high priest. The sacred ephod, the one made for the high priest,
differed from the others, in being fabricated of cotton, which was
coloured with crimson, purple, and blue, and in being ornamented with
gold. In the time of Josephus, it was a cubit of the larger size in
length, and was furnished with sleeves. The high priest’s ephod had a
very rich button upon each shoulder, made of a large onyx stone set in
gold. This stone was so large, that the names of the twelve tribes of
Israel were engraven, six on each stone, Exod. xxviii, 9–12. The word
_shoham_, which we render onyx, is translated, by the Septuagint
_smaragdos_, an emerald; but as we have no certain knowledge either of
this, or of any of the twelve stones of the breastplate, we may as well
be satisfied with our translation as with any other. To the ephod
belonged a curious girdle, of the same rich fabric as the ephod itself.
This girdle is said to be upon the ephod, Exod. xxviii, 8; that is,
woven with the ephod, as Maimonides understands; and, coming out from
the ephod on each side, it was brought under the arms like a sash, and
tied upon the breast. Samuel, though a Levite only, and a child, wore a
linen ephod, 1 Sam. ii, 18. And David, in the ceremony of removing the
ark from the house of Obed-edom to Jerusalem, was girt with a linen
ephod, 2 Sam. vi, 14. The Levites were not generally allowed to wear the
ephod; but in the time of Agrippa, as we are told by Josephus, a little
before the taking of Jerusalem by the Romans, they obtained of that
prince permission to wear the linen stole as well as the priests.
Spencer and Cunæus are of opinion, that the Jewish kings had a right to
wear the ephod, because David, coming to Ziklag, and finding that the
Amalekites had plundered the city, and carried away his and the people’s
wives, ordered Abiathar, the high priest, to bring him the ephod, which
being done, David inquired of the Lord, saying, “Shall I pursue after
this troop?” 1 Sam. xxx, 8. Whence they infer, that David consulted God
by urim and thummim, and consequently put on the ephod. But it is
probable the text only means that he ordered the priest to do what he is
himself said to have done. The ephod of Gideon is remarkable for having
become the occasion of a new kind of idolatry to the Israelites, Judges
viii, 27. What this consisted in, is matter of dispute among the
learned. Some authors are of opinion that this ephod, as it is called,
was an idol; others, that it was only a trophy in memory of the signal
victory obtained by Gideon, and that the Israelites paid a kind of
divine worship to it; so that Gideon was the innocent cause of their
idolatry, in like manner as Moses had been in making the brazen serpent,
which was afterward worshipped.
EPHRAIM was the name of Joseph’s second son, by Asenath, Potiphar’s
daughter. He was born in Egypt, A. M. 2294. Ephraim, with his brother
Manasseh, was presented by his father Joseph to Jacob on his death bed,
Gen. xlviii, 8, &c. Jacob laid his right hand on Ephraim the younger,
and his left on Manasseh the elder. Joseph was desirous to change his
hands, but Jacob answered, “I know it, my son; Manasseh shall be
multiplied, but Ephraim shall be greater.” The sons of Ephraim having
made an inroad into Palestine, the inhabitants of Gath killed them.
Ephraim their father mourned many days for them, and his brethren came
to comfort him, 1 Chron. vii, 20, 21. Afterward, he had a son named
Beriah, and a daughter Sherah. He had also other sons, Rephah, Resheph,
Tela, &c. His posterity multiplied in Egypt to the number of forty
thousand five hundred men capable of bearing arms. In the land of
promise, Joshua, who was of this tribe, gave them their portion between
the Mediterranean west, and the river Jordan east. The ark and
tabernacle remained long in this tribe at Shiloh; and after the
separation of the ten tribes, the seat of the kingdom was in Ephraim,
and hence Ephraim is frequently used to denote the whole kingdom. The
district belonging to this tribe is called Ephratah, Psalm cxxxii, 6.
Ephraim was led captive beyond the Euphrates, with all Israel, by
Salmaneser, king of Assyria, A. M. 3283.
