temple of Solomon was dedicated. After the Jews returned from the
captivity, the month Ethanim was called Tisri, which answers to our
September.
ETHIOPIA. See CUSH.
EUCHARIST, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. The word, in its original
Greek, εὐχαρίϛια, properly signifies _giving thanks_; from the hymns and
thanksgivings which accompanied that holy service in the primitive
church. See LORD’S SUPPER.
EUNICE, the mother of Timothy, who was a Jewess by birth, but married to
a Greek, Timothy’s father, 2 Tim. i, 5. Eunice had been converted to
Christianity by some other preacher, Acts xvi, 1, 2, and not by St.
Paul; for when that Apostle came to Lystra, he found there Eunice and
Timothy, already far advanced in grace and virtue.
EUNUCH. The word signifies, one who guards the bed. In the courts of
eastern kings, the care of the beds and apartments belonging to princes
and princesses, was generally committed to eunuchs; but they had the
charge chiefly of the princesses, who lived secluded. The Hebrew _saris_
signifies a real eunuch, whether naturally born such, or rendered such.
But in Scripture this word often denotes an officer belonging to a
prince, attending his court, and employed in the interior of his palace,
as a name of office and dignity. In the Persian and Turkish courts, the
principal employments are at this day possessed by real eunuchs. Our
Saviour speaks of men who “made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of
heaven,” Matt. xix, 12; that is, who, from a religious motive, renounced
marriage or carnal pleasures.
EUPHRATES, a river of Asiatic Turkey, which rises from the mountains of
Armenia, as some have said, in two streams, a few miles to the
north-east of Erzeron, the streams uniting to the south-west near that
city; and chiefly pursuing a south-west direction to Semisat, where it
would fall into the Mediterranean, if not prevented by a high range of
mountains. In this part of its course the Euphrates is joined by the
Morad, a stream almost doubling in length that of the Euphrates, so that
the latter river might more justly be said to spring from Mount Ararat,
about one hundred and sixty British miles to the east of the imputed
source. At Semisat, the ancient Samosata, this noble river assumes a
southerly direction, then runs an extensive course to the south-east,
and after receiving the Tigris, falls by two or three mouths into the
gulf of Persia, about fifty miles south-east of Bassora; north latitude
29° 50´; east longitude 66° 55´. The comparative course of the Euphrates
may be estimated at about one thousand four hundred British miles. This
river is navigable for a considerable distance from the sea. In its
course it separates Aladulia from Armenia, Syria from Diarbekir, and
Diarbekir from Arabia, and passing through the Arabian Irak, joins the
Tigris. The Euphrates and Tigris, the most considerable as well as the
most renowned rivers of western Asia, are remarkable for their rising
within a few miles of each other, running the same course, never being
more than one hundred and fifty miles asunder, and sometimes, before
their final junction, approaching within fifteen miles of each other, as
in the latitude of Bagdad. The space included between the two is the
ancient country of Mesopotamia. But the Euphrates is by far the more
noble river of the two. Sir R. K. Porter, describing this river in its
course through the ruins of Babylon, observes, “The whole view was
particularly solemn. The majestic stream of the Euphrates wandering in
solitude, like a pilgrim monarch through the silent ruins of his
devastated kingdom, still appeared a noble river, even under all the
disadvantages of its desert-tracked course. Its banks were hoary with
reeds; and the grey osier willows were yet there, on which the captives
of Israel hung up their harps, and, while Jerusalem was not, refused to
be comforted.” The Scripture calls it “the great river,” and assigns it
for the eastern boundary of that land which God promised to the
Israelites, Deut. i, 7; Joshua i, 4.
EUROCLYDON, the Greek name for the north-east wind, very dangerous at
sea, of the nature of a whirlwind, which falls of a sudden upon ships,
Acts xxvii, 14. The same wind is now called a Levanter.
EUTYCHIANS, a denomination which arose in the fifth century, and were so
called from Eutyches, abbot of a certain convent of monks at
Constantinople. The Nestorians having explained the two natures in
Christ in such a manner as, in the opinion of many, to make them
equivalent to two persons, which was an evident absurdity, Eutyches, to
avoid this error, fell into the opposite extreme, and maintained that
there was only one nature in Jesus Christ, the divine nature, which,
according to him, had so entirely swallowed up the human, that the
latter could not be distinguished. Hence it was inferred that according
to this system our Lord had nothing of humanity but the appearance.
