people, teaches a philosophical atheism, which admits neither rewards
nor punishments after death; and believes not in a providence, or the
immortality of the soul; acknowledges no other God than the _void_, or
_nothing_; and which makes the supreme happiness of mankind to consist
in a total inaction, an entire insensibility, and a perfect quietude.
Fuh, though the idol of the common people, is considered as a foreign
deity in China, imported by the Boudhists from India: great effects are,
however, attached to the perpetual reiteration of his name, and even to
meditation upon it. It is supposed to render fate favourable, and life
secure; to prevent migration into the bodies of inferior animals; and,
in fine, to secure a place in the paradise of Fuh, whose land is yellow
gold, whose towers are composed of gems, the bridges of pearls, &c.
FOOL, FOLLY, or FOOLISHNESS. The term fool is to be understood sometimes
according to its plain, literal meaning, as denoting a person void of
understanding; but it is often used figuratively, Psalm xxxviii, 5;
lxix, 5. “The fool,” that is, the impious sinner, “hath said in his
heart, There is no God,” Psalm xiv, 1. “I have sinned: do away the
iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly,” 1 Chron. xxi,
8. “Fools make a mock at sin,” Prov. xiv, 9. See also the language of
Tamar to her brother Amnon: “Do not this folly; for whither shall I
cause my shame to go? And as for thee, thou shalt be as one of the fools
in Israel,” 2 Sam. xiii, 13; that is, Thou wilt be accounted a very
wicked person. Our Lord seems to have used the term in a sense somewhat
peculiar in Matthew v, 22: “Whosoever shall say to his brother, Thou
fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.” But the whole verse shows the
meaning to be, that when any one of his professed disciples indulges a
temper and disposition of mind contrary to charity, or that peculiar
love which the brethren of Christ are bound by his law to have toward
each other, John xiii, 34, not only showing anger against another
without a cause, but also treating him with contemptuous language, and
that with malicious intent, he shall be in danger of eternal
destruction.
FOOT. Anciently it was customary to wash the feet of strangers coming
off a journey, because generally they travelled barefoot, or wore
sandals only, which did not secure them from dust or dirt. Jesus Christ
washed the feet of his Apostles, and thereby taught them to perform the
humblest services for one another. Feet, in the sacred writers, often
mean inclinations, affections, propensities, actions, motions: “Guide my
feet in thy paths.” “Keep thy feet at a distance from evil.” “The feet
of the debauched woman go down to death.” “Let not the foot of pride
come against me.” To be at any one’s feet, signifies obeying him,
listening to his instructions and commands. Moses says that “the Lord
loved his people; all his saints are in thy hand: and they sat down at
his feet,” Deut. xxxiii, 3. St. Paul was brought up at the feet of
Gamaliel. Mary sat at our Saviour’s feet, and heard his word, Luke x,
39.
It is said that the land of Canaan is not like Egypt, “where thou
sowedst thy seed, and wateredst it with thy _foot_,” Deut. xi, 10.
Palestine is a country which has rains, plentiful dews, springs,
rivulets, brooks, &c, that supply the earth with the moisture necessary
to its fruitfulness. On the contrary, Egypt has no river except the
Nile: there it seldom rains, and the lands which are not within reach of
the inundation continue parched and barren. To supply this want, ditches
are dug from the river, and water is distributed throughout the several
villages and cantons: there are great struggles who shall first obtain
it; and, in this dispute, they frequently come to blows. Notwithstanding
these precautions, many places have no water; and, in the course of the
year, those places which are nearest the Nile require to be watered
again by means of art and labour. This was formerly done by the help of
machines, one of which is thus described by Philo: It is a wheel which a
man turns by the motion of his feet, by ascending successively the
several steps that are within it. This is what Moses means in this place
by saying, that, in Egypt, they water the earth with their feet. The
water is thus conveyed to cisterns; and when the gardens want
refreshment, water is conducted by trenches to the beds in little rills,
which are stopped by the _foot_, and turned at pleasure into different
directions.
2. To be under any one’s feet, to be a footstool to him, signifies the
subjection of a subject to his sovereign, of a slave to his master. To
lick the dust of one’s feet, is an abject manner of doing homage. In Mr.