2. EPHRAIM was also the name of a city, into which Christ retired with
his disciples a little before his passion, John xi, 54. It was situated
in the tribe of Ephraim near the river Jordan. There was also the wood
or forest of Ephraim, situated on the other side Jordan, in which
Absalom’s army was routed and himself killed, 2 Sam. xviii, 6.
EPHRATH, Caleb’s second wife, who was the mother of Hur, 1 Chron. ii,
19. From her, it is believed that the city of Ephratah, otherwise called
Bethlehem, where our Lord was born, had its name; and this city is more
than once known in Scripture by the name of Ephrath, Gen. xxxv, 16.
EPICUREANS, a sect of philosophers in Greece and Rome. Epicurus was
their founder, who lived about B. C. 300. The physical doctrine of
Epicurus was as follows: Nothing can ever spring from nothing, nor can
any thing ever return to nothing. The universe always existed, and will
always remain; for there is nothing into which it can be changed. There
is nothing in nature, nor can any thing be conceived, beside body and
space. Body is that which possesses the properties of bulk, figure,
resistance, and gravity; it is this alone which can touch and be
touched. Space, or vacuum, destitute of the properties of body,
incapable of action or passion, is the region which is or may be
occupied by body, and which affords it an opportunity of moving freely.
The existence of bodies is attested by the senses. Space must also
exist, in order to allow bodies place in which to move and exist; and of
their existence and motion we have the certain proof of perception.
Beside body and space, no third nature can be conceived. But the
existence of qualities is not precluded, because these have no
subsistence except in the body to which they belong. The universe,
consisting of body and space, is infinite. Bodies are infinite in
multitude; space is infinite in magnitude. The universe is immovable,
because there is no place beyond it into which it can move. It is also
eternal and immutable, since it is liable to neither increase nor
decrease, to production nor decay. Nevertheless, the parts of the
universe are in motion, and are subject to change. All bodies consist of
parts which are either themselves simple principles, or may be resolved
into such. These first principles, or simple atoms, are divisible by no
force, and therefore must be immutable.
2. The formation of the world he conceived to have happened in the
following manner: A finite number of that infinite multitude of atoms,
which, with infinite space, constitute the universe, falling
fortuitously into the region of the world, were, in consequence of their
innate motion, collected into one rude and indigested mass. In this
chaos, the heaviest and largest atoms, or collections of atoms, first
subsided, while the smaller, and those which from their form would move
most freely, were driven upwards. These latter, after several
reverberations, rose into the outer region of the world, and formed the
heavens. Those atoms which, by their size and figure, were suited to
form fiery bodies, collected themselves into stars; those which were not
capable of rising so high in the sphere of the world, being disturbed by
the fiery particles, formed themselves into air. At length, from those
which subsided, was produced the earth. By the action of air, agitated
by heat from the heavenly bodies, upon the mixed mass of the earth, its
smoother and lighter particles were separated from the rest, and water
was produced, which naturally flowed into the lowest places. In the
first combination of atoms, which formed the chaos, various seeds arose,
which, being preserved and nourished by moisture and heat, afterward
sprung forth in organized bodies of different kinds. The soul is a
subtle corporeal substance, composed of the finest atoms, which, by the
extreme tenuity of its particles, is able to penetrate the whole body,
and to adhere to all its parts. It is composed of four distinct parts:
fire, which causes animal heat; an ethereal principle which is moist
vapour; air; and a fourth principle, which is the cause of sensation.
These four parts are so perfectly combined as to form one subtle
substance, which, while it remains in the body, is the cause of all its
faculties, motions, and passions, and which cannot be separated from it,
without producing the entire dissolution of the animal system.
3. In the universe there are, according to Epicurus, without
contradiction, divine natures; because nature itself has impressed the
idea of divinity upon the minds of men. The notion is universal; nor is
it established by custom, law, or any human institution; but it is the
effect of an innate principle, producing universal consent, and
therefore it must be true. This universal notion has probably arisen
from images of the gods, which have casually made their way into the
minds of men in sleep, and have afterward been recollected. But it is
inconsistent with our natural notions of the gods, as happy and immortal
beings, to suppose that they encumber themselves with the management of
the world, or are subject to the cares and passions which must attend so
great a charge. Hence it is inferred, that the gods have no intercourse
with mankind, nor any concern with the affairs of the world.