EVANGELISTS, the inspired authors of the Gospels. The word is derived
from the Greek, εὐαγτελιον, formed of εὖ, _bene_, “well,” and ἄγτελος,
_angel, messenger_. The name of evangelists is said by some to have been
given in the ancient church to such as preached the Gospel without being
attached to any particular church, being either commissioned by the
Apostles to instruct the nations, or, of their own accord, abandoning
every worldly attachment, consecrated themselves to the sacred office of
preaching the Gospel. In which sense these interpreters think it is that
St. Philip, who was one of the seven deacons, is called “the evangelist”
in Acts xxi, 8; and that St. Paul, writing to Timothy, bids him do the
work of an evangelist, 2 Tim. iv, 5. It is, however, to be remarked,
that the office in which the evangelists chiefly present themselves to
our notice in the New Testament, is that of assistants to the Apostles;
or, as they might be termed vice apostles, who acted under their
authority and direction. As they were directed to ordain pastors or
bishops in the churches, but had no authority given them to ordain
successors to themselves in their particular office as evangelists,
whatever it might be, they must be considered as but temporary officers
in the church, like the Apostles and prophets. The term evangelist is,
at present, confined to the writers of the four Gospels.
EVE, the first woman. She was called הוה, Gen. iii, 20, a word that
signifies _life_, because she was to be the mother of all that live. Our
translators, therefore, might have called her _Life_, as the Septuagint,
who render the Hebrew word by Ζωὴ. Soon after the expulsion of the first
pair from paradise, Eve conceived and bare a son; and imagining, as is
probable, that she had given birth to the promised seed, she called his
name Cain, which signifies _possession_, saying, “I have gotten a man
from the Lord.” She afterward had Abel, and some daughters, and then
Seth. The Scriptures name only these three sons of Adam and Eve, but
sufficiently inform us, Gen. v, 4, that they had many more, saying, that
“Adam lived, after he had begotten Seth, eight hundred years, and begat
sons and daughters.” See ADAM.
EVIL is distinguished into natural and moral. Natural evil is whatever
destroys or any way disturbs the perfection of natural beings, such as
blindness, diseases, death, &c. Moral evil is the disagreement between
the actions of a moral agent, and the rule of those actions, whatever it
be. Applied to choice, or acting contrary to the moral or revealed laws
of the Deity, it is termed _wickedness_, or _sin_. Applied to an act
contrary to a mere rule of fitness, it is called a _fault_. The question
concerning the origin of evil has very much perplexed philosophers and
divines, both ancient and modern. Plato, for the solution of this
question, maintained, that matter, from its nature, possesses a blind
and refractory force, from which arises in it a propensity to disorder
and deformity; and that this is the cause of all the imperfection which
appears in the works of God, and the origin of evil. Matter, he
conceives, resists the will of the supreme Artificer, so that he cannot
possibly execute his designs; and this is the cause of the mixture of
good and evil, which is found in the material world. “It cannot be,”
says he, “that evil should be destroyed, for there must always be
something contrary to good;” and again, “God wills, as far as it is
possible, every thing good, and nothing evil.” What that property of
matter is which opposes the wise and benevolent intentions of the first
Intelligence, Plato has not clearly explained; but he speaks of it as
ξύμφυτος ἐπιθυμία, an innate propensity to disorder, and says, that
before nature was adorned with its present beautiful forms, it was
inclined to confusion and deformity, and that from this habitude arises
all the evil which happens in the world. Plutarch supposes the Platonic
notion to be, that there is in matter an unconscious, irrational soul;
and this supposition has been adopted by several modern writers. But the
writings of Plato afford no evidence that he conceived the imperfection
of matter to arise from any cause distinct from its nature. Such a
notion is incongruous with Plato’s general system, and is contrary to
the doctrine of the Pythagorean school, to which he was probably
indebted for his notions on this subject; for the philosophers of that
sect held that motion is the effect of a power essential to matter. Some
of the Stoics adopted the notion of the Platonists concerning the origin
of evil, and ascribed it to the defective nature of matter, which it is
not in the power of the great Artificer to change; asserting, that
imperfections appear in the world, not through any defect of skill in
its author, but because matter will not admit of the accomplishment of
his designs. But it was perceived by others, that this hypothesis was
inconsistent with the fundamental doctrine of the Stoics concerning
nature. For since, according to their system, matter itself receives all