Hugh Boyd’s account of his embassy to the king of Candy, in Ceylon,
there is a paragraph which singularly illustrates this, and shows the
adulation and obsequious reverence with which an eastern monarch is
approached. Describing his introduction to the king, he says, “The
removal of the curtain was the signal of our obeisances. Mine, by
stipulation, was to be only kneeling. My companions immediately began
the performance of theirs, which were in the most perfect degree of
eastern humiliation. They almost literally licked the dust; prostrating
themselves with their faces almost close to the stone floor, and
throwing out their arms and legs; then, rising on their knees, they
repeated, in a very loud voice, a certain form of words of the most
extravagant meaning that can be conceived, that the head of the king of
kings might reach beyond the sun; that he might live a thousand years,”
&c. Nakedness of feet was a sign of mourning. God says to Ezekiel, “Make
no mourning for the dead, and put on thy shoes upon thy feet,” &c. It
was also a mark of respect: “Put off thy shoes from off thy feet; for
the place whereon thou standest is holy ground,” Exodus iii, 5. The
rabbins say that the priests went barefoot in the temple. “If thou turn
away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day,”
Isaiah lviii, 13; if thou forbear walking and travelling on the Sabbath
day, and do not then thine own will. We know that journeys were
forbidden on the Sabbath day, Matt. xxiv, 20; Acts i, 12. Kissing the
feet was often practised as a mark of affection and reverence.
FORNICATION, whoredom, or the act of incontinency between single
persons; for if either of the parties be married, the sin is adultery.
FOREHEAD, _Mark on the_, Ezekiel ix, 4. Mr. Maurice, speaking of the
religious rites of the Hindoos, says, Before they can enter the great
pagoda, an indispensable ceremony takes place, which can only be
performed by the hand of a brahmin; and that is, the impression of their
foreheads with the _tiluk_, or mark of different colours, as they may
belong either to the sect of Veeshnu, or Seeva. If the temple be that of
Veeshnu, their foreheads are marked with a longitudinal line, and the
colour used is vermilion. If it be the temple of Seeva, they are marked
with a parallel line, and the colour used is turmeric, or saffron. But
these two grand sects being again subdivided into numerous classes, both
the size and the shape of the _tiluk_ are varied, in proportion to their
superior or inferior rank. In regard to the _tiluk_, I must observe,
that it was a custom of very ancient date in Asia to mark their servants
in the forehead. It is alluded to in these words of Ezekiel, where the
Almighty commands his angels to “go through the midst of the city, and
set a mark on the foreheads of the men who sigh for the abominations
committed in the midst thereof.” The same idea occurs also in Rev. vii,
3. The divers sects of the Hindoos have a distinguishing mark of the
sect, by which they are known, on the forehead, of powdered sandal wood,
or of the slime of the Ganges. The mark of the Wischnites consists of
two nearly oval lines down the nose, which runs from two straight lines
on the forehead. The mark of the Schivites consists of two curved lines,
like a half moon with a point on the nose. It is made either with the
slime of the Ganges, with sandal wood, or the ashes of cow dung.
FOUNTAIN is properly the source or springhead of waters. There were
several celebrated fountains in Judea, such as that of Rogel, of Gihon,
of Siloam, of Nazareth, &c; and allusions to them are often to be met
with in both the Old and New Testament. Dr. Chandler, in his travels in
Asia Minor, says, “The reader, as we proceed, will find frequent mention
of fountains. Their number is owing to the nature of the country and the
climate. The soil, parched and thirsty, demands moisture to aid
vegetation; and a cloudless sun, which inflames the air, requires for
the people the verdure, with shade and air, its agreeable attendants.
Hence fountains are met with, not only in the towns and villages, but in
the fields and gardens, and by the sides of the roads, and of the beaten
tracks on the mountains. Many of them are the useful donations of humane
persons while living, or have been bequeathed as legacies on their
decease.” As fountains of water were so extremely valuable to the
inhabitants of the eastern countries, it is easy to understand why the
inspired writers so frequently allude to them, and thence deduce some of
their most beautiful and striking similitudes, when they would set forth
the choicest spiritual blessings. Thus Jeremiah calls the blessed God,
“the fountain of living waters,” Jer. ii, 13. As those springs or
fountains of water are the most valuable and highly prized which never
intermit or cease to flow, but are always sending forth their streams;
such is Jehovah to his people: he is a perennial source of felicity.
Zechariah, pointing in his days to the atonement which was to be made in
the fulness of time, by the shedding of the blood of Christ, describes
it as a fountain that was to be opened in which the inhabitants of
Jerusalem might wash away all their impurities: “In that day there shall
be a fountain opened to the house of David, and to the inhabitants of
Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness,” Zech. xiii, 1. Joel predicted
the salvation which was to come out of Zion, under the beautiful figure
of “a fountain which should come forth out of the house of the Lord, and
water the plain of Shittim,” Joel iii, 18. The Psalmist, expatiating on
the excellency of the loving-kindness of God, not only as affording a
ground of hope to the children of men, but also as the source of
consolation and happiness, adds, “Thou shalt make them drink of the
river of thy pleasures; for with thee is the fountain of life,” Psalm
xxxvi, 7–9. In short, the blessedness of the heavenly state is shadowed
forth under this beautiful figure; for as “in the divine presence there
is fulness of joy, and at God’s right hand, pleasures for evermore,”
Psalm xvi, 11; so it is said of those who came out of great tribulation,
that “the Lamb that was in the midst of the throne shall lead them unto
living fountains of water, and God shall wipe away all tears from their
eyes,” Rev. vii, 17.
