- vated, and yield good crops. Hence Robinson thinks its appearance fulfils the promise made to Esau (Gen. xxvji. 39), ' Thy dwelling shall I>e the fatness of the forth and of the dew of heaven from above.' Yet many critiijs are of opinion (e. g. Vater, De Wette, Geddes, Von Bohlen) that ''^^lifJ2 should there be rendered ':froni,' i. e. ' far away from, or destitute of,' the fatness of the earth, &c. ; and it is immediately added, ' for thou shalt live by thy sword ;' and it does not appear that Idumaea was ever particularly noted for its fertility. This mountainous region is at present divided into two districts. The northern bears the name of Jehal, i. e. ' Tlie Mountain,' the Gebal of the Hebrews (Ps. Ixxxiii. 8), and the Gebalene of the Greeks and Romans. Commencing at Wady el-Ahsy, it terminates, according to Burckhardt, at Wady el-Ghuweir, the largest place in it being TufiJeh, perhaps the Tophel of Deut. i. I. The southern district is esh- Sherah, extending as far as Akabah, and including Shobak, Wady Musa, Maan, &c. Burckhardt mentions a third d»> 8 1DUM.EA. trict, Jebal Hesma; but Robinson says that though there is a sandy tract, el-Hismah, with mountains around it, on tlie east of Akabah, it does not constitute a separate division. The whole of this region is at present occupied by various tribes of Bedouin Arabs. The chief tribe in the Jehal is the Hejaya, witli a branch of the Kaabineh, while in esh-Sherah they are all of the numerous and powerful tribe of the Haweitat, with a few independent allies. The Bedouins in Idum8ea have of late years been par- tially subject to the Pacha of Egypt, paying an annual tribute, which, in the case of the Beni Sukhr, is one camel for two tents. The fellahin, or peasants, are half Bedouin, inhabiting the few villages, but dwelling also in tents ; they too j)ay tribute to the Egyptian government, and furnish supplies of grain. Among the localities connected with Edom which are mentioned in Scripture may be noticed Dinhabah, Boarah, Theman, Maon (now Maan), Kadesh-barnea (which Robinson identifies with el-Weibeh in the Wady el-Jeib), Zephath (which he supposes to be the pass of Es-Sufah), Elath, and Ezion-geber, &c. ; but the most celebrated place in all the region was the chief city, Selah or Petra, for a description of which the reader is referred to the latter head [Petra]. Could the scene of the book of Job be with certainty fixed in Idumaea, we should then pos- sess much curious and valuable information re- spectingc both the country and people soon after it had been colonized by the descendants of Esau (See Mason Good, Wemyss, and others upon Job). But all that we learn directly of the ancient Edomites from the historical books of Scripture represents them as not, indeed, neglect- ing agriculture or trade (.Num. xx. 17), yet, on the whole, as a warlike and predatory race, who, according to the prediction of their progenitor Isaac, ' lived by their sword.' The situation of the country afforded peculiar facilities for com- merce, which seems to have been prosecuted from a very early period. ' Bordering,' says Volney, ' upon Arabia on the east and south, and Egypt on the south-west, and forming, from north to south, the most commodious channel of commu- nication between Jerusalem and her dependencies on the Red Sea, through the continuous valleys of El-Ghor and El-Araba, Idumaea may be said to have long formed the emporium of the com- merce of the East.' The era of its greatest pros- perity was after the Nabathaeans had become masters of the country and founded the kingdom of Arabia Petraea, of which the renowned metro- polis was Petra. The religion of the early Edom- ites was, ])erhaps, comparatively pure ; but in process of time they embraced idolatry : in 2 Chron. xxv. 20, we read of the ' gods of Edom,' one of whom, according to Josephus {Antiq. xv. 7. 9), was called Kotze. With respect to the striking fulfilment of the prophetic denunciations upon Edom, we need only rel'er the reader to the well-known work of Keith, who frequently errs, nowever, in straining the sense of prophecy be- vond its legitimate import, as well as in seeking out too literally minute an accomplishment. On Idumaea generally, see C. B. Michaelis, Diss, de Antiquiss. IdumcBor. Hist, in Pott and Ruperti"s Sylloge Comment. Theologic. Part VI. p. 121 ; J. D. Michaelis, Comment, de Troglodytis Sei- IMMANUEL. rilis, in the Syntagma Commentt,, Part I. p. 194i but especially. Sketches of Idutnea and its present Inhabitants, by Dr. E. Robinson, in the Amer. Bib. Repository for April, 1833, p. 217; and tiie Bib. Besearches of the same writer, vol. ii. p. 551.— N. M. ILLYRICUM (^lKKvpiK6v), a country lying to the north-west of Macedonia, and answering nearly to that whicli is at present called Dal- matia; by which name indeed the southern part oflllyricum itself was known, and whither St. Paul informs Timothy that Titus had gone (2 Tim. iv. 10). Paul himself preached tlz« Gospel in lUyricum, which was at that time a province of the Roman Empire (Rom. xv. IMMANUEL ("PX-IJ^V; Sept. 'Ejujuovoi/^A.) or Emmanuel. This word, meaning ' God with us,^ occurs in the celebrated verse of Isaiah (vii. 14), ' Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.' In forty-three MSS. and thirty-nine printed editions, the word is given in the separate form 7X 130y ; but, as Dr. Henderson remarks, ' in the ortho- graphy of all compound names, the MSS. and editions widely dill'er.' In the name itself there is no difliiculty ; but tiie verse, as a whole, has been variously interpreted. From the manner in which the word God, and even Jehovah, is used in the composition of Hebrew names, there is no such pe- culiarity in that of Immanuel as in itself requires us to understand that he who bore it must be in fact God. Indeed, it is used as a proper name among the Jews at this day. This high sense has, however, been assigned to it in consequence of the application of the whole verse, by the Evan- gelist Matthew (i. 23), to our Divine Saviour. Even if this reference did not exist, the history of the Nativity would irresistibly lead us to th« conclusion that the verse — whatever may have been its intermediate signification — had an ulti- mate reference to Christ. The state of opinion on this point has been thus neatly summed vip by Dr. Henderson, in his note on the text : — ' This verse has long been a subject of dispute between Jews and professedly Christian writers, and among the latter mutually. While the former reject its application to the Messiah altogether, — the earlier rabbins explain- ing it of the queen of Ahaz and the birth of his son Hezekiah ; and the later, as Kimchi and Abarbanel, of the prophet's own wife, — the great body of Christian interpreters have held it to be directly and exclusively in prophecy of our Saviour, and have considered themselves fully borne out by the inspired testimony of the Evan- gelist Matthew. Others, however, have departed from this construction of the passage, and have invented or adopted various hypotheses in support of such dissent. Grotius, Faber, Isenbiehl, Hezel, Bolten, Fritsche, Pluschke, Gesenius, and Hitzig, suppose either the then present or a future wife of Isaiah to be the ni2?y almah [rendered " virgin"], referred to. Eichhorn, Paulus, Hensler and Ammon, are of opinion that the propliet had nothing more in view than an ideal virgin, and that both she and her son are merely imaginary personages, introduced for the purpose of piophetic illustration. Bauer, Cube, Steudel, and 8om« INCENSE. others, think that the prophet pouited to a young woman in the presence of the king and his courtiers, A fourth class, among whom are Richard Simon, Lowth, Koppe, Dathe, Williams, Von Meyer, Olshausen, and Dr. J. Pye Smith, iidmit tiie hypothesis of a double sense: one, in which flie words apfily primarily to some female living ill the time of the prophet, and her giving birth to a son according to the ordinary laws of nature ; or, as Dathe holds, to some virgin, who at that time should miraculously conceive; and the other, in which they received a secondary and plenary fulfilment in the miraculous concep- tion and birth of Jesus Christ.' INCENSE, a perfume which gives forth its fragrance by burning, and, in particular, that perfume which was burnt upon the altar of in- cense [Altar; Censer]. Indeed, the burning of incense seems to have been considered among the Hebrews so much of an act of worship or sacred otlering, that we read not of any other use of incense than this among them. Nor amoTig the Egyptians do we discover any trace of burnt perfume but i'n sacerdotal use; but in the Persian sculptures we see incense burnt before tlie king. The prohibition of the Hebrews to make any perfume for private use — ' to smell to' — like that prepared for the altar, merely im- plies, we apprehend, that the sacred incense had a peculiarly rich fragrance before being burnt, which was forbidden to be imitated in common perfumes. The incense is denoted by the words "HtDpO miktar (Exod. xxx. I) ; "IDp kitter (Jer. xliv. 21); and ni"lt3p kituroth (Exod. xxx- I ; xxxi. 11; Ezek. xvi. 18); all of which are equally from the root ^Dp, which, in Piliel, signifies gene- rally to raise an odour by burning ; and in the verbal form it is applied not only to the offering of incense but also of sacrifices, the smoke or efflu- vium of which is regarded as an acceptable orsweet odour to God. Indeed, the word which denotes an incense of spices in Exod. xxx. 1 describes an incense of fat in Ps. Ixvi. 15. The ingredients of the sacred incense are enume- rated witli great precision in Exod. xxx. 34, 35 : * Take unto thee sweet spices, stacte ^133 netaph), and onycha {TOU^ shecheleph), and galbanum (n3i37n chelbenaK) ; these sweet spices with pure frankincense (1132? lebonali) : of each shall there be a like weight. And thou shalt make of it a perfume, a confection after the art of the apothecary, tempered togetlier, pure and holy.' For an explanation of these various ingredients we must refer to their several Hebrew names in the present work. The further directions are, that this precious compound should be made or broken up into minute particles, and that it should be deposited, as a very holy thing, in the tabernacle ' beibre the testimony ' (or ark). As the ingredients are so minutely specified, there was nothing to prevent wealthy persons from having a similar perfume for private use : this, therefore, was forbidden under pain of excom- munication : ' Ye shall not make to yourselves according to the composition thereof: it shall be unto thee lioly for the Lord. Whosoever shall make like unto that, to smell tiiereto, shall even be cut off from his people ' (ver. 37, 38). INDIA. 