animals, the term in Scripture is used, 1. For life. “God will require
the blood of a man,” he will punish murder in what manner soever
committed. “His blood be upon us,” let the guilt of his death be imputed
to us. “The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth;” the murder committed
on him crieth for vengeance. “The avenger of blood;” he who is to avenge
the death of his relative, Num. xxxv, 24, 27. 2. Blood means
relationship, or consanguinity. 3. Flesh and blood are placed in
opposition to a superior nature: “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it
unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven,” Matt. xvi, 17. 4. They are
also opposed to the glorified body: “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of God,” 1 Cor. xv, 50. 5. They are opposed also to evil
spirits: “We wrestle not against flesh and blood,” against visible
enemies composed of flesh and blood, “but against principalities and
powers,” &c, Eph. vi, 12. 6. Wine is called the pure blood of the grape:
“Judah shall wash his garments in the blood of the grape,” Gen. xlix,
11; Deut. xxxii. 14. 7. The priests were established by God to judge
between blood and blood; that is, in criminal matters, and where the
life of man is at stake;--to determine whether the murder be casual, or
voluntary; whether a crime deserve death, or admit of remission, &c. 8.
In its most eminent sense blood is used for the sacrificial death of
Christ; whose blood or death is the price of our salvation. His blood
has “purchased the church,” Acts xx, 28. “We are justified by his
blood,” Rom. v, 9. “We have redemption through his blood,” Eph. i, 7,
&c. See ATONEMENT.
That singular and emphatic prohibition of blood for food from the
earliest times, which we find in the Holy Scriptures, deserves
particular attention. God expressly forbade the eating of blood alone,
or of blood mixed with the flesh of animals, as when any creature was
suffocated, or strangled, or killed without drawing its blood from the
carcass. For when the grant of animal food was made to Noah, in those
comprehensive words, “Even as the green herb have I given you all
things,” it was added, “but flesh with the life thereof, namely, its
blood, ye shall not eat,” Gen. ix, 4. And when the law was given to the
children of Israel, we find the prohibition against the eating of blood
still more explicitly enforced, both upon Jews and Gentiles, in the
following words, “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 will cut
him off from among his people: for the life of the flesh is in the
blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for
your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul,”
Lev. xvii, 10, 11. And to cut off all possibility of mistake upon this
particular point, it is added: “Therefore I said unto the children of
Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that
sojourneth among you eat blood; and whatsoever man there be of the
children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which
hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even
pour out the blood thereof and cover it with dust, for it is the life of
all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof; therefore I said
unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of
flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof; whosoever eateth
it shall be cut off,” verses 12–14. This restraint, than which nothing
can be more express, was also, under the new covenant, enjoined upon
believing Gentiles, as “a burden” which “it seemed necessary to the Holy
Spirit to impose upon them,” Acts xv, 28, 29. For this prohibition no
_moral_ reason seems capable of being offered; nor does it clearly
appear that blood is an unwholesome aliment, which some think was the
physical reason of its being inhibited; and if, in fact, blood is
deleterious as food, there seems no greater reason why this should be
pointed out by special revelation to man, to guard him against injury,
than many other unwholesome aliments. There is little force in the
remark, that the eating of blood produces a ferocious disposition; for
those nations that eat strangled things, or blood cooked with other
aliments, do not exhibit more ferocity than others. The true reason was,
no doubt, a _sacrificial_ one. When animals were granted to Noah for
food, the blood was reserved; and when the same law was reënacted among
the Israelites, the original prohibition is repeated with an explanation
which at once shows the original ground upon which it rested: “I have
given it upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls.” From this
“additional reason,” as it has been called, it has 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 cause for the prohibition
would have been assigned to Noah. To this we may reply, 1. That unless
the same reason 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; and yet we have a prohibition of a most solemn kind,
which in itself could have no reason, enjoined without any external
reason being either given or conceivable. 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 occurs in Lev. xvii; and the great reason there given 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 because it is the _life_; and Moses adds, that it is “the
blood,” or _life_, “which makes atonement.” Let any one attempt to
discover any reason 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, therefore, blood had a sacred appropriation. The
manner, too, in which Moses introduces the subject, is indicative that,
though 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 already 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, who deduced 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.