Nevertheless, on account of their excellent nature, they are objects of
reverence and worship. In their external shape the gods resemble men;
and though the place of their residence is unknown to mortals; it is
without doubt the mansion of perfect purity, tranquillity, and
happiness. Thus he attempted to account for all the appearances of
nature, even those which respect animated and intelligent beings, upon
the simple principles of matter and motion, without introducing the
agency of a supreme intelligence, or admitting any other idea of fate,
than that of blind necessity inherent in every atom, by which it moves
in a certain direction.
4. The ethics of Epicurus are much less exceptionable than his physics;
of which we may judge from the following summary: The end of living, or
the ultimate good, which is to be sought for its own sake, according to
the universal opinion of mankind, is happiness; which men generally fail
of attaining, because they form wrong notions of the nature of
happiness, or do not use proper means for attaining it. The happiness
which belongs to man, is that state in which he enjoys as many of the
good things, and suffers as few of the evils incident to human nature as
possible, passing his days in a smooth course of permanent tranquillity.
Perfect happiness cannot possibly be possessed without the pleasure that
attends freedom from pain, and the enjoyment of the good things of life.
Pleasure is in its nature good, and ought to be pursued; and pain is in
its nature evil, and should be avoided. Beside, pleasure or pain is the
measure of what is good or evil in every object of desire or aversion.
However, pleasure ought not in every instance to be pursued, nor pain to
be avoided; but reason is to distinguish and compare the nature and
degrees of each, that the result may be a wise choice of that which
shall appear to be, upon the whole, good. That pleasure is the first
good, appears from the inclination which every animal, from its first
birth, discovers to pursue pleasure and avoid pain; and is confirmed by
the universal experience of mankind, who are incited to action by no
other principle, than the desire of avoiding pain, or obtaining
pleasure. Of pleasures there are two kinds; one consisting in a state of
rest, in which both body and mind are free from pain; the other arising
from an agreeable agitation of the senses, producing a correspondent
emotion in the soul. Upon the former of these, the enjoyment of life
chiefly depends. Happiness may, therefore, be said to consist in bodily
ease and mental tranquillity. It is the office of reason to confine the
pursuit of pleasure within the limits of nature, so as to attain this
happy state; which neither resembles a rapid torrent, nor a standing
pool, but is like a gentle stream, that glides smoothly and silently
along. This happy state can only be attained by a prudent care of the
body, and a steady government of the mind. The diseases of the body are
to be prevented by temperance, or cured by medicine, or endured
tolerably by patience. Against the diseases of the mind philosophy
provides sufficient antidotes; the virtues are its instruments for this
purpose; the radical spring of which is prudence, or wisdom, and this
instructs men to free their understanding from the clouds of prejudice;
to exercise temperance and fortitude in the government of themselves;
and to practise justice toward all others. In a happy life, pleasure can
never be separated from virtue. The followers of Epicurus, however,
degenerated into mere sensualists,--an effect which could only result
from a system which denied a supreme God, and excluded from all concern
with the affairs of men even those divine natures which it allowed to
exist. This sect is mentioned Acts xvii, 18.