9 The word which describes the various ingredi- ents as being ' tempered together ' literally meana ' salted ' (HvIOD memullach). The Chaldee and Greek versions, however, have set the example of rendering it by ' mixed ' or ' tetnpered,' as if their idea was that tlie different ingredients were to be mixed together, just as salt is mixed with any substance over which it is sprinkled. Ainsworth contends for tlie literal meaning, inasmuch as the law (Lev. ii. 13) expressly says, ' With all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.' In support of this he cites Maimonides, who affirms that there was not any thing offered on the altar without salt, except the wine of the drink offering, and the blood, and the wood ; and of the incense he says, still m-ore expressly, that 'fhey added to it a cab of salt.' In accordance with tliis, it is supposed, our Saviour says, ' Every sacrifice shall be salted with salt ' (Mark ix. 49). Ainsworth further re- marks : ' If our speech is to be always with grace, seasoned with salt, as the apostle teaches (Col. iv. 6), how much more should our incense, our prayers unto God, be theiewith seasoned?' It is, however, difficult to see how so anomalous a sub- stance as salt could well be combined in the preparation ; and if it was used, as we incline to think that it was, it was probably added in the act of offering. The above reference to Maimonides reminds us of the reason which he assigns, in tlie More Ne- vochim, for the use of incense in tlie Jewish ritual service : ' To prevent the stench wnlch would otherwise have been occasioned by the number of beasts every day slaughtered in the sanctuary, God ordained that incense should be burned in it every morning and evening, and thereby rendered the odour of the sanctuary and of the vestments of those that ministered exceedingly grateful ; which has occasioned the saying of our rabbins, That the odour of the incense extended to Jericho. This, therefore, is another of the pre- cepts conducing to the reverence and veneration which ought to be entertained for the sanctuary : for if the perfume thereof had not been pleasant, but the contrary, it would have produced con- tempt instead of veneration, since a grateful odour pleases and attracts, while an unpleasant one disgusts and repels.' This is very well ; and no doubt the use of incense, which we always find in religions where worship is rendered by sacrifice, had its origin in some such considerations. But we are not to lose sight of the symbolical meaning of this grateful offering. It was a symbol of prayer. It was offered at the time when the people were in the posture and act of prayer; and their orisons were supposed to be presented to God by tlie priest, and to ascend to Him in the smoke and odour of that fragrant offering. This beautiful idea of the in- cense frequently occurs in Scripture (comp. Ps. cxli. 2; Mai. i. 11 ; Zech. xiv. 16; Acts x. 4; Rev. V. 8 : viii. 4). INCHANTMENTS. [Witchcraft.] INDIA (•"I'^n; Sept. 'IvSikv). This name occurs only in Esther i. 1 ; viii. 9, where thePei sian king is desoibed as reigning ' from India unto Ethiopia, over a hundred and seven and twenty provinces.' It is found a.^ain, however, in the Apocrypha, where India is mentioned among the countries which the Romans took from Anti- 10 INDIA. ochus and gave to Eumenes (1 Mace. viii. 8). It 18 also with some reason conceived tliat in Acts ii. 9, we should read 'IvSlav, India, and not 'lovSalav, Judaea. If this could be admitted, an interesting subject of inquiry would arise ; for these dwellers in India — that is, Jews of India — are described as being present in Jerusalem at the Passover. There is much to say in favour of this reading, but more in favour of Idumaa ; for the name of tliat country, 'ISovixaiav, might, much more easily than that of India, 'IvSiav, have been accidentally, or rather carelessly, corrupted into 'lovdaiav : and, at tlie same time, the name of Idumaea would come better into the list than that of India, seeing that the enumeration is manifestly taken from east to west ; which allows Idumaea with great propriety to follow Mesopotamia, but forbids India to do so. Whichever may be right, Judaea can- not but be wrong ; and, indeed, on the face of the list, we cannot but see the superfluousness of the information, that the people of Judaea were present in their own city at the Passover. It is evident on the face of the above intima- tions, and indeed from all ancient history, that the country known as India in ancient times extended more to the west, and did not reacli so far to the east — that is, was not known so far to the east — as the India of the moderns. When we read of ancient India, we must clearly not understand the whole of Hindostan, but chiefly the northern parts of it, or the countries between the Indus and the Ganges ; although it is not necessary to assert that the rest of that j^eninsula, particularly its western coast, was then altogether unknown. It was from this quarter that the Persians and Greeks (to whom we are indebted for the eailiest accounts of India) invaded the country ; and this was con- sequently the region which first became generally known. The countries bordering on the Ganges continued to be involved in obscurit)-^, the great Kingdom of the Prasians excepted, which, situated nearly above the modern Bengal, was dimly dis- cernible. The nearer we approach the Indus, the more clear becomes our knowledge of the ancient geography of the country ; and it follows that the districts of which at the jjresent day we know the least, were anciently best known. Besides, the western and northern boundaries were not the same as at present. To the west, India was not then bounded by the river Indus, but by a chain of mountains which, under the name of Koh (whence the Grecian appellation of the Indian Caucasus), extended from Bactria to Makran, or Gkdrosia, enclosing the kingdoms of Candahar and Cabul, the modern kingdom of Eastern Persia, or Afghanistan. These districts anciently formed {)art of India, as well as, further to the south, the ess perfectly known countries of the Arabi and Haurs (the Arabitae and Oritae of Arrian, vi. 21), bordering on Gedrosia. This western boundary continued at all times the same, and was removed to the Indus only in consequence of the victories of Nadir Shah. Towards the north, ancient India overpassed not less its present limit. It comprehended the whole of the mountainous region above Cashmir, Badakshan, Belur Land, the western boundary mountains of Little Bucharia, or Little Thibet, and even the desert of Gobi, so far as it was known. The discovery of a passage by sea to the coasts of India has contributed to withdraw INHERITANCE. from these regions the attention of Europeans, and left them in an obscurity which hitherto has been little disturbed, although the current Oi events seems likely ere long to lead to our better knowledge. From this it appears that the India of Scripture included no part of the present India, seeing that it was confined to the territories possessed by the Per- sians and the Syrian Greeks, that never extended beyond the Indus, which, since the time of Nadir Shah, has been regarded as the western boundary of India. Something of India beyond the Indus became known through the conquering march of Alexander, and still more througli that of Seleu- cus Nicator, who penetrated to the banks of the Ganges ; but the notions thus obtained are not embraced in the Scriptural notices, which, both in the canonical and the Apocryphal text, are confined to Persian India. (See Heeren's Histo- rical Researches, i. c. 1, § 3, on Persian India; and Rennel's Geog. of Herodotus'). INHERITANCE. The laws and observances which determine the acquisition and regulate the devolution of property, are among the influences which afiect the vital interests of states ; and it is therefore of high consequence to ascertain the nature and bearing of the laws and observances relating to this subject, which come to us witli the sanction of the Bible. We may also premise that, in a condition of society such as that in which we now live, wherein the two diverging tendencies which favour immense accumulations on the one hand, and lead to poverty and pau- perism on the other, are daily becoming more and more decided, disturbing, and baneful, there seems to be required on the part of those who take Scripture as their guide, a careful study of the foundations of human society, and of the laws of property, as they are developed in the divine records which contain the revealed will of God. That will, in truth, as it is the source of all created things, and specially of the earth and its intelligent denizen, man, so is it the original foundation of property, and of the laws by which its inheritance should be regulated. God, as the Creator of the earth, gave it to man to be held, cultivated, and enjoyed (Gen. i, 28, sq. ; Ps. cxv. 16 ; Eccles. v. 9). The primitive records are too brief and fragmentary to supply us with any details respecting the earliest distribution or transmission of landed property ; but from the passages to which reference has been made, the important fact appears to be established beyond a question, that tlie origin of property is to be found, not in the achievements of violence, the success of the sword, or any imaginary implied contract, but in the will and tlie gift of the com- mon Creator and bountiful Father of the human race. It is equally clear that the gift was made, not to any favoured portion of our race, but to the race itself — to man as represented by our great primogenitor, to whom the use of tlie divine gift was first graciously vouchsafed. The indi- vidual appropriation of portions of the eartli, and the transmission of the parts thus appropriated, in other words, the consuetudinary laws of pro- perty, would be determined in each instance