FOX, שועל, Judges xv, 4; Nehemiah iv, 3; xi, 27; Psalm lxiii, 10; Cant.
ii, 15; Lam. v, 11; Ezek. xiii, 4; Matt. viii, 20; Luke ix, 58; xiii,
32. Parkhurst observes that this is the name of an animal, probably so
called from its burrowing, or making holes in the earth to hide himself
or dwell in. The LXX render it by ἀλώπηξ, the Vulgate, _vulpes_, and our
English version, _fox_. It is recorded, in Judges xv, 4, 5, that “Samson
went and caught three hundred foxes, and took firebrands, and turned
tail to tail, and put a firebrand in the midst between two tails; and
when he had set the brands on fire, he let them go into the standing
corn of the Philistines, and burnt up both the shocks, and also the
standing corn, with the vineyards and olives.” Dr. Shaw thinks jackals
to be the animals here intended; observing, that “as these are creatures
by far the most common and familiar, as well as the most numerous of any
in the eastern countries, we may well perceive the great possibility
there was for Samson to take, or cause to be taken, three hundred of
them. The fox, properly so called,” he adds, “is rarely to be met with,
neither is it gregarious.” So Hasselquist remarks: “Jackals are found in
great numbers about Gaza; and, from their gregarious nature, it is much
more probable that Samson should have caught three hundred of them, than
of the solitary quadruped, the fox.”
2. At the feast of Ceres, the goddess of corn, celebrated annually at
Rome about the middle of April, there was the observance of this custom,
to fix burning torches to the tails of a number of foxes, and to let
them run through the circus till they were burnt to death. This was done
in revenge upon that species of animals, for having once burnt up the
fields of corn. The reason, indeed, assigned by Ovid, is too frivolous
an origin for so solemn a rite; and the time of its celebration, the
seventeenth of April, it seems, was not harvest time, when the fields
were covered with corn, _vestitos messibus agros_; for the middle of
April was seed time in Italy, as appears from Virgil’s Georgics. Hence
we must infer that this rite must have taken its rise from some other
event than that by which Ovid accounted for it; and Samson’s foxes are a
probable origin of it. The time agrees exactly, as may be collected from
several passages of Scripture. For instance: from the book of Exodus we
learn, that before the passover, that is, before the fourteenth day of
the month Abib, or March, barley in Egypt was in the ear, Exod. xii, 18;
xiii, 4. And in chapter ix, 31, 32, it is said, that the wheat at that
time was not grown up. Barley harvest, then, in Egypt, and so in the
country of the Philistines, which bordered upon it, must have fallen
about the middle of March. Wheat harvest, according to Pliny, was a
month later: “_In Egypto hordeum sexto a satu mense, frumenta septimo
metuntur._” [In Egypt barley is reaped in the sixth month from the time
of its being sown, wheat in the seventh.] Therefore wheat harvest
happened about the middle of April; the very time in which the burning
of foxes was observed at Rome. It is certain that the Romans borrowed
many of their rites and ceremonies, both serious and ludicrous, from
foreign nations; and Egypt and Phenicia furnished them with more perhaps
than any other country. From one of these the Romans might either
receive this rite immediately, or through the hands of their neighbours,
the Carthaginians, who were a colony of Phenicians; and so its true
origin may be referred back to the story which we have been considering.
Bochart has made it probable that the איים spoken of in Isaiah xiii, 22;
xxxiv, 14; and Jer. 1, 39, rendered by our translators “the beasts of
the islands,” an appellation very vague and indeterminate, are
_jackals_; and that the θωὲς of the Greeks, and the _beni ani_ of the
Arabians are the same animal; and though he takes that to have been
their specific name, yet he thinks, that, from their great resemblance
to a fox, they might be comprehended under the Hebrew name of a fox,
_shual_; which is indeed almost the same with _sciagal sciugal_, the
Persian names of the jackal. Scaliger and Olearius, quoted by Bochart,
expressly call the jackal a fox; and Mr. Sandys speaks of it in the same
manner: “The jackals, in my opinion, are no other than foxes, whereof an
infinite number,” &c. Hasselquist calls it the little eastern fox; and
Kæmpfer says that it might not be improperly called the wolf-fox. It is
therefore very conceivable that the ancients might comprehend this
animal under the general name of fox.