BOANERGES. This word is neither Hebrew nor Syriac, and some have thought
that the transcribers have not exactly copied it, and that the word was
_benereen_, βενερεὲν, which expresses the sound of the Hebrew of the
phrase, “sons of thunder.” Parkhurst judges the word to be the Galilean
pronunciation of the Hebrew בנירעש expressed in Greek letters. Now, רעש
properly signifies a violent trembling or commotion, and may therefore
be well rendered by βροντὴ, _thunder_, which is a violent commotion in
the air; so, _vice versâ_, any violent commotion is figuratively, and
not unusually, in all languages, called thunder. When our Saviour named
the sons of Zebedee, Boanerges, he perhaps had an eye to that prophecy
of Haggai, “Yet once, and I will shake the heavens and the earth,” ii,
6; which is by the Apostle to the Hebrews, xii, 26, applied to the great
alteration made in the economy of the Jews by the publication of the
Gospel. The name Boanerges, therefore, given to James and John, imports
that they should be eminent instruments in accomplishing the wondrous
change, and should, like an earthquake or thunder, mightily bear down
all opposition, by their inspired preaching and miraculous powers. That
it does not relate to their _mode_ of preaching is certain; for that
clearly appears to have been calmly argumentative, and sweetly
persuasive--the very reverse of what is usually called a thundering
ministry.
BOAR, חזיר. The wild boar is considered as the parent stock of our
domestic hog. He is smaller, but at the same time stronger and more
undaunted, than the hog. In his own defence, he will turn on men or
dogs; and scarcely shuns any denizen of the forests, in the haunts where
he ranges. His colour is always an iron grey, inclining to black. His
snout is longer than that of the common breed, and his ears are
comparatively short. His tusks are very formidable, and all his habits
are fierce and savage. It should seem, from the accounts of ancient
authors, that the ravages of the wild boar were considered as more
formidable than those of other savage animals. The conquest of the
Erymanthian boar was one of the fated labours of Hercules; and the story
of the Calydonian boar is one of the most beautiful in Ovid. The
destructive ravages of these animals are mentioned in Psalm lxxx, 14.
Dr. Pococke observed very large herds of wild boars on the side of
Jordan, where it flows out of the sea of Tiberias; and saw several of
them on the other side lying among the reeds by the sea. The wild boars
of other countries delight in the like moist retreats. These shady
marshes then, it should seem, are called in the Scripture, “woods;” for
it calls these animals, “the wild boars of the woods.”
BOHEMIAN BRETHREN, a sect of heretics, according to the church of Rome;
but, in truth, a race of early reformers, who preceded Luther. At first
they were charged with so many heresies, that the great reformer was shy
of them; but, upon receiving from themselves an account of their tenets,
in 1522, he readily acknowledged them as brethren, and received them
into communion. Some time after this, they were driven by persecution
from their native country, and entered into communion with the Swiss
church, as reformed by Zuinglius; and from thence sprang the church of
the United Brethren.
BONDS were of two kinds, public and private; the former were employed to
secure a prisoner in the public jail, after confession or conviction;
the latter when he was delivered to a magistrate, or even to private
persons, to be kept at their houses till he should be tried. The Apostle
Paul was subjected to private bonds by Felix, the Roman governor, who
“commanded a centurion to keep him, and to let him have liberty, and
that he should forbid none of his acquaintance to minister, or come unto
him,” Acts xxiv, 23. And after he was carried prisoner to Rome, he
“dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that
came in unto him,” xxviii, 30.
BONNET was a covering for the head, worn by the Jewish priests. Josephus
says, that the bonnet worn by the private priests was composed of
several rounds of linen cloth, turned in and sewed together, so as to
appear like a thick linen crown. The whole was entirely covered with
another piece of linen, which came down as low as their forehead, and
concealed the deformity of the seams. See Exodus xxviii, 40. The high
priest’s bonnet was not much different from that which has been
described.
BOOK, a writing composed on some point of knowledge by a person
intelligent therein, for the instruction or amusement of the reader. The
word is formed from the Gothic _boka_, or Saxon _boc_, which comes from
the Northern _buech_, of _buechaus_, a beech or service tree, on the
bark of which our ancestors used to write. Book is distinguished from
pamphlet, or single paper, by its greater length; and from tome or
volume, by its containing the whole writing on the subject. Isidore
makes this distinction between _liber_ and _codex_; that the former
denotes a single book, the latter a collection of several; though,
according to Scipio Maffei, _codex_ signifies a book in the square form;
_liber_, a book in the roll form. The primary distinction between
_liber_ and _codex_ seems to have been derived, as Dr. Heylin has
observed, from the different materials used for writing, among the
ancients: from the innerside of the bark of a tree, used for this
purpose, and called in Latin _liber_, the name of _liber_ applied to a
book was deduced; and from that tablet, formed from the main body of a
tree, called _caudex_, was derived the appellation of _codex_.