EPISCOPACY, DIOCESAN. The number of Christians in most of the primitive
churches was at first small: they could easily, when not prevented by
persecution, assemble together; and they thus formed one church or
congregation; for, in Scripture, the term _church_ is never used in the
more modern acceptation of the word, but is employed to denote either
the whole church of Christ, or a number of disciples meeting for the
celebration of divine worship. The converts, however, rapidly increased;
and when they could no longer meet in one place, other places would be
prepared for them. But, connected as they still were with the parent
church, they would choose from its presbyters their own pastors, and
view themselves as under the inspection of the president and the
presbytery, by whom the affairs of the church had been previously
conducted. The pastors would thus remain members of the presbytery, as
they had formerly been, and would look up to that one of their number
who had been accustomed to preside among them. They were, in fact, for a
considerable time, considered as one with the original church: the
bishop sent to them the elements of the Lord’s Supper as the pledge of
unity; and we find it asserted by ancient writers, that there was one
altar and one bishop. There were in this way gradually established,
first in the towns or cities in which the Apostles had called men to the
truth, and then in the contiguous district of country, several
congregations: in these pastors officiated, who were authorized by the
bishop and presbytery, whose superintendence was extended, so that
parochial episcopacy was insensibly but naturally changed into diocesan
episcopacy; many of the presbyters sent out by the bishop residing at
their churches, but nevertheless composing part of his council, and
being summoned to meet with him upon important occasions. This
enlargement of the field of inspection rendered the particular
superintendence of the bishop more requisite; and was the means both of
adding to his influence, and of his being regarded as permanently raised
above his brethren.
2. The ministers who were sent to the recently erected churches had
probably different powers, according to the numbers to whom they were to
officiate, the situation of the churches in respect of the original
church, and the tranquillity or persecution which was their lot. In the
immediate neighbourhood of the bishop, and where one person was
sufficient, he would merely perform the duties that had been assigned to
him previous to his mission; but the same reasons that led the Apostles
to plant several presbyters in the churches which they founded might
render it expedient that more than one, sometimes that a considerable
number, should be attached to the newly-formed congregations; more
particularly when the number attending was large, and when there was the
prospect of their still farther increasing. In such cases, it appears
that the bishop gave to one of the presbyters sent, and did so for the
same reasons that had at first created inequality among the pastors,
more extensive powers than were entrusted to the rest, and made him his
representative authorizing him to preside over the others, and to
discharge those parts of the ministerial office which, in his own
church, he reserved for himself. When this happened, the person so
distinguished was termed _choro-episcopus_: he was more than a
presbyter, but he was inferior to the bishop, acted by his directions,
and could be controlled by him in the exercise of the privileges which
had been granted. Such subordinate bishops continued for a considerable
time; but it might, from the beginning, have been foreseen that they
would soon aspire to an equality with the original bishops; and they
were at length suppressed, under the pretence that, by multiplying the
higher order in places of little consequence, the church would detract
from the respectability of that order, and lessen the reverence with
which it should be regarded.
3. The different congregations or churches which were established in
various cities and the adjoining districts were in so far independent of
each other, that the bishops and presbyters of each had the rule of
their particular church, and of the churches which had sprung from it,
and were entitled, by their own authority, to make such regulations as
appeared to them to be requisite; and this species of independence
continued for a considerable time, every bishop presiding in his
congregation, and afterward in his diocess. There was, however, always a
common tie by which they were united. Neighbouring churches, actuated by
ardent zeal for the interests of divine truth, consulted together upon
the best mode of promoting it. We know that the Apostolic churches were
enjoined to communicate to other bodies the epistles which they had
received; and while persecution continued, it was natural for all who
were exposed to it to consider by what means its fury could be avoided.
4. After the bishops were established as superior to presbyters, when
any meeting was held respecting religion, or the administration of the
church, it was chiefly composed of this higher order, and the president
of the synod or council was elected from their number. These meetings
were generally assembled in the metropolis, or principal city of the
district; and hence the bishop of this city, being frequently called to
preside, came, at length, to be regarded as entitled to do so: thus
acquiring a superiority over the other bishops, just as they had
acquired superiority over the inferior clergy. He was, in consequence,
distinguished by a particular name, being denominated, from the city in
which he presided, a metropolitan.