by the peculiar circumstances in which an indivi- dual, a family, or a clan, might find itself placed in relation to the world and its other inhabitants^ INHERITANCE. aor is it now, in the absence of written evidence, possible to ascertain, and it is useless, if not worse, to attempt to conjecture, what these laws were. This, however, is certain, tliat if in any case they inflicted injury, if they aided the aggran- disement of the few, and tended to the depression of the many, they thereby became unjust, and not only lost their divine sanction, but, by opposing the very purposes for which the earth was given to ■ man, and operating in contravention of the divine will, they were disowned and condemned of God, the tenure of the property was forfeited, and a recurrence to first principles and a re-distribution became due alike to the original donor, and to those whom He had intended impartially to be- nefit. The enforcement of these principles has, in different periods of human history, been made by the seen hand of God, in those terrible providen- tial visitations which upturn the very foundations of society and reconstruct the social frame. The Deluge was a kind of revocation of the divine gift ; the Creator took back into his own hands the earth which men had filled with injustice and violence. The trust, however, was, after that terrible punishment, once more committed to man, to be held, not for himself, but for God, and to be so used and improved as to further the divine will bj' furthering human good. And, whatever conduct may have been pursued, at any period, at variance with the divine purpose, yet it is in trust, not in absolute possession, it is for God's purposes, not our own, that the earth at large, and every portion of the earth, has been and is still held. In truth, man is the tenant, nor the proprietor, of the earth. It is the tem- porary use, not the permanent possession of it that he enjoys. The lord of ten thousand broad acres, equally with the poor penniless squatter, is a sojourner and pilgrim in the land, as all his fathers were, and is bound, not less than the other, to remember, not only that property has its duties as well as its rights, but also that its best titles are held by a momentary tenure, revocable at the will of an omnipotent power, and subject to unerring scrutiny, in regard botb to their origin and their use, in a court where the persons of men are not respected, where justice is laid to the line, and judgment to the plummet (Isa. xviii. 17). The impression which the original gift of the earth was calculated to make on men, the Great Donor was pleased, in the case of Palestine, to render, for his own wise purposes, more decided a»id emphatic by an express re-donation to the patriarch Abraham (Gren. xiii. 14, sq.). Many years, however, elapsed before the promise was fulfilled. Meanwhile the notices which we have regarding the state of property in the patriarchal ages, are few and not very definite. The products of the earth, however, were at an early period ac- cumulated and held as property. Violence in- vaded the possession ; opposing violence recovered the goods. War soon sprang out of the passions of the human heart. The necessity of civil go- vernment was felt. Consuetudinary laws ac- cordingly developed themselves. The head of the family was supreme. His will was law. The physical superiority which he possessed gave him this dominion. The same influence would secure *U trajosmission in the male rather than the fe- INHERITANCE. II male line. Hence too the rise of the rights of primogeniture. In the early condition of society which is called patriarchal, landed property had its origin, indeed, but could not be held of first importance by those who led a wandering life, shifting continually, as corvenience suggested, from one spot to another. Cattle were then the chief property (Gen. xxiv. 35). But land, if held, was held on a freehold tenure ; nor could any other tenure have come into existence till more complex and artificial relations arose, resulting, in all probability, from the increase of population and the relative insufficiency of food. When Joseph went down into Egypt, he appears to have found the freeliold tenure prevailing, which, how-- ever, he converted into a tenancy at will, or, at any rate, into a conditional tenancy. Other in- timations are found in Genesis which confirm the general statements which have just been made. Daugliters do not appear to have had any inheritance. If there are any exceptions to this rule, they only serve to prove it. Thus Job (the book so called is undoubtedly very old, so that there is no impropriety in citing it in this con- nection) is recorded (xlii. 15) to have given his daughters an inheritance conjointly with their brothers — a record which of itself proves the sin- gularity of the proceeding, and establishes our position that inheritance generally followed the male line. How highly the privileges conferred by primogeniture were valued, may be learnt from the history of Jacob and Esau. In the patriarchal age doubtless these rights were very great. The eldest son, as being by nature the first fitted for command, assumed influence and control, under his father, over the family and its dependents ; and when the father was removed by death, he readily, and as if by an act of Providence, took his father's place. Thus he succeeded to tlie pro- perty in succeeding to the headship of the family, the clan, or the tribe. At first the eldest son most probably took exclusive possession of his father's property and power ; and when, subsequently, a division became customary, he would still retain the largest share — a double portion, if not more (Gen. xxvii. 25, 29, 40). That in the days of Abraham other sons partook with the eldest, and that too though they were sons of concubines, is clear from the story of Hagar's expulsion : — ' Cast out (said Sarah) this bondwoman and her son ; for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac ' (Gen. xxi. 10). The few notices left us in Genesis of the transfer of property from hand to hand are interesting, and bear a remarkable similarity to what takes place in Eastern countries even at tliis day (Gen. xxi. 22, sq. ; xxiii. 9, sq.). The purchase of the Cave of Machpelah as a family burying- place for Abraham, detailed in the last passage, serves to show the safety of property at that early period, and the facility with whicli an inheritance was transmitted even to sons' sons (comp. Gen. xlix. 29). That it was customary, during the father's lifetime, to make a disposition of property, is evident from Gen. xxiv. 35, where it is said that Abraham had given all he had to Isaac. This statement is further confirmed by ch. xxv. 5, 6, where it is added that Abraham gave to the sons of his concubines 'gifts, sending them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward unto the east country.' Sometimes, however, lo fai 13 INHERITANCE. were the children of unmarried females from being dismissed with a gift, that they shared, with what we should term the legitimate children, in the fathers property and rights. Tlius Dan and Naphtiili were sons of Bilhah, Rachel's maid, whom she gave to her husband, failing to bear children herself. So Gad and Asher were, under similar circumstances, sons of Zilpah, Leah's maid (Gen. xxx. 2-14). In the event of the eldest son's dying in the father's lifetime, the next son took his place; and if the eldest son left a widow, the next son made her his wife (Gen. xxxviii. 7, sq.), the offspring of which union was reckoned to the first-bom and deceased son. Should the second likewise die, the third son took his place (Gen. xxxviii. 11). While the rights of the first-born were generally established and recognised, yet were they sometimes set aside in favour of a younger child. The blesshig of the father or the grandsire seems to have been an act essential in the devolution of power and pro- perty— in its efl'ects not unlike wills and testa- ments with us ; and instances are not wanting in which this (so to term it) testamentary bequest set aside consuetudinary laws, and gave prece- dence to a younger son (Gen. xlviii. 15, sq.). Special claims on the parental regards were ac- knowledged and rewarded by special gifts, as in the case of Jacob's donation to Joseph (Gen. xlviii. 22). In a similar manner, bad conduct on the part of the eldest son (as well as of others) subjected him, if not to the loss of his rights of property, yet to the evil influence of his father's dying malediction (Gen. xlix. 3) ; while the good and favoured, though younger, son was led by the paternal blessing to anticipate, and probably also to reap, the richest inheritance of individual and social happiness (Gen, xlix. 8-22). The original promise made to Abraham of the land of Palestine was solemnly repeated to Isaac (Gen. xxvi. 3), the reason assigned being, be- cause ' Abraliam obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws ;' while it is expressly declared that the earlier inhabitants of the country were dispos- sessed and destined to extermination for the greatness of their iniquity. The possession of the promised land was embraced by Isaac in his dying benediction to Jacob (Gen. xxviii. 3, 4), to whom God vouchsafed (Gen. xxviii. 15 ; see also XXXV. 10, 11) to give a renewed assurance of the destined inheritance. Tliat this donation, how- ever, was held to be dependent for the time and manner of its fulfilment on the divine will, ap- pears from Gen. xxxiii. 18, where Jacob, on coming into the land of Canaan, bought for an hundred pieces of money * a parcel of a field, at the hand of the children of Hamor.' Delayed though the execution of the promise was, con- fidence never deserted the family of Abraham, so that Joseph, dying in the land of Egypt, assured his brothers tliat they would be visited of God and placed in possession of Canaan, enjoining on them, in this conviction, that, when conducted to their possession, they should carry his bones with them out of Egypt (Gen. 1. 