2. Several sorts of materials were formerly used in making books: stone
and wood were the first materials employed to engrave such things upon
as men were desirous of having transmitted to posterity. Porphyry makes
mention of some pillars preserved in Crete, on which the ceremonies
observed by the Corybantes in their sacrifices were recorded. The works
of Hesiod were originally written on tables of lead, and deposited in
the temple of the Muses in Bœotia. The laws of Jehovah were written
on tables of stone, and those of Solon on wooden planks. Tables of wood
and ivory were common among the ancients: those of wood, were very
frequently covered with wax, that persons might write on them with more
ease, or blot out what they had written. And the instrument used to
write with was a piece of iron, called a _style_; and hence the word
“style” came to be taken for the composition of the writing. The leaves
of the palm-tree were afterward used instead of wooden planks, and the
finest and thinnest part of the bark of such trees as the lime, ash,
maple, and elm; and especially the _tilio_, or _phillyrea_, and Egyptian
_papyrus_. Hence came the word _liber_, (a book,) which signifies the
inner bark of the trees. And as these barks were rolled up in order to
be removed with greater ease, each roll was called _volumen_, a volume;
a name afterward given to the like rolls of paper or parchment. From the
Egyptian papyrus the word _paper_ is derived. After this, leather was
introduced, especially the skins of goats and sheep. For the king of
Pergamus, in collecting his library, was led to the invention of
parchment made of those skins. The ancients likewise wrote upon linen.
Pliny says, the Parthians, even in his time, wrote upon their clothes;
and Livy speaks of certain books made of linen, _lintei libri_, upon
which the names of magistrates, and the history of the Roman
commonwealth, were written, and preserved in the temple of the goddess
Moneta.
3. The materials generally used by the ancients for their books, were
liable to be easily destroyed by the damp, when hidden in the earth; and
in times of war, devastation, and rapacity, it was necessary to bury in
the earth whatever they wished to preserve from the attacks of fraud and
violence. With this view, Jeremiah ordered the writings, which he
delivered to Baruch, to be put in an earthen vessel, Jer. xxxii. In the
same manner the ancient Egyptians made use of earthen urns, or pots of a
proper shape, for containing whatever they wanted to inter in the earth,
and which, without such care, would have been soon destroyed. We need
not wonder then, that the Prophet Jeremiah should think it necessary to
inclose those writings in an earthen pot, which were to be buried in
Judea, in some place where they might be found without much difficulty
on the return of the Jews from captivity. Accordingly two different
writings, or small rolls of writing, called books in the original
Hebrew, were designed to be inclosed in such an earthen vessel; but
commentators have been much embarrassed in giving any probable account
of the necessity of two writings, one sealed, the other open; or, as the
passage has been commonly understood, the one _sealed up_, the other
left _open_ for any one to read; more especially, as both were to be
alike buried in the earth and concealed from every eye, and both were to
be examined at the return from the captivity. But the word translated
_open_, in reference to the evidence, or book which was open, (1 Sam.
iii, 7, 21; Dan. ii, 19, 30; x, 1,) signifies the revealing of future
events to the minds of men by a divine agency; and it is particularly
used in the book of Esther, viii, 13, to express a book’s making known
the decree of an earthly king. Consequently the _open book_ of Jeremiah
seems to signify, not its being then lying open or unrolled before them,
while the other was sealed up; but the book that had revealed the will
of God, to bring back Israel into their own country, and to cause buying
and selling of houses and lands again to take place among them. This was
a _book of prophecy_, opening and revealing the future return of Israel,
and the other little book, which was ordered to be buried along with it,
was the purchase deed.
4. By adverting to the different modes of writing in eastern countries,
we obtain a satisfactory interpretation of a passage in the book of Job,
xix, 23, 24, and a distinct view of the beautiful gradation which is
lost in our translation: “O that my words were now written! O that they
were printed (written) in a book! that they were graven with an iron pen
and lead in the rock for ever!” In the east there is a mode of writing,
which is designed to fix words in the memory, but the writing is not
intended for duration. Accordingly we are informed by Dr. Shaw, that
children learn to write in Barbary by means of a smooth thin board,
slightly covered with whiting, which may be wiped off or renewed at
pleasure. Job expresses his wish not only that his words were written,
but also written in a book, from which they should not be blotted out,
nay, still farther, graven in a rock, the most permanent mode of
recording them, and especially if the engraved letters were filled with
lead; or the rock was made to receive leaden tablets, the use of which
was known among the ancients. So Pliny, “At first men wrote on the
leaves of palm, and the bark of certain trees, but afterward public
documents were preserved on leaden plates, and those of a private nature
on wax, or linen.”