3. To give an idea of his own extreme poverty, the Lord Jesus says, Luke
ix, 58, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son
of man hath not where to lay his head.” And he calls Herod, the tetrarch
of Galilee, a fox, Luke xiii, 32; thereby signifying his craft, and the
refinements of his policy. In illustration of the pertinency of this
allusion, we may quote a remark of Busbequius: “I heard a mighty noise,
as if it had been of men who jeered and mocked us. I asked what was the
matter; and was answered, ‘Only the howlings of certain beasts which the
Turks call, _ciagals_, or _jackals_.’ They are a sort of wolves,
somewhat bigger than foxes, but less than common wolves, yet as greedy
and devouring. They go in flocks, and seldom hurt man or beast; but get
their food more by craft and stealth than by open force. Thence it is
that the Turks call subtle and crafty persons by the metaphorical name
of _ciagals_.”
FRANKINCENSE, לבונה, Exod. xxx, 34, &c. λίϐανος, Matt. ii, 11; Rev.
xviii, 13, a dry, resinous substance, of a yellowish white colour, a
strong fragrant smell, and bitter, acrid taste. The tree which produces
it is not known. Dioscorides mentions it as procured from India. What is
here called the pure frankincense is, no doubt, the same with the
_mascula thura_ of Virgil, and signifies what is first obtained from the
tree.
FRIEND is taken for one whom we love and esteem above others, to whom we
impart our minds more familiarly than to others, and that from a
confidence of his integrity and good will toward us: thus Jonathan and
David were mutually friends. Solomon, in his book of Proverbs, gives the
qualities of a true friend. “A friend loveth at all times:” not only in
prosperity, but also in adversity; and, “there is a friend that sticketh
closer than a brother.” He is more hearty in the performance of all
friendly offices; he reproves and rebukes when he sees any thing amiss.
“Faithful are the wounds of a friend.” His sharpest reproofs proceed
from an upright, and truly loving and faithful soul. He is known by his
good and faithful counsel, as well as by his seasonable rebukes.
“Ointment and perfume rejoice the heart, so does the sweetness of a
man’s friend by hearty counsel:” by such counsel as comes from his very
heart and soul, and is the language of his inward and most serious
thoughts. The company and conversation of a friend is refreshing and
reviving to a person, who, when alone, is sad, dull, and inactive. “Iron
sharpeneth iron, so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.” The
title, “the friend of God,” is principally given to Abraham: “Art not
thou our God, who gavest this land to the seed of Abraham, thy friend,
for ever?” And in Isaiah xli, 8, “But thou Israel art the seed of
Abraham, my friend.” “And the Scripture was fulfilled, which saith,
Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness; and
he was called the friend of God,” James ii, 23. This title was given
him, not only because God frequently appeared to him, conversed
familiarly with him, and revealed his secrets to him, “Shall I hide from
Abraham that thing which I do?” Gen. xviii, 17; but also because he
entered into a covenant of perpetual friendship both with him and his
seed. Our Saviour calls his Apostles “friends:” “But I have called you
friends;” and he adds the reason of it, “for all things that I have
heard of my Father, I have made known unto you,” John xv, 15. As men use
to communicate their counsels and their whole mind to their friends,
especially in things which are of any concern, or may be of any
advantage for them to know and understand, so I have revealed to you
whatever is necessary for your instruction, office, comfort, and
salvation. And this title is not peculiar to the Apostles only, but is
common with them to all true believers. The friend of the bridegroom is
the brideman; he who does the honours of the wedding, and leads his
friend’s spouse to the nuptial chamber. John the Baptist, with respect
to Christ and his church, was the friend of the bridegroom; by his
preaching he prepared the people of the Jews for Christ, John iii, 29.
Friend is a word of ordinary salutation, whether to a friend or foe: he
is called friend who had not on a wedding garment, Matt. xxii, 12. And
our Saviour calls Judas the traitor friend. Some are of opinion that
this title is given to the guest by an irony, or antiphrasis; meaning
the contrary to what the word importeth; or that he is called so,
because he appeared to others to be Christ’s friend; or was so in his
own esteem and account, though falsely, being a hypocrite. However, this
being spoken in the person of him who made the feast, it is generally
taken for a usual compellation, and that Christ, following the like
courteous custom of appellation and friendly greeting, did so salute
Judas, which yet left a sting behind it in his conscience, who knew
himself to be the reverse of what he was called. The name of friend is
likewise given to a neighbour. “Which of you shall have a friend, and
shall go to him at midnight, and say, Friend, lend me three loaves?”
Luke xi, 3.
FRIENDS, or QUAKