after animals had been granted to man for his sustenance along with the
“herb of the field.” This prohibition is repeated by Moses to the
Israelites, with this explanation:--“I have given it upon the altar to
make _an atonement_ for your souls.” From this it has indeed been
argued, that the doctrine of the atoning power of blood was new, and was
then, for the first time, announced by Moses, or the same reason for the
prohibition would have been given to Noah. To this we may reply, 1. That
unless the same be supposed as the ground of the prohibition of blood to
Noah, as that given by Moses to the Jews, no reason at all can be
conceived for this restraint being put upon the appetite of mankind from
Noah to Moses. 2. That it is a mistake to suppose, that the declaration
of Moses to the Jews, that God had “given them the blood for an
atonement,” is an _additional reason_ for the interdict, not to be found
in the original prohibition to Noah. The whole passage in Lev. xvii, is,
“And thou shalt say to them, Whatsoever man there be of the house of
Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any
manner of blood, I will even set my face against that soul that eateth
blood, and I will cut him off from among his people: FOR THE LIFE of the
flesh is in the blood; and I have given it upon the altar, to make
atonement for your souls: _for it is the_ BLOOD (or LIFE) that maketh
atonement for the soul.” The great reason, then, of the prohibition of
blood is, that it is the LIFE; and what follows respecting atonement is
_exegetical_ of this reason; the life is in the blood, and the blood or
life is given as an atonement. Now, by turning to the original
prohibition in Genesis, we find that precisely the same reason is given:
“But the flesh with the blood, which is _the life_ thereof, shall ye not
eat.” The reason, then, being the same, the question is, whether the
exegesis added by Moses must not necessarily be understood in the
general reason given for the restraint to Noah. Blood is prohibited for
this cause, that it is the _life_; and Moses adds, that it is “the
blood,” _or life_, “which makes atonement.” Let any one attempt to
discover any cause for the prohibition of blood to Noah, in the mere
circumstance that it is “the life,” and he will find it impossible. It
is no reason at all, moral or instituted, except that as it was _life_
substituted for _life_, the life of the animal in sacrifice for the life
of man, and that it had a sacred appropriation. The manner, too, in
which Moses introduces the subject is indicative that, although he was
renewing a prohibition, he was not publishing a “new doctrine;” he does
not teach his people that God had then given, or appointed, blood to
make atonement; but he prohibits them from eating it, because he had
made this appointment, without reference to time, and as a subject with
which they were familiar. Because the blood was the life, it was
sprinkled upon, and poured out at, the altar: and we have in the
sacrifice of the paschal lamb, and the sprinkling of its blood, a
sufficient proof, that, before the giving of the law, not only was blood
not eaten, but was appropriated to a sacred sacrificial purpose. Nor was
this confined to the Jews; it was customary with the Romans and Greeks,
who, in like manner, poured out and sprinkled the blood of victims at
their altars, a rite derived, probably, from the Egyptians, as they
derived it, not from Moses, but from the sons of Noah. The notion,
indeed, that the blood of the victims was peculiarly sacred to the gods,
is impressed upon all ancient Pagan mythology.
If, therefore, the distinction of animals into clean and unclean existed
before the flood, and was founded upon the practice of animal sacrifice,
we have not only a proof of the antiquity of that practice, but that it
was of divine institution and appointment, since almighty God gave laws
for its right and acceptable performance. Still farther, if animal
sacrifice was of divine appointment, it must be concluded to be typical
only, and designed to teach the great doctrine of moral atonement, and
to direct faith to the only true sacrifice which could take away the
sins of men;--“the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,”--the
victim “without spot,” who suffered the just for the unjust, that he
might bring us to God. See SACRIFICES.
ANISE, an annual umbeliferous plant, the seeds of which have an aromatic
smell, a pleasant warm taste, and a carminative quality. But by ἄνηθον,
Matt. xxiii, 23, the _dill_ is meant. Our translators seem to have been
first misled by a resemblance of the sound. No other versions have
fallen into the mistake. The Greek of _anise_ is ἄνισον; but of _dill_,
ἄνηθον.