25). A promise thus given, thus repeated, and thus believed, easily, and indeed unavoidably, became the fundamental principle of that settlement of property which Moses made when at length he oad «fi'ected the divine will in the redemption INHERITANCE. of the children of Israel. The observances and practices, too, which we have noticed as prevailing among the patriarchs would, no doubt, have great influence on the laws which the Jewish legislator originated or sanctioned. The land of Canaan was divided among the twelve tribes descended tiirough Isaac and Jacob from Abraham. The division was made by lot for an inheritance among the families of the sons of Israel, accord- ing to the tribes, and to the number and size of families in each tribe. The tribe of Levi, how- ever, had no inheritance ; but forty-eight cities with their suburbs were assigned to the Levites, each tribe giving according to the number of cities that fell to its share (Num. xxxiii. 50 ; xxxiv. 1 ; XXXV. 1). The inheritance thus acquired was never to leave the tribe to which it belonged; every tribe was to keep strictly to its own inherit- ance. An heiress, in consequence, was not allowed to marry out of her own tribe, lest ])roperty should pass by her marriage into another tribe (Num. xxxvi. 6-9). Tills restriction led to the marriage of heiresses with their near relations : thus the daughters of Zelophehad ' were married unto their father's brother's sons,' ' and their inheritance re- mained in the tribe of the family of their father ' (ver. 11, 12; comp. Joseph. Antiq. iv. 7. 5). In general cases the inheritance went to sons, the first-born receiving a double portion, 'for he is the beginning of his father's strength.' If a man had two wives, one beloved, the other hated, and if the first-born were the son of her who was hated, he nevertheless was to enjoy ' the right of the first-born ' (Deut. xxi. 15). If a man left no sons, the inheritance passed to his daughters ; if there was no daughter, it went to his brothers ; in case there were no brothers, it v/as given to his father's brothers ; if liis father had no brothers, it came into possession of the nearest kinsman (Num. xxvii. 8). The land was Jehovah's, and could not therefore be permanently alienated. Every fiftieth year, whatever land had been sold returned to its former owner. Tlie value and price of land naturally rose or fell in proportion to the number of years there were to elapse prior to the ensuing fiftieth or jubilee-year. If he who sold the land, or a kinsman, could redeem the land before the year of jubilee, it was to be restored to him on his paying to the purchaser the value of the produce of tlie years remaining till the jubilee. Houses in villages or unwalled towns might not be sold for ever ; they were re- stored at the jubilee, and might at any time be redeemed. If a man sold a dwelling-house situ- ated in a walled city, he had the option of re- deeming it within the space of a full year after it had been sold ; but if it remained unredeemed, it belonged to the purchaser, and did not return to him who sold it even at the jubilee (Lev. xxv. 8, 23). The Levites were not allowed to sell the land in the suburbs of their cities, tliough they might dispose of the cities themselves, which, however, were redeemable at any time, and must return at the jubilee to their original possessors (Lev. xxvii. 16). The regulations which the laws of Moses esta- blished rendered wills, or a testamentary dispo- sition of (at least) landed property, almost, if ntn juite, unnecessary; we accordingly find no pro- vision for anything of the kind. Some difficulty may Itave been now and then occasioned whea INSPIRATION. near relations failed; but this was met by the traditional law, whicli furnished minute direc- tions oa the point (Misch. Baba Bathra, iv. 3, c. 8, 9). Personal properly would naturally fol- low the land, or might be bequeatlied by word of mouth. At a later period of the Jewish polity the mention of wills is found, but the idea seems to have been taken from foreign nations. In princely families they appear to have been used, as we learn from Josephus (Antiq. xiii. 16. 1 ; xvii. 3. 2 ; De Bell. Jud. ii. 2. 3) ; but such a prac- tice can hardly suffice to establish the general use of wills among the people. In the New Tes- tament, however, wills are expressly mentioned (Gal. iii. 15 ; Heb. ix. 17). Michaelis {Com. mentaries, i. 431) asserts that the phrase (2 Sam. xvii. 23 ; 2 Kings xx. 1: in''3^ HIX) 'set thine house in order ' has reference to a will or testa- ment. But his grounds are by no means sufficient, the literal rendering of the words being, ' give commands to thy house.' The utmost which such an expression could inferentially be held to comprise in regard to property, is a dying and final distribution of personal property ; and we know that it was not unusual for fathers to make, while yet alive, a division of their goods among their children (Luke xv. 12 ; Rosenmiill. MoT' genl. v. 197).— J. R. B. INK, INKHORN. [Writing.] INSPIRATION. This word is sometimes used to denote the excitement and action of a fervent imagination in the poet or orator. But even in this case there is generally a reference to some supposed divine influence, to which the ex- cited action is owing. It is once used in Scrip- ture to denote that divine agency by which man is endued with the faculties of an intelligent being, when it is said, ' the inspiration of the Al- mighty giveth him understanding.' But the in- spiration now to be considered is that which belonged to those who wrote the Scriptures, and which is particularly spoken of in 2 Tim. iii. 16, and in 2 Pet. i. 21 : 'All Scripture is given by inspiration of God ;' ' Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.' These pas- sages relate specially to the Old Testament; but there is at least equal reason to predicate divine inspiration of the New Testament. Tlie definition which Dr. Knapp gives of in- spiration is the one we shall adopt. He says, * It may be best defined, according to the repre- sentations of the Scriptures themselves, as ow ex- traordinari/ divine agency upon teachers ivMle yiving instruction, whether oral or written, by which they were taught lohat and how they thould write or speak.' Or we may say more briefly, that the sacred penmen were completely under the direction of the Holy Spirit, or that they wrote under a plenary inspiration. Dr. Calamy's definition agrees substantially with that of Dr. Knapp. To prove that the Scriptures are divinely in- spired we might with propriety refer to the excellence of the doctrines, precepts, and pro- mises, and other instructions, which they contain ; to the simplicity and majesty of their style ; to the agreement of the ditterent parts, and the scope of the whole ; especially to the full dis- covery they make of man's fallen and ruined Btite, asid the way of salvation through a Re- INSPIRATION. 13 deemer; together with their pliwer tc enlighten and sanctify the heart, and the accompanying witness of the spirit in believers. Tliese are cir- cumstances of real importance, and the discerning advocates of inspiration liave not overlooked them. But the morfe direct and conclusive evidence tliat the Scriptures were divinely inspired, is found in tJie testimony of the writers thetnselves. And as the writers did, by working miracles, and in other ways, sufficiently authenticate their divine commission, and establish their authority and in- fallibility as teachers of divine truth, their testimony, in regard to their own inspiration, is entitled to our full confidence. For who can doubt that they were as competent to judge of, and as much disposed to speak the truth on this sub- ject as on any other? If flien we admit their divine commission and authority, why should we not rely upon the plain testimony which they give concerning the divine assistance afforded them in their work ? To reject their testimony in this case would be to impeach their veracity, and thus to take away the foundation of the Ciiristian religion. And it is well known that those who deny the justice of the claim which they set up to divine inspiration, do, in fact, give up the in- fallible truth and authority of the Scriptures, and adopt the principles of deism. It is, then, of the first importance to inquire what representations are made by the prophets, and by Christ and his apostles, respecting the inspi- ration, and the consequent authority, of the sacred Scriptures. The prophets generally professed to speak the word of God. What they taught was introduced and confirmed by a ' Thus saith the Lord ;' or ' The Lord spake to me, saying.' And, in one way or another, they gave clear proof that they were divinely commissioned, and spoke in the name of God, or as it is expressed in the New Testament, that God spake by them. But the strongest and most satisfactory proof of the inspiration and divine authority of the Old Testament writings, is found in the testimony of Christ and the apostles. The Lord Jesus Christ possessed the spirit of wisdom without measure, and came to bear wit- ness to the truth. His works proved that he was what he declared himself to be — the Messiah, the great Prophet, the infallible Teacher. The faith which rests on him rests on a rock. As soon then as we learn how he regarded the Scriptures, we have reached the end of our inquiries. His word is truth. Now every one who carefully attends to the four Gospels will find, that Christ every- where spoke of that collection of writings called the Scripture, as the word of God ; that he re- garded the whole in this light ; that he treated the Scripture, and every part of it, as infallibly true, and as clothed with divine authority, — thus distinguishing it from every mere human produc- tion. Nothing written by man can be entitled to the respect which Christ showed to the Scriptures. This, to all Christians, is direct and incontro- vertible evidence of the divine origin of the Scriptures, and is, by itself, perfectly conclusive. But there is clear concurrent evidence, and evidence still more specific, in the writings of the Apostles. In two texts in particular, divine in- spiration is positively asserted. In the fii-st (2 Tim, iii. 16), Paul lays it down as the charac- II INSPIRATION. terististic of ' all Scripture,' that it * is given by inspiration of God' (6e6in/ev(rTos, ' divinely in- spired'); and from tills results its profitableness. Some writers think that the passage should be rendered tlius : All divinely inspired Scripture, or, all