5. The first books were in the form of blocks and tables, of which we
find frequent mention in Scripture, under the appellation _sepher_,
which the Septuagint render ἀξίνες, that is, _square tables_: of which
form the book of the covenant, book of the law, book, or bill of
divorce, book of curses, &c, appear to have been. As flexible matters
came to be written on, they found it more convenient to make their books
in form of rolls, called by the Greeks κοντάκια, by the Latins
_volumina_, which appear to have been in use among the ancient Jews as
well as the Grecians, Romans, Persians, and even Indians; and of such
did the libraries chiefly consist, till some centuries after Christ. The
form which obtains among us is the square, composed of separate leaves;
which was also known, though little used, among the ancients; having
been invented by Attalus, king of Pergamus, the same who also invented
parchment: but it has now been so long in possession, that the oldest
manuscripts are found in it. Montfaucon assures us, that of all the
ancient Greek manuscripts he has seen, there are but two in the roll
form; the rest being made up much after the manner of the modern books.
The rolls, or volumes, were composed of several sheets, fastened to each
other, and rolled upon a stick, or _umbilicus_; the whole making a kind
of column, or cylinder, which was to be managed by the _umbilicus_, as a
handle; it being reputed a kind of crime to take hold of the roll
itself. The outside of the volume was called _frons_; the ends of the
_umbilicus_ were called _cornua_, “horns;” which were usually carved and
adorned likewise with silver, ivory, or even gold and precious stones.
Whilst the Egyptian papyrus was in common use, its brittle nature made
it proper to roll up what they wrote; and as this had been a customary
practice, many continued it when they used other materials, which might
very safely have been treated in a different manner. To the form of
books belongs the _economy of the inside_, or the order and arrangement
of points and letters into lines and pages, with margins and other
appurtenances. This has undergone many varieties: at first, the letters
were only divided into lines, then into separate words; which, by
degrees, were noted with accents, and distributed by points and stops
into periods, paragraphs, chapters, and other divisions. In some
countries, as among the orientals, the lines began from the right, and
ran to the left; in others, as in northern and western nations, from the
left to the right; others, as the Grecians, followed both directions
alternately, going in the one and returning in the other, called
_boustrophedon_, because it was after the manner of oxen turning when at
plough. In the Chinese books, the lines ran from top to bottom. Again:
the page in some is entire, and uniform; in others, divided into
columns; in others distinguished into texts and notes, either marginal,
or at the bottom: usually it is furnished with signatures and catch
words; also with a register to discover whether the book be complete. To
these are occasionally added the apparatus of summaries, or side notes;
the embellishments of red, gold, or figured initial letters, head
pieces, tail pieces, effigies, schemes, maps, and the like. The end of
the book now denoted by _finis_, was anciently marked with a =<=, called
_coronis_, and the whole frequently washed with an oil drawn from cedar,
or citron chips, strewed between the leaves to preserve it from rotting.
There also occur certain _formulæ_ at the beginning and end of books; as
among the Jews, the word חוק, _esto fortis_, which we find at the end of
the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Ezekiel, &c, to exhort the
reader to be courageous, and proceed on to the following book. The
conclusions were also often guarded with imprecations against such as
should falsify them; of which we have an instance in the Apocalypse. The
Mohammedans, for the like reason, place the name of God at the beginning
of all their books, which cannot fail to procure them protection, on
account of the infinite regard which they pay to that name, wherever
found. For the like reason it is, that divers of the laws of the ancient
emperors begin with the formula, _In nomine Dei_. [In the name of God.]
At the end of each book the Jews also added the number of verses
contained in it, and at the end of the Pentateuch the number of
sections; that, it might be transmitted to posterity entire. The
Masorites and Mohammedan doctors have gone farther; so as to number the
several words and letters in each book, chapter, verse, &c, of the Old
Testament and the Alcoran. The scarcity and high price of books in
former ages, ought to render us the more grateful for the discovery of
the great art of printing, as especially by that means the Holy Bible,
“the word of truth and Gospel of our salvation,” is made familiar to all
classes.