ANNA, the daughter of Phanuel, a prophetess and widow, of the tribe of
Asher, Luke ii, 36, 37. She was married early, and had lived only seven
years with her husband. Being then disengaged from the ties of marriage,
she thought only of pleasing the Lord; and continued without ceasing in
the temple, serving God night and day, with fasting and prayer, as the
Evangelist expresses it. However, her serving God at the temple night
and day, says Dr. Prideaux, is to be understood no otherwise than that
she constantly attended the morning and evening sacrifice at the temple;
and then with great devotion offered up her prayers to God; the time of
morning and evening sacrifice being the most solemn time of prayer among
the Jews, and the temple the most solemn place for this devotion. Anna
was fourscore years of age when the holy virgin came to present Jesus in
the temple; and entering accidentally, while Simeon was pronouncing his
thanksgiving, she likewise began to praise God, and to speak of the
Messiah to all those who waited for redemption in Jerusalem. We know
nothing more either of the life or death of this holy woman.
ANNAS, or ANANUS, as Josephus calls him, was the son of Seth, and high
priest of the Jews. He succeeded Joazar, the son of Simon, enjoyed the
high priesthood eleven years, and was succeeded by Ishmael, the son of
Phabi. After he was deposed, he still preserved the title of high
priest, and had a great share in the management of public affairs. He is
called high priest in conjunction with Caiaphas, when John the Baptist
entered upon the exercise of his mission; though Calmet thinks that at
that time he did not, strictly speaking, possess or officiate in that
character, Luke iii, 2. On the contrary, Macknight and some others are
of opinion, that at this time Caiaphas was only the deputy of Annas. He
was father-in-law to Caiaphas; and Jesus Christ was carried before him,
directly after his seizure in the garden of Olives, John xviii, 13.
Josephus remarks, that Annas was considered as one of the happiest men
of his nation, for five of his sons were high priests, and he himself
possessed that great dignity many years. This was an instance of good
fortune which, till that time, had happened to no person.
ANOINT, to pour oil upon, Gen. xxviii, 18; xxxi, 13. The setting up of a
stone and anointing it by Jacob, as here recorded, in grateful memory of
his celestial vision, probably became the occasion of idolatry in
succeeding ages, and gave rise to the erection of temples composed of
shapeless masses of unhewn stone, of which so many astonishing remains
are scattered up and down the Asiatic and the European world.
Under the law persons and things set apart for sacred purposes were
anointed with the holy oil; which appears to have been a typical
representation of the communication of the Holy Ghost to Christ and to
his church. See Exod. xxviii, xxix. Hence the Holy Spirit is called an
_unction_ or _anointing_, 1 John ii, 20, 27; and our Lord is called the
“Messiah,” or “Anointed One,” to denote his being called to the offices
of mediator, prophet, priest, and king, to all of which he was
consecrated by the anointing of the Holy Ghost, Matt. iii, 16, 17.
When we hear of the anointing of the Jewish kings, we are to understand
by it the same as their inauguration; inasmuch as anointing was the
principal ceremony on such an occasion, 2 Sam. ii, 4; v, 3. As far as we
are informed, however, unction, as a sign of investiture with the royal
authority, was bestowed only upon Saul and David, and subsequently upon
Solomon and Joash, who ascended the throne under such circumstances,
that there was danger of their right to the succession being forcibly
disputed, 1 Sam. x, 24; 2 Sam. ii, 4; v, 1–3; 1 Chron. xi, 1, 2; 2 Kings
xi, 12–20; 2 Chron. xxiii, 1–21. The ceremony of regal anointing needed
not to be repeated in every instance of succession to the throne,
because the unction which the first one who held the sceptre in any
particular line of princes had received was supposed to suffice for the
succeeding incumbents in the same descent.
In the kingdom of Israel, those who were inducted into the royal office
appear to have been inaugurated with some additional ceremonies, 2 Kings
ix, 13. The private anointings which we learn to have been performed by
the prophets, 2 Kings ix, 3, comp. 1 Sam. x, 1; xvi, 1–13, were only
prophetic symbols or intimations that the persons who were thus anointed
should eventually receive the kingdom.
The holy anointing oil which was made by Moses, Exod. xxx, 22–33, for
the maintaining and consecrating of the king, the high priest, and all
the sacred vessels made use of in the house of God, was one of those
things, as Dr. Prideaux observes, which was wanting in the second
temple. The oil made and consecrated for this use was commanded to be
kept by the children of Israel, throughout their generations, and
therefore it was laid up in the most holy place of the tabernacle and
the first temple.