its qualities from God, if its defects be the cause of evil, these
defects must be ultimately ascribed to him. No other way of relieving
this difficulty remained, than to have recourse to fate, and say, that
evil was the necessary consequence of that eternal necessity to which
the great whole, comprehending both God and matter, is subject. Thus,
when Chrysippus was asked whether diseases were to be ascribed to Divine
providence, he replied that it was not the intention of nature that
these things should happen; nor were they conformable to the will of the
Author of nature and Parent of all good things; but that, in framing the
world, some inconveniences had adhered by necessary consequence, to his
wise and useful plan. To others the question concerning the origin of
evil appeared so intricate and difficult, that, finding themselves
unequal to the solution of it, they denied either that there is any God
at all, or, at least, any author or governor of the world. The
Epicureans belonged to this class; nor does Lucretius allege any other
reason for denying the system of the world to be the production of a
Deity beside its being so very faulty. Others again judged it to be more
rational to assign a double cause of visible effects, than to assign no
cause at all; as nothing, indeed, can be more absurd than to admit
actions and effects without any agent and cause. These persons
perceiving a mixture of good and evil, and being persuaded that so many
inconsistencies and disorders could not proceed from a good being,
supposed the existence of a malevolent principle, or god, directly
contrary to the good one; hence they derived corruption and death,
diseases, griefs, mischiefs, frauds, and villanies, while from the good
being they deduced nothing but good. This opinion was held by many of
the ancients; by the Persian magi, Manicheans, Paulicians, &c.
2. Dr. Samuel Clarke, in his “Demonstration of the Being and Attributes
of God,” deduces from the possibility and real existence of human
liberty an answer to the question, What is the cause and original of
evil? For liberty, he says, implying a natural power of doing evil, as
well as good; and the imperfect nature of finite beings making it
possible for them to abuse this their liberty to an actual commission of
evil; and it being necessary to the order and beauty of the whole, and
for displaying the infinite wisdom of the Creator, that there should be
different and various degrees of creatures, whereof, consequently, some
must be less perfect than others; hence there necessarily arises a
possibility of evil, notwithstanding that the Creator is infinitely
good. In short thus: all that we call evil is either an evil of
imperfection, as the want of certain faculties and excellencies which
other creatures have; or natural evil, as pain, death, and the like; or
moral evil, as all kinds of vice. The first of these is not properly an
evil: for every power, faculty, or perfection, which any creature
enjoys, being the free gift of God, which he was no more obliged to
bestow, than he was to confer being or existence itself, it is plain the
want of any certain faculty or perfection in any kind of creatures which
never belonged to their nature, is no more an evil to them than their
never having been created, or brought into being at all, could properly
have been called an evil. The second kind of evil, which we call natural
evil, is either a necessary consequence of the former; as death, to a
creature on whose nature immortality was never conferred; and then it is
no more properly an evil than the former; or else it is counterpoised,
in the whole, with as great or greater good, as the afflictions and
sufferings of good men, and then also it is not properly an evil; or
else, lastly, it is a punishment; and then it is a necessary consequent
of the third and last sort of evil, namely, moral evil. And this arises
wholly from the abuse of liberty, which God gave to his creatures for
other purposes, and which it was reasonable and fit to give them for the
perfection and order of the whole creation; only they, contrary to God’s
intention and command, have abused what was necessary for the perfection
of the whole, to the corruption and depravation of themselves. And thus
all sorts of evils have entered into the world, without any diminution
to the infinite goodness of its Creator and Governor.
3. This is obviously all the answer which the question respecting the
origin of evil is capable of receiving. It brings us to the point to
which the Scriptures themselves lead us. And though many questions may
yet be asked, respecting a subject so mysterious as the permission of
evil by the Supreme Being, this is a part of his _counsels_ of which we
can have no cognizance, unless he is pleased to reveal them; and as
revelation is silent upon this subject, except generally, that all his
acts, his permissive ones as well as others, are “wise, and just, and
good,” we may rest assured, that beyond what is revealed, human wisdom
in the present state can never penetrate.