Scripture, being divinely inspired, is profitable. According to the common render- ing, inspiration is predicated of all Scripture. According to the other, it is presupposed, as the attribute of the subject. But this rendering is liable to insu])erable objections. For di6irv(\)- ffTos and ui(i)eKifxos are connected by the con- junction Kal, and must both be predicates, if either of them is ; and unless one of them is a predicate there is no complete sentence. Hen- derson remarks, that the mode of construction re- ferred to ' is at variance with a common rule 0/ Greek syntax, which requires, that when two adjectives are closely joined, as 6€6Trvev(TTos and oKpeKe/xos here are, if there be an ellipsis of the substantive verb eVri, this verb must be supplied after the former of the two, and regarded as re- peated after the latter. Now there exists pre- cisely such an ellipsis in the case before us ; and as there is nothing in the context which would lead to any exception to the rule, we are bound to yield to its force.' And he adds, that ' the evidence in favour of the common rendering, derived from the Fathers, and almost all the ver- sions, is most decided.' It cannot for a moment be admitted, that the Apostle meant to signify that divine inspiration belongs to a part of Scrip- ture, but not to the whole ; or that he meant, as Semler supposes, to furnish a criterion by which to judge whether any work is inspired or not, namely, its utility. ' That author proceeds fear- lessly to apply this criterion to the books of the Old Testament, and to lop off eight of them, as not possessing the requisite marlcs of legitimacy. Most of the German divines adopt Semler's hypo- thesis.' But it is very manifest that such a sense is not by any means suggested by the passage itself, and that it is utterly precluded by other parts of the New Testament. For neither Christ nor any one of his apostles ever intimates a dis- tinction between some parts of Scripture which are inspired and other parts which are not in- spired. The doctrine which is plainly asserted in the text under consideration, and which is fully sustained by the current language of the New Testament, is, that all the icritings deno- minated the Scriptures are divinely inspired. The other text (2 Pet. i. 21) teaches that ' Pro- phecy came not by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.' This passage, which the apostle Peter applied particularly to the subject of which he was speaking, may be considered as explanatory of what is intended by inspiration. For to say that all Scripture is divinely inspired, and that men of God wrote it as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, is one and the same thing. The various texts in which Christ and the Apos- tl-es speak of Scripture as the word of God, and as invested with authority to decide all questions of truth and duty, fully correspond with the text* above considered. From this view of the subject it follows, that the attempt which has been made by a certain class of writers, to account for the production of the whole or any part of the Scriptures by the INSPIRATION. will or agency, the ingenuity, diligence or flde» lity of men, in the use of the means within theil reach, without the supernatural influence of the spirit, is utterly at variance with the teachings ol Christ and the Apostles as to the origin of the sacred writings. ^ . , ^^ As the Christian dispensation surpasses the former in all spiritual privileges and gifts, it is reasonable to presume that the New Testament was written under at least an equal degree of divine influence with the Old, and that it comes recommended to us by equal characteristics of infallible truth. But of this there is clear positive evidence from the New Testament itself. In tlie first place, Jes^ls Christ, whose works proved him to be the great unerring Teacher, and to be possessed of all power in Heaven and earth, gave commission to his Apostles to act in his stead, and to carry out the work of instruction which he had begun, confirming their authority by investing them with power to perform miracles. But how could such a commission have answered the end proposed, had not the Divine Spirit so guided the Apostles as to render them infallible and perfect teachers of divine truth? But, secondly, in addition to this, Jesus ex- pressly promised to give them the Holy Spirit, to abide with them continually, and to guide them into all the truth. He said to them, ' When they shall deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak ; for it shall be given you in the same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of yoiir Father that speaketh in you.' Storr and Flatt think this is the idea intended: 'The instructions which ye in general give are derived not so much from yourselves as from the Holy Spirit. Hence, when j'e are called on to defend your doctrines, ye need feel no anxiety, but may confidently rely on the Holy Spirit to vindicate his own doctrines, by suggesting to you the very words of your defence.' If these promises were not fulfilled, then Jesus was not a true prophet. If they were fulfilled, as they certainly were, then the Apostles had the corkstant assistance of the Holy S])irit, and, whe- ther engaged in speaking or writing, were under divine guidance, and, of course, were liable to no mistakes either as to the matter or manner of their instructions. In the third place, the writers of the New Testament manifestly considered themselves to be under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and their instructions, whether oral or written, to be clothed with divine authority, as the word of God. 'We speak,' they say, 'as of God.' Again, •Which things we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but in words wliich the Holy Ghost teacheth.' They declared what they taught to be the word of God, and the things they wrote to be the commandments of God. Now the Apostles, being honest, unassuming, humble men, would never have spoken of them- selves and their writings in such a manner, had they not known themselves to be under the un- erring guidance of the Holy Spirit, and their instructions perfectly in accordance with the mind of God. From several passages in Paul's epistles to the Corinthians, it has been supposed that, in the cases referred to, he meant to disclaim inspiratioiv INSPIRATION. Hut that those passages will bear another cou- straction, and ought to he understood in another manner, has been satisfactorily argued by several writers, particularly by Haldane and Gaussen in their treatises on inspiration, and by Henderson in his lectures. And the writer of this article would take tlie liberty to refer also to his lectures on the same subject. It is perfectly consistent with the plenary in- spiration here maintained, that God operated on the minds of inspired men in a variety of ways, sometimes by audible words, sometimes by direct inward suggestions, sometimes by outward visible signs, sometimes by the Urim and Thummim, and sometimes by dreams and visions. This variety in the mode of divine influence detracted nothing from its certainty. God made known his will equally in different ways ; and, whatever the mode of his operation, he made it manifest to his servants that the things revealed were from him. But inspiration was concerned not only in making known the will of God to prophets and apostles, but also in giving them direction in writing the sacred books. They wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. And in this, also, there was a diversity in the mode of divine influence. Sometimes the Spirit of God moved and guided his servants to write things which they could not know by natural means, such as new doctrines or precepts, or predictions of future events. Sometimes he moved and guided them to write the history of events which were wholly or partly known to them by tradition, or by the testimony of their contemporaries, or by their own observation or experience. In all these cases the Divine Spirit effectually preserved them from all error, and influenced them to write just so much and in such a manner as God saw to be best. Sometimes he moved and guided them to write a summai-y record of larger histories, containing what his infinite wisdom saw to be adapted to the end in view, that is, the benefit of his people in all ages. Sometimes he influenced them to make a record of important maxims in common use, or to write new ones, derived either from their own reason or experience, or from special divine teaching. Sometimes he influenced them to write parables or allegories, particularly suited to make a salutary impression of divine things on the minds of men ; and sometimes to record super- natural visions. In these and all other kinds of writing the sacred penmen manifestly needed special divine guidance, as no man could of him- self attain to infallibility, and no wisdom, except that of God, was sufficient to determine what things ought to be written for permanent use in the church, and what manner of writing would be best fitted to promote the great ends of revela- tion. Some writers speak of different modes and different kinds, and even different degrees of in- si)iration. And if their meaning is that God influenced the minds of inspired men in different ways ; that he adopted a variety of modes in re- vealing divine things to their minds; that he guided them to give instruction in prose and in poetry, and in all the different forms of composi- tion ; that he moved and guided them to write history, prophecy, doctrines, commands, promises, iteproofs, and exhortations, and that he adapted INSPIRATION. 