ANOMŒANS, the name by which the pure Arians were called in the fourth
century, in contradistinction to the Semi-Arians. The word is formed
from the Greek ἀνόμοιος, _different_. For the pure Arians asserted, that
the Son was of a nature different from, and in nothing like, that of the
Father; whereas the Semi-Arians acknowledged a likeness of nature in the
Son, at the same time that they denied, with the pure Arians, the
consubstantiality of the Word. The Semi-Arians condemned the Anomœans
in the council of Seleucia; and the Anomœans, in their turn,
condemned the Semi-Arians in the councils of Constantinople and Antioch,
erasing the word _like_ out of the formula of Rimini and Constantinople.
ANSWER. Beside the common usage of this word, in the sense of a reply,
it has other significations. Moses, having composed a thanksgiving,
after the passage of the Red Sea, Miriam, it is said, _answered_, “Sing
ye to the Lord” &c,--meaning, that Moses, with the men on one side, and
Miriam, with the women on the other side, sung the same song, as it
were, in two choruses, or divisions; of which one _answered_ the other.
Num. xxi, 17, “Then Israel sung this song, Spring up, O well, _answer_
unto it;” that is, sing responsively, one side (or choir) singing first,
and then the other. 1 Sam. xxix, 5, “Is not this David of whom they sung
one to another in dances, saying, Saul hath slain his thousands, and
David his ten thousands?” They sung this song to his honour in distinct
choruses.
This word is taken likewise for, _to accuse_ or to _defend_ any one,
_judicially_. Gen. xxx, 33, “My righteousness shall _answer_ for me;” it
shall be my advocate before thee. Deut. xxxi, 21, “The song which thou
shalt compose and teach them shall _testify_ (answer) against them as a
witness.” Isaiah says, “The show of their countenance will _testify_
(answer) against them;” their impudence will be like a witness and an
accuser. Hosea, v, 5, “The pride of Israel doth _testify_ (answer) to
his face.”
_To answer_, is likewise taken in a bad sense; as when it is said that a
son _answers_ his father insolently, or a servant his master. Rom. ix,
20, “Who art thou that _repliest_ against God?” that is, to contest or
debate with him. John xviii, 22, “Answerest thou the high priest so?”
St. Paul declares that he “had in himself the _answer_ (or sentence) of
death;” 2 Cor. i, 9; like a man who has had notice of condemnation, he
had a certain assurance of dying.
_To answer_ is also used in Scripture for the commencement of a
discourse, when no reply to any question or objection is intended. This
mode of speaking is often used by the evangelists, “And Jesus _answered_
and said.” It is a Hebrew idiom.
ANT, נמלה, in the Turkish and Arabic, _neml_, Prov. vi, 6; xxx, 25. It
is a little insect, famous from all antiquity for its social habits, its
economy, unwearied industry, and prudent foresight. It has afforded a
pattern of commendable frugality to the profuse, and of unceasing
diligence to the slothful. Solomon calls the ants “exceeding wise; for
though a race not strong, yet they prepare their meat in the summer.” He
therefore sends the sluggard to these little creatures, to learn wisdom,
foresight, care, and diligence.
“Go to the ant; learn of its ways, be wise;
It early heaps its stores, lest want surprise.
Skill’d in the various year, the prescient sage
Beholds the summer chill’d in winter’s rage.
Survey its arts; in each partition’d cell
Economy and plenty deign to dwell.”
That the ant hoarded up grains of corn against winter for its
sustenance, was very generally believed by the ancients, though modern
naturalists seem to question the fact. Thus Horace says,
“------_Sicut
Parvula (nam exemplo est) magni formica laboris
Ore trahit quodcunque potest, atque addit acervo
Quem struit, haud ignara ac non incauta futuri;
Quæ, simul inversum contristat aquarius annum,
Non usquam prorepit, et illis utitur ante
Quæsitis sapiens._”
_Sat._ i, l. i, v. 33.
“For thus the little ant (to human lore
No mean example) forms her frugal store,
Gather’d with mighty toil on every side,
Nor ignorant nor careless to provide
For future want; yet, when the stars appear
That darkly sadden the declining year,
No more she comes abroad, but wisely lives
On the fair stores industrious summer gives.”
The learned Bochart, in his _Hierozoicon_, has displayed his vast
reading on this subject, and has cited passages from Pliny, Lucian,
Ælian, Zoroaster, Origen, Basil, and Epiphanius, the Jewish rabbins and
Arabian naturalists, all concurring in opinion that ants cut off the
heads of grain, to prevent their germinating; and it is observable that
the Hebrew name of the insect is derived from the verb נמל, which
signifies _to cut off_, and is used for cutting off ears of corn, Job
xxiv, 24.