EXCOMMUNICATION, is the judicial exclusion of offenders from the
religious rites and other privileges of the particular community to
which they belong. Founded in the natural right which every society
possesses to guard its laws and privileges from violation and abuse by
the infliction of salutary discipline, proportioned to the nature of the
offences committed against them, it has found a place, in one form or
another, under every system of religion, whether human or divine. That
it has been made an engine for the gratification of private malice and
revenge, and been perverted to purposes the most unjustifiable and even
diabolical, the history of the world but too lamentably proves; yet
this, though unquestionably a consideration which ought to inculcate the
necessity of prudence, as well as impartiality and temperance in the use
of it, affords no valid argument against its legitimate exercise. From
St. Paul’s writings we learn that the early excommunication was effected
by the offender not being allowed to “eat” with the church, that is, to
partake of the Lord’s Supper, the sign of communion. In the early ages
of the primitive church also, this branch of discipline was exercised
with moderation, which, however, gradually gave place to an undue
severity. From Tertullian’s “Apology” we learn, that the crimes which in
his time subjected to exclusion from Christian privileges, were murder,
idolatry, theft, fraud, lying, blasphemy, adultery, fornication, and the
like: and in Origen’s treatise against Celsus, we are informed that such
persons were expelled from the communion of the church, and lamented as
lost and dead unto God; [_ut perditos Deoque mortuos_;] but that on
making confession and giving evidence of penitence, they were received
back as restored to life. It was at the same time specially ordained,
that no such delinquent, however suitably qualified in other respects,
could be afterward admitted to any ecclesiastical office. But it does
not appear that the infliction of this discipline was accompanied with
any of those forms of excommunication, of delivering over to Satan, or
of solemn execration, which were usual among the Jews, and subsequently
introduced into them by the Romish church. The authors and followers of
heretical opinions which had been condemned, were also subject to this
penalty; and it was sometimes inflicted on whole congregations when they
were judged to have departed from the faith. In this latter case,
however, the sentence seldom went farther than the interdiction of
correspondence with these churches, or of spiritual communication
between their respective pastors. To the same exclusion from religious
privileges, those unhappy persons were doomed, who, whether from choice
or from compulsion, had polluted themselves, after their baptism, by any
act of idolatrous worship; and the penance enjoined on such persons,
before they could be restored to communion, was often peculiarly severe.
The consequences of excommunication, even then, were of a temporal as
well as a spiritual nature. The person against whom it was pronounced,
was denied all share in the oblations of his brethren; the ties both of
religious and of private friendship were dissolved; he found himself an
object of abhorrence to those whom he most esteemed, and by whom he had
been most tenderly beloved; and, as far as expulsion from a society held
in universal veneration could imprint on his character a mark of
disgrace, he was shunned or suspected by the generality of mankind.
2. It was not, however, till churchmen began to unite temporal with
spiritual power, that any penal effects of a civil kind became
consequent on their sentences of excommunication; and that this ghostly
artillery was not less frequently employed for the purposes of lawless
ambition and ecclesiastical domination, than for the just punishment of
impenitent delinquents, and the general edification of the faithful. But
as soon as this union took place, and in exact proportion to the degree
in which the papal system rose to its predominance over the civil rights
as well as the consciences of men, the list of offences which subjected
their perpetrators to excommunication, was multiplied; and the severity
of its inflictions, with their penal effects, increased in the same
ratio. The slightest injury, or even insult, sustained by an
ecclesiastic, was deemed a sufficient cause for the promulgation of an
anathema. Whole families, and even provinces, were prohibited from
engaging in any religious exercise, and cursed with the most tremendous
denunciations of divine vengeance. Nor were kings and emperors secure
against these thunders of the church; their subjects were, on many
occasions, declared, by a papal bull, to be absolved from allegiance to
them; and all who should dare to support them, menaced with a similar
judgment. These terrors have passed away; the true Scriptural
excommunication ought to be maintained in every church; which is the
prohibition of immoral and apostate persons from the use of those
religious rites which indicate “the communion of saints,” but without
any temporal penalty.
EXODUS, from ἐξ, _out_, and ὁδὸς, _a way_, the name of the second book
of Moses, and is so called in the Greek version because it relates to
the departure of the Israelites out of Egypt. It comprehends the history
of about a hundred and forty-five years; and the principal events
contained in it are, the bondage of the Israelites in Egypt, and their
miraculous deliverance by the hand of Moses; their entrance into the
wilderness of Sinai; the promulgation of the law, and the building of
the tabernacle. See PENTATEUCH.