EPISCOPALIANS, those who maintain that bishops, presbyters, or priests,
and deacons, are three distinct orders in the church; and that the
bishops have a superiority over both the others. The episcopal form of
church government professes to find in the days of the Apostles the
model upon which it is framed. While our Lord remained upon earth, he
acted as the immediate governor of his church. Having himself called the
Apostles, he kept them constantly about his person, except at one time,
when he sent them forth upon a short progress through the cities of
Judea, and gave them particular directions how they should conduct
themselves. The seventy disciples, whom he sent forth at another time,
are never mentioned again in the New Testament. But the Apostles
received from him many intimations that their office was to continue
after his departure; and as one great object of his ministry was to
qualify them for the execution of this office, so, in the interval
between his resurrection and his ascension, he explained to them the
duties of it, and he invested them with the authority which the
discharge of those duties implied. “Go,” said he, “make disciples of all
nations, baptizing them, teaching them; and lo, I am with you always,
even unto the end of the world. As my Father hath sent me, even so send
I you. Receive ye the Holy Ghost,” Matt. xxviii, 19, 20; John xx, 21,
22. Soon after the ascension of Jesus, his Apostles received those
extraordinary gifts of which his promise had given them assurance; and
immediately they began to execute their commission, not only as the
witnesses of his resurrection, and the teachers of his religion, but as
the rulers of that society which was gathered by their preaching. In
Acts vi, we find the Apostles ordering the Christians at Jerusalem to
“look out seven men of honest report,” who might take charge of the
daily ministrations to the poor, and to bring the men so chosen to them,
that “we,” said the Apostles, “may appoint them over this business.” The
men accordingly were “set before the Apostles; and when they had prayed,
they laid their hands on them.” Here are the Apostles ordaining deacons.
Afterward, we find St. Paul, in his progress through Asia Minor,
ordaining in every church elders, ϖρεσϐυτέρȣς; the name properly
expressive of age being transferred, after the practice of the Jews, as
a mark of respect, to ecclesiastical rulers, Acts xiv, 23. The men thus
ordained by St. Paul appear, from the book of Acts and the Epistles, to
have been teachers, pastors, overseers, of the flock of Christ; and to
Timothy, who was a minister of the word, the Apostle speaks of “the gift
which is in thee by the putting on of my hands,” 2 Tim. i, 6. Over the
persons to whom he thus conveyed the office of teaching, he exercised
jurisdiction; for he sent to Ephesus, to the elders of the church to
meet him at Miletus; and there, in a long discourse, gave them a solemn
charge, Acts xx, 17–35; and to Timothy and Titus he writes epistles in
the style of a superior.
2. As St. Paul unquestionably conceived that there belonged to him, as
an Apostle, an authority over other office-bearers of the church, so his
epistles contain two examples of a delegation of that authority. He not
only directs Timothy, whom he had besought to abide at Ephesus, how to
behave himself in the house of God as a minister, but he sets him over
other ministers. He empowers him to ordain men to the work of the
ministry: “The things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses,
the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others
also,” 2 Tim. ii, 2. He gives him directions about the ordination of
bishops and deacons; he places both these kinds of office-bearers in
Ephesus under his inspection, instructing him in what manner to receive
an accusation against an elder who laboured in word and doctrine; and he
commands him to charge some that they teach no other doctrine but the
form of sound words. In like manner he says to Titus, “For this cause
left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that
are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee,”
Titus i, 5. He describes to Titus the qualifications of a bishop or
elder, making him the judge how far any person in Crete was possessed of
these qualifications; he gives him authority over all orders of
Christians there; and he empowers him to reject heretics. Here, then, is
that Apostle, with whose actions we are best acquainted, seemingly aware
that there would be continual occasion in the Christian church for the
exercise of that authority over pastors and teachers, which the Apostles
had derived from the Lord Jesus; and by these two examples of a
delegation, given during his life time, preparing the world for
beholding that authority exercised by the successors of the Apostles in
all ages. Accordingly, the earliest Christian writers tell us that the
Apostles, to prevent contention, appointed bishops and deacons; giving
orders, too, that, upon their death, other approved men should succeed
in their ministry. We are told that the other Apostles constituted their
first-fruits, that is, their first disciples, after they had proved them
by the Spirit, bishops and deacons of those who were to believe; and
that the Apostle John, who survived the rest, after returning from
Patmos, the place of his banishment, went about the neighbouring
nations, ordaining bishops, establishing whole churches, and setting
apart particular persons for the ministry, as they were pointed out to
him by the Spirit.