15 his mods of operation to each of these cases — against this no objection can be made. It is a fact, that the Scriptures exhibit specimens of all these different kinds of writing and these different modes of divine instruction. Still each and every part of what was written was divinely in- spired, and equally so. It is all the word of God, and clothed with divine authority, as much as if it had all been made known and written in one way. Dr. Henderson, who labours perhaps with too much zeal against carrying inspiration to extreme lengths, still says that if those who hold to different modifications of inspiration intend that there are diflerent modifications and degrees of authority given to Scripture, their opinion must meet with unqualified reprobation from every sincere be- liever. He insists that a diversity in the modes and degrees of divine operation did exist in the work of inspiration, and that this diversity was the result of infinite wisdom adapting itself to different circumstances. He thinks that, unless we admit such a diversity, we cannot form correct ideas of the subject. But he is confident that the distinction whicli he endeavours to establish is not in the slightest degree' hostile to the divine au- thority of Scripture. He affirms that no part of that holy book toas written without miraculous influence ; that all parts were equally inspired} that in regard to the whole volume the great end was infallibly attained, namely, the commitment to writing of precisely such matters as God de signed for the religious instruction of mankind ; that the sacred penmen wrote what had for its object not merely the immediate benefit of indi- vidual persons or churches, but what would be useful to Christians in all future times ; and that in regard to the most minute and inconsiderable things which the Scripture contains we are com- pelled to say, this also cometh from the Lord. The controversy among orthodox divines re- specting what is called verbal inspiration, appears to arise, in a great measure, irom the diflerent senses affixed to the phrase. Dr. Henderson, who is among the most candid and able writers op- posed to the doctrine of verbal inspiration, seems to understand the doctrine as denoting the imme- diate eommunication to the writers of every word, and syllable, and letter of what tiiey wrote, inde- pendently of their intelligent agency and without any regard to their peculiar mental faculties or / habits : — while those who most earnestly and suc- cessfully contend for the higher views of inspira- tion, particularly Calamy, Haldane, and Gaussen, consider the doctrine they maintain as entirely consistent with the greatest diversity of mental endowments, culture, and taste in the writers, and with the most perfect exercise of their intelligent agency,— consistent with their using their own memory, their own reason, their own manner of thinking, and their own language, — consistent, too, with their making what they were to write the subject of diligent and laborious stud}', — only insisting that it was all under the unerring guidance of the Divine Spirit. In a controversy of such a character as this, we may often succeed in removing difiiculties, and in presenting the subject in a light which will be satisfactory to all concerned, by laying aside an ambiguous word or phrase, and making use of one wliich will express the idea intended with 16 INSPIRATION. /" clearness and certainty. The word verbal, in its most common senses, is not well suited to the present subject. According to the best philolo- gists its first signification is, 'spoken, expressed to the ear in words, not written.' But no one sup- poses that when God insjjired the sacred writers he generally spoke to them in audible words. _ It is, indeed, true, that he sometimes uttered articu- late words in making known his will, as at Sinai, at the baptism of Christ, and on some other occa- sions. In sucli cases he did, properly speaking, make verbal communications, or give vej-bal in- struction. But we should hardly call this verbal inspiration. Wlio can suppose that this was commonly, if ever, tlie way, in which God inspired holy men of old while engaged in writing the Scriptures? Who can suppose tliat he taught them what to write by speaking loords in tlieir ears, as a man teaches his amanuensis? His in- fluence was doubtless inward. He guided them in writing by an operation in their minds. The next meaning of verbal is ' oral, uttered by the mouth ;' and this agrees no better with our subject. Other significations of verbal are, ' con- sisting in mere words; respecting words only; literal,' as in a translation, ' having word answer- ing to word.' Neitiier of these senses is adapted to the subject. Now it would be nothing strange, if applying this word to inspiration, and thus giving it an unusual sense, should occasion need- less perplexity and confusion. For the sake of avoiding this evil, why would it not be expedient to employ such words as will convey the idea intended clearly and definitely ; and, if necessary, to incur the inconvenience of using an exact ex- planation, instead of the word or phrase which causes the difficulty ? The real question, and the whole question at issue, may be stated thus : did the work of the Divine Spirit in the sacred penmen relate to the language they tised, or their manner of express- ing their ideas ; and if so, how far, and in what way? AH those with whom we are concerned in the discussion of this question, hold that divine in- spiration had some respect to the language em- ployed by the inspired writers, at least in the way of general sujyervision. And Dr. Henderson shows, in various passages of his excellent lectures, that there is no material difference between him and those who profess to maintain higher ground. He allows tliat, to a certain extent, what is called verbal inspiration, or the inspiration of loords, took place. ' In recording what was immediately spoken Avitli an audible voice by Jeliovah, or by an angel interpreter ; in giving expression to points of revelation which entirely surpassed the comprehension of the writers ; in recording pro- phecies, the minute bearings of which they did not perceive ; in short, in committing to writing any of the dictates of the Spirit, wliich they could not have otherwise accurately expressed, tlie writers,' he alleges, ' were supplied with the words as well as the matter.' He says, that even wlien Biblical writers made use of their own faculties, and wrote each one in his own manner, witliout having their mental constitution at all disturbed, they were yet ' always secured by celestial influence against the adoption of any forms of speech, or collocation of words, that vould have injured the exhibition of divine truth, INSPIRATION. or that did not adequately give it expression ;' that the characteristic differences of style, so apparent among the sacred writers, were employee! by the Holy Spirit for the purposes of inspiration, and ' were called forth in a rational way ;' that the writers, * being acted upon by the Divine Spirit, expressed themselves naturally ; that while the divine influence adapted itself to whatever was peculiar in the minds of inspired men, it constantly guided them in writing the sacred volume.' He declares his belief that the Scrip- tures were written not under a jiartial or imper- fect, but under a plenary and infallible inspira- tion ; that they were entirely the result of divine intervention, and are to be regarded as the oracles of Jehovah. Referring to 2 Tim. iii 16, he says, ' We are here expressly taught the divine inspi- ration of the whole of the Old Testament Codex ; that the Scriptures are inspired as written docu- ments ; that they are the result of the special and extraordinary influence of the Spirit, and contain whatever the Spirit caused to be written for our instruction.' Referring to 1 Cor. ii. 13, he says, ' It is past all dispute that the apostle here unequivocally ascribes both the doctrines which he and his fellow-labourers taught, and their manner of propounding them, to the influ- ence of the same divine agent ;' that the passage conveys the idea ' that the style, or mode of ex- pression which they used, was such as they were instructed by the Spirit to employ ;' that ' in delivering their doctrines they were under the constant guidance of the Great Instructor, and clothed them in that garb which he directed them to use ;' that, in the passage alluded to, the apostle refers ' to the entire character of the style which the first teachers of Christianity were taught to use in annoimcing its all important doctrines.' The passage in Matt. x. 9, 10, he says, implies, ' that the subject matter of apology was to be supplied to the apostles ; and they might he well assured that if lliis, which was the most important, was secured by divine instruc- tion, the mere expression would not be wanting.' ' To remove all ground of hesitation from tlieir minds, our Lord says, it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you. By his teaching and superintending influ- ence, they would always be enabled to express themselves in a manner worthy of the divine cause which they were called to defend — a man- ner wliich they could never have attained by the exertion of their unassisted powers ; so that, al though these powers were not to be superseded, but employed, it was to be as the organs of tlie divine agency by which they were employed.' And he concedes that, as to all jiractical pur- poses, they were favoured with divine influence in composing their xcritings, as well as in their public speaking. Our author says that on the day of Pentecost, when the apostles were filled with the Holy Ghost, and spake with otlier tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance, ' verbal inspiration in the strictest sense of the term took place.' ' The im- mediate supply of words,' he holds, ' was in this and every similar instance absolutely necessary,' And he thinks that direct verbal inspiration was indispensably requisite in all instances in which prophets and apostles were employed to write what they did not clearly comprehend, Tht INSPIRATION. passages in which such terms as the word of God, the Lord spake, etc., occur, are, in this view, de- scriptive of immediate verbal communications. He supposes that, in all such cases, words were literally spoken, or audibly pronounced by God himself, or by an angel in his name. In this opinion, however, I think he is mistaken. For unquestionably the word of the Lord often, if not generally, came to the prophets in the way of dreams, or other modes of inward suggestion. The doctrine of a plenary inspiration of all Scripture in regard to the language employed, as well as the thoughts communicated, ought not to be rejected without valid reasons. The doctrine is so obviously important, and so consonant to the feelings of sincere piety, that those evangelical Christians who are pressed with speculative ob- jections against it, frequently, in the honesty of their hearts, advance opinions which fairly imply it. This is the case, as we have seen, with Dr. Henderson, who says, that the Divine Spirit guided the sacred penmen in loriting the Scrip- tures ; that their mode of expression was such as they were instructed by the Spirit to employ ; that Paul ascribes not only the doctrines which the apostles taught, but the entire character of their style, to the influence of the Spirit. He indeed says, that this does not always imply the immediate communication of the tcords of Scrip- ture ; and he says it with good reason. For im- mediate properly signifies, acting without a medium, or without the interveyition of another cause or means, not acting by second causes. Now those who hold the highest views of inspira- tion do not suppose that the Divine Spirit, except in a few instances, so influenced the writers of Scripture as to interfere with the use of their rational faculties or their peculiar mental habits and tastes, or in any way to supersede secondary causes as the medium through which his agency produced the desired effect. In regard to this point, therefore, there appears to be little or no ground for controversy. For, if God so influenced the sacred writers that, either with or without the use of secondary causes, they wrote just ichat he intended, and in the matiner he intended, the end is secured ; and what they wrote is as truly his word, as though he had written it with his own hand on tables of stone, without any human instrumentality. The very words of the decalogue were all such as God chose. And they would have been equally so if Moses had been moved by the Divine Spirit to write them with his hand. The expression, that God immediately imparted or communicated to the writers the very words which they wrote, is evi- dently not well chosen. The exact truth is that the writers themselves were the subjects of the divine influence. The Spirit employed them as active instruments, and directed them in writing, both as to matter and manner. They wrote 'as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.' The mat- ter, in many cases, was what they before knew, and the manner was entirely conformed to their habits ; it was their own. But what was written was none the less inspired on that account. God may have influenced and guided an apostle as infallibly in writing what he had before known, and that guidance may have been as really neces- sary, as in writing a new revelption. And God may have influenced Paul or John to write a VOL. II. 2 INSPIRATION 17 book in his own peculiar style, and that inSuenca may have been as real and as necessary as if the style had been wliat some would call a divine style. It was a divine style, if the writer used it under divine direction. It was a divine style, and it was, at the same time, a human style, and the writer s own style, all in one. Just as the believer's exercises, faith and love, are his own acts, and at the same time are the efiects of divine influence. ' In eflUcacious grace,' saj's Edwards, ' we are not merely passive, nor yet does God do some and we do the rest. But God does all, and we do all. God produces all, and we act all. For tliat is what he produces, namely, our own acts. God is the only proper author and founda- tion : we only are the proper actors. We are, in different respects, wholly passive and wholly active. In the Scriptures, the same things are represented as from God and from us. God is said to convert men, and men are said to convert and turn. God makes a new heart, and we are commanded to make us a new heart — not merely because we must use the means in order to the effect, but the effiect itself is our act and our duty. These things are agreeable to that text, " God worketh in you both to will and to do." ' The mental exercises of Paul and of John had their own characteristic peculiarities, as much as their style. God was the author of John's mind and all that was peculiar to his mental faculties and habits, as really as of Paul's mind and what was peculiar to him. And in the work of inspi- ration he used and directed, for his own purposes, what was peculiar to each. When God inspired different men he did not make their minds and tastes all alike, nor did he make their language alike. Nor had he any occasion li^r this ; for while they had diff"erent mental faculties and habits, they were as capable of being infallibly directed by the Divine Spirit, and infallibly speaking and writing divine truth, as though their mental facul- ties and habits had been all exactly alike. And it is manifest that the Scriptures, written by such a variety of inspired men, and each part agreeably to the peculiar talents and style of the writer, are not only equally from God, but, taken together, are far better adapted to the purposes of general instruction, and all the objects to be accomplished by revelation, than if they had been written by one man, and in one and the same manner. This view of plenary inspiration is fitted to relieve the difficulties and objections which have arisen in the minds of men from the variety of talent and taste which the writers exhibited, and the variety of style which they used. See, it is said, how each writer expresses himself naturally, in his own way, just as he was accustomed to do when not inspired. And see too, we might say in reply, how each apostle, Peter, Paul, or John, when speaking before rulers, with the promised aid of the Holy Spirit, spoke laturally, with his own voice, and in his own way, as he had been accustomed to do on other occasions when not inspired. There is no more objection to plenary inspiration in the one case than in the other. The mental faculties and habits of the apostles, their style, their voice, their mode of speech, all re- mained as they were. What, then, had the divine Spirit to do? What was the work which apper- tained to Him? We reply. His work was so to direct the apostles in the use of their own talents 18 INSPIRATION. and habits, (heir style, their voice, and all their peculiar endowments, that they should speak or write, each iu his own way, just what God would have them speak or write, for the good of the Church in all ages. The fact that the individual peculiarities of the sacred penmen are everywhere so plainly impressed on their writings, is often mentioned as an objection to the doctrine, that inspiration ex- tended to their language as well as their thoughts. This is, indeed, one of the most common ob- jections, and one which has obtained a very deep lodgment in the minds of some intelligent Cliris- tians. It may, therefore, be necessary to take some further pains completely to remove it. And in our additional remarks relative to this and other objections, it will come in our way to show that such a writer as Gaussen, who contends with great earnestness and ability for the highest views of inspiration, does still, on all important points, agree with those who advocate lower views of the subject. Gaussen says, 'Although the title of each book should not indicate to us that we are passing from one author to another ; yet we could quickly discover, by the change of their characters, that a new hand has taken tlie pen. It is perfectly easy to recog- nise each one of them, although they speak of the same master, teach the same doctrines, and relate the same incidents.' But how does this prove that Scripture is not, in all respects, inspired ? ' So far are we,' says this author, ' from overlooking human individuality everywhere impressed on our sacred books, that, on the contrary, it is with profound gratitude, and with an ever-increasing admiration, that we regard this living, real, human character infused so charmingly into every part of the Word of God. We admit the fact, and we see in it clear proof of the divine wisdom which dictated the Scriptures.' Those who urge the objection above men- tioned are plainly inconsistent with themselves. For while they deny the plenary inspiration of some parts of Scripture, because thexj have these marks of individuality, they acknowledge inspi- ration in the fullest sense in other parts, particu- cularly in the prophecies, where this individuality of the writers is equally apparent. In truth, what can be more consonant with our best views of the wisdom of God, or with the gene- ral analogy cf his works, than tliat he should make use of the thoughts, the memories, the peculiar talents, tastes, and feelings of his servants in recording his Word for the instruction of men ? Why should he not associate the peculiarities of their personal character with what they write under his personal guidance ? But, independently of our reasoning, this matter is decided by the Bible itself. 