The following remarks are from “the Introduction to Entomology,” by
Kirby and Spence:
“Till the manners of exotic ants are more accurately explored, it would
be rash to affirm that no ants have magazines of provisions; for,
although, during the cold of our winters in this country, they remain in
a state of torpidity, and have no need of food, yet in warmer regions,
during the rainy seasons, when they are probably confined to their
nests, a store of provisions may be necessary for them. Even in northern
climates, against wet seasons, they may provide in this way for their
sustenance and that of the young brood, which, as Mr. Smeatham observes,
are very voracious, and cannot bear to be long deprived of their food;
else why do ants carry worms, living insects, and many other such
things, into their nests? Solomon’s lesson to the sluggard has been
generally adduced as a strong confirmation of the ancient opinion: it
can, however, only relate to the species of a warm climate, the habits
of which are probably different from those of a cold one; so that his
words, as commonly interpreted, may be perfectly correct and consistent
with nature, and yet be not at all applicable to the species that are
indigenous to Europe.”
The ant, according to the royal preacher, is one of those things which
are little upon the earth, but exceeding _wise_. The superior wisdom of
the ant has been recognised by many writers. Horace in the passage from
which the preceding quotation is taken, praises its sagacity; Virgil
celebrates its foresight, in providing for the wants and infirmities of
old age, while it is young and vigorous:--
----_atque inopi metuens formica senectæ._
[And the ant dreading a destitute old age.]
And we learn from Hesiod, that among the earliest Greeks it was called
Idris, that is, wise, because it foresaw the coming storm, and the
inauspicious day, and collected her store. Cicero believed that the ant
is not only furnished with senses, but also with mind, reason and
memory:--_In formica non modo sensus sed etiam mens, ratio, memoria_.
[The ant possesses not only senses, but also mind, reason, memory.] The
union of so many noble qualities in so small a corpuscle, is indeed one
of the most remarkable phenomena in the works of nature.
ANTHROPOMORPHITES, a sect of ancient heretics, who were so denominated
from two Greek words ἄνθρωπος, _man_, and μόρφη, _shape_. They
understood every thing spoken in Scripture in a literal sense, and
particularly that passage of Genesis in which it is said, “God made man
after his own image.” Hence they maintained, that God had a human shape.
ANTHROPOPATHY, a metaphor by which things belonging to creatures and
especially to man are ascribed to God. Instances of this abound in the
Scriptures, by which they adapt themselves to human modes of speaking,
and to the limited capacities of men. These anthropopathies we must
however interpret in a manner suitable to the majesty of the divine
nature. Thus, when the members of a human body are ascribed to God, we
must understand by them those perfections of which such members in us
are the instruments. The _eye_, for instance, represents God’s knowledge
and watchful care; the _arm_, his power and strength; the _ears_, the
regard he pays to prayer and to the cry of oppression and misery, &c.
Farther, when human affections are attributed to God, we must so
interpret them as to imply no imperfection, such as perturbed feeling in
him. When God is said to repent, the antecedent, by a frequent figure of
speech, is put for the consequent; and in this case we are to understand
an altered mode of proceeding on the part of God, which in man is the
effect of repenting.