'All Scripture is divinely inspired,' and it ig all the Word of God. And it is none the less 'iie Word of God, and none the less inspired, because it comes to us in the language of IMoses, and David, and Paul, and the other sacred writers. ' It is God who speaks to us, but it is also man ; it is man, but it is also God.' The Word of God, in order to be intelligible and profitable to us, ' must be uttered by mortal tongues, and be written by mortal hands, and must put on the features of human thoughts. This blending of hximanity and divinity in the Scriptures reminds Bs of the majesty and the condescension of God. INSPIRATION. Viewed in this light, the Word of God has une« quailed beauties, and exerts an unequalled power over our hearts.' The objection to the plenary inspiration of th« Scriptures, from the inaccuracy of the translations and the various readings of the ancient manu- script copies, is totally irrelevant. For what we assert is, the inspiration of the original Scriptures, not of the translations or the ancient copies. The fact that the Scriptures were divinely inspired, cannot be expunged or altered by any subsequcEt event. The very words of tlie decalogue were written by the finger of God, and none the less so because the manuscripts which transmit it to us contain some variations. The integrity of the copies has nothing to do with the inspiration ot the original. It is, however, well known that the variations are hardly worthy to be mentioned. But if the copies of the Scriptures which we have are not inspired, then how can the in- spiration of the original writings avail to our benefit? The answer is, that, according to the best evidence, the original writings have been transmitted to us with remarkable fidelity, and that our present copies, so far as anything of con- sequence is concerned, agree with the writings as they came from inspired men ; so that, through the gracious care of divine providence, the Scrip- tures now in use are, in all important respects, the Scriptures which were given by inspiration of God, and are stamped with divine authority. In this matter, we stand on the same footing with the apostles. For when they spoke of the Scriptures, they doubtless referred to the cojnes which had been made and preserved among the Jews, not to the original manuscripts written by Moses and the prophets. It has been made an objection to the plenary inspiration of the writers of the New Testament, that they generally quote from the Septuagint version, and that their quotations are frequently wanting in exactness. Our reply is, that their quotations are made iu the usual manner, accord- ing to the dictates of common sense, and always in such a way as to subserve the cause of truth ; and therefore, that the objection is without force. And as to the Septuagint version, the apostles never follow it so as to interfere with the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures. Their references to the Old Testament are just such as the case required. There is a noble freedom in their quotations, but that freedom never violates truth or propriety. If any one, like Priestley and others of the same school, alleges, that there are in the Scriptures errors in reasoning and in matters of fact, he opens the door to the most dangerous consequences. In- deed he takes the ground of infidelity. And if any one holds, that some parts are inspired, while other parts are not inspired, then we ask, who shall make the distinction ? And if we begin this work, where will it end? But our present concern is with those who deny that inspiration respected the lan- guage of Scripture. There are some who maintain that all which was necessary to secure the desired results, was an infallible guidance of the thoughts of the sacred writers ; that with such a guidance they might be safely left to express their thoughts in their owo way, without any special influence from above. Now, if those who take this view of the subject mean tliat God not only gives the sacred penmen INSPIRATION. the very ideas which they are to write, but, in Bome way, secures an infallible connection between those ideas and a just expression of them in words; then, indeed, we have the desired result — an infal- lible revelation from God, made in the proper language of the writers. But if any one supposes that there is naturally such an infallible connec- tion between right thoughts and a just expression of them in language, without an effective divine superintendence, he contradicts the lessons of daily experience. But those to whom we refer evidently do not themselves believe in such an infallible connection. For when they assign their rea.oon for denying that inspiration related to the language of the Scriptures, they speak of the different, and, as they regard them, the contradictory statements of facts by different writers — for example, the dif- ferent accounts of the crucifixion and the resur- rection, and the different accounts of the numbers of the slain in Num. xxv. 9 and 1 Cor. x. 8. Who. they say, can believe that the langiuige was ifispired, when one writer says that 24,000 were slain, and the other 23,000 ? But it is easy to see that the difficulty presses with all its force upon those who assert the inspiration of the thoughts. For surely they Avill not say that the sacred writers had true thoughts in their minds, and yet uttered them in the language of falsehood. This would contradict their ovm idea of a sure connection between the conceptions of the mind and the utterance of them in suitable words, and would clearly show that they themselves feel it to be necessary that the divine guidance should extend to tlie words of inspired n^n as well as their thoughts. But if Paul, through inadvertence, committed a real mistake in saying that 23,000 fell in one day, it must have been a mistake in his thoughts as well as in his words. For when he said 23,000, had he not the idea of that num- ber in his mind ? If, then, there was a mistake, it lay in his thoughts. But if there was no mis- take in either of the writers, then there is nothing to prove that inspiration did not extend to the language. If, however, there was a real mistake, then the question is not, what becomes of verbal inspiration, but what becomes of inspiration in any sense. As to the way of reconciling the two statements above mentioned, but a few words can be offered here. Some writers attempt to remove the diffi- CHlty in this manner. The first writer says, 24,000 were slain, meaning to include in that nutriber all who died in consequence of that rebel- lion. The other writer says, 23,000 fell in one day, leaving us to conclude that an addition of 1000 fell the next day. But it may perhaps be more satisfactory to suppose, that neither of the writers intended to state the exact number, this being of no consequence to their objects. The real number might be between 23,000 and 24,000, and it might be sufficient for them to express it in general terms, one of them calling it 24,000, and the other 23,000, that is, about so many, cither of the numbers being accurate enough to make the impression designed. Suppose that the exact number was 23,579, and that both the writers knew it to be so. It was not at all neces- gary, in order to maintain their character as men of veracity, tliat they should, when writing for tuck a purpose, mention the particular number The particularity and length of the expression INSPIRATION. 19 would have been inconvenient, and might have made a less desirable impression of the evil of sin and the justice of God, than expressing it more briefly in a round number; as we often say, with a view merely to make a strong impression, that in such a battle 10,000, or 50,000, or 500,000 were slain, no one supposing that we mean to state the number with arithmetical exactness, as our object does not require this. And who can doubt that the Divine Spirit might lead the sacred pen- men to make use of this principle of rhetoric, and to speak of those who were slain, according to the common practice in suchacase.in round numbers* It is sometimes said that the sacred writers were of themselves generally competent to express their ideas in proper language, and in this respect had no ?ieed of supernatural assistance. But there is just as much reason for saying that they were of themselves generally competent to form their own conceptions, and so had no need o plieiismus der Ilehriier vollstu7idig dargestelU. Breslau, 1837, pt. i. p. 102, sq. ; i)t. ii. p. 45, sq.). However, the being filled with the Holy Ghost was the most prominent feature in the Hebrew idea of a prophet. Tliis is even implied in the usual api)ellation N*33, which means a person in the state of divine inspiration (not a predicter of future events). Prophetism ceased altogether as soon as Jehovah, according-to the popular opinion ceased to communicate his Snirit. The ancient Greeks and Romans kept the idea of divine inspiration more distinct from the idea of interpretatiim of the divine will. They, accord- ing to a more natural manner of viewing the sub- ject, recognised generally, in the mediator between God and man, more of an experienced and skilful interpreter than of a divinely- inspired seer. They distinguished the interpreter and the seer by dif- ferent names, of which we will speak hereafter. It was the combination of the power of interpreta- tion with inspiration, which distinguished tlie Hebrew prophets or seers from those of other ancient nations. The Hebrew notion of a N*33 appears, among the Greeks, to have been split into its two constituent parts of /xavTis, from fialvecOai, to rave (Platonis Pheedrus, § 48, ed. Steph. p. 244, a. b.), and of (^Tjy7]T-fis, from i^7]ye7v koI fidmewy ; Euripidis PhcB- nissa, v. 1018, o/ioi/Tis e|r)7T}*-ai e^TjyTjTtKal. How- ever, we find the word kpfjitivda employed as a synonym of e^r}y^(ns, especially among the inha- bitants of Antioch. For instance, Gregorius Nyssenus says, concerning Ephraim Syrus, ypcupifv '6\7}y aKpi^ccs irpls Kf^iv ripfiijyfvcrey (see Gregorii Nysseni Vita Ephraimi Sijri ; Opera, Paris, ii, p. 1033). Theodorus of Mopsuestia, Theodore^ 12 INTERPRETAIION. and others, wrote commentaries on tlie sacred Scriptures under the title of ipjitivfia (compare A. H. Niemeyer, de Isidori Pelusiotce Vita, Hcriptis, et Doclrina, Halae, 1825. p. 20V). Among the Latin Christians the word interpres had a wider range than tlie corresponding Greek term, and the Latins had no precise term for the exposition of the Bible whicli exactly corresponded with tlie Greek. The word interpretatio was applied only in the sense of occupation or act of ati expositor of the Bible, but not in the sense of CONTENTS elicited from biblical passages. The words tractare, tractator, and tractatus were in preference employed with respect to bib- lical exposition, and the sense which it elicited. Together with these words there occur commen- tarius and expositio. In reference to tlie exege- tical work of St Hilary on St. Matthew, the codices fluctuate between commentarius and tractatus. St. Augustine's tractatus are well known ; and this father frequently mentions the divinarum scriplurarum tractatores. For in- stance, Retractationes 1.23. divinoruni tractatores eloquiorum. Sulpicius Severus, Dial. i. 6. (ynghiis .... qui tractator sacrorum peritissimus habebatur. Vincentius Lirinensis observes in his Commonitorium on ICor. xii. 28 : — tertio doctores qui tractatores nunc appellantur ; quos hie idem apostolus eliam proplietas interdum nuncupat, eo quod per eos prophetarum mysteria populis aperi- antur : — ' in the third place teachers who are now called tractatores ; whom the same apostle some- times styles prophets, because by them the mysteries of the prophets are opened to the people' (com- pare Dufresne, Glossariwn media et injiin