ANTICHRIST, compounded of ἀντὶ, _contra_, _against_, and Χριϛὸς,
_Christ_, in a general sense, denotes an adversary of Christ, or one who
denies that the Messiah is come. In this sense, Jews, infidels, &c, may
be said to be _antichrists_. The epithet, in the _general_ sense of it,
is also applicable to any power or person acting in direct opposition to
Christ or his doctrine. Its _particular_ meaning is to be collected from
those passages of Scripture in which it occurs. Accordingly, it may
either signify one who assumes the place and office of Christ, or one
who maintains a direct enmity and opposition to him. The Fathers all
speak of antichrist as a single man; though they also assure us, that he
is to have divers precursors, or forerunners. Yet many Protestant
writers apply to the Romish church, and the pope who is at the head of
it, the several marks and signatures of antichrist enumerated in the
Apocalypse, which would imply antichrist to be, not a single person, but
a corrupt society, or a long series of persecuting pontiffs, or rather,
a certain power and government, that may be held for many generations,
by a number of individuals succeeding one another. The antichrist
mentioned by the Apostle John, first Epistle ii, 18, and more
particularly described in the book of Revelation, seems evidently to be
the same with the _man of sin_, &c, characterized by St. Paul in his
Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, chap. ii; and the whole description
literally applies to the Papal power. A late writer, after collecting
the principal prophecies relating to antichrist, infers from them that a
power, sometimes represented as the little horn, the man of sin, the
antichrist, the beast, the harlot, the star falling from heaven, the
false prophet, the dragon, or as the operation of false teachers, was to
be expected to arise in the Christian world to persecute and oppress,
and delude the disciples of Christ, corrupt the doctrine of the
primitive church, enact new laws, and establish its dominion over the
minds of mankind. He then proceeds to show, from the application of
prophecy to history, and to the remarkable train of events that are now
passing in the world, how exactly Popery, Mohammedanism, and Infidelity,
correspond with the character given in Scripture of the power of
antichrist, which was to prevail a certain time for the especial trial
and punishment of the corrupted church of Christ. Upon this system, the
different opinions of the Protestants and Papists, concerning the power
of antichrist, derived from partial views of the subject, are not wholly
incompatible with each other. With respect to the commonly received
opinion, that the church of Rome is antichrist, Mede and Newton, Daubuz
and Clarke, Lowman and Hurd, Jurieu, Vitringa, and many other members of
the Protestant churches who have written upon the subject, concur in
maintaining, that the prophecies of Daniel, St. Paul, and St. John,
point directly to this church. This was likewise the opinion of the
first reformers; and it was the prevalent opinion of Christians, in the
earliest ages, that antichrist would appear soon after the fall of the
Roman empire. Gregory the Great, in the sixth century, applied the
prophecies concerning the beast in the Revelation, the man of sin, and
the apostasy from the faith mentioned by St. Paul, to him who should
presume to claim the title of universal priest, or universal bishop, in
the Christian church; and yet his immediate successor, Boniface III,
received from the tyrant Phocas the precise title which Gregory had thus
censured. At the synod of Rheims, held in the tenth century, Arnulphus,
bishop of Orleans, appealed to the whole council, whether the bishop of
Rome was not the antichrist of St. Paul, “sitting in the temple of God,”
and perfectly corresponding with the description of him given by St.
Paul. In the eleventh century, all the characters of antichrist seemed
to be so united in the person of Pope Hildebrand, who took the name of
Gregory VII, that Johannes Aventinus, a Romish historian, speaks of it
as a subject in which the generality of fair, candid, and ingenuous
writers agreed, that at that time began the reign of antichrist. And the
Albigenses and Waldenses, who may be called the Protestants of the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries, expressly asserted in their
declarations of faith, that the church of Rome was the whore of Babylon.
The Papists imagine they view in the prophetical picture of antichrist,
imperial Rome, elated by her victories, exulting in her sensuality and
her spoils, polluted by idolatry, persecuting the people of God, and
finally falling like the first Babylon; whilst a new and holy city,
represented by their own communion, filled with the spotless votaries of
the Christian faith, rises out of its ruins, and the victory of the
cross is completed over the temples of Paganism. This scheme has had its
able advocates, at the head of whom may be placed Bossuet, bishop of
Meaux, Grotius, and Hammond. Some writers have maintained, that Caligula
was antichrist; and others have asserted the same of Nero. But in order
to establish the resemblance, they violate the order of time, disregard
the opinions of the primitive Christians, and overlook the appropriate
descriptions of the Apostles. After the point had been maturely debated
at the council of Gap, held in 1603, a resolution was taken thereupon to
insert an article in the confession of faith, whereby the Pope is
formally declared to be antichrist. Pope Clement VIII was stung with
this decision; and even king Henry IV, of France was not a little
mortified, to be thus declared, as he said, an imp of antichrist.
In the book of Daniel it is foretold, that this power should exercise
dominion until a time and times, and the dividing of time, Dan. vii, 25.
This expression is generally admitted to denote 1260 years. The Papal
power was completely established in the year 755, when it obtained the
exarchate of Ravenna. Some, however, date the rise of antichrist in the
year of Christ 606; and Mede places it in 456. If the rise of antichrist
be not reckoned till he was possessed of secular authority, his fall
will happen when this power shall be taken away. If his rise began,
according to Mede in 456, he must have fallen in 1716; if in 606, it
must be in 1866; if in 755, in 2015. If, however, we use prophetical
years, consisting of three hundred and sixty days, and date the rise of
antichrist in the year 755, his fall will happen in the year of Christ
2000. Every thing however in the state of the world betokens a speedy
overthrow of the Papal and Mohammedan powers, both of which have indeed
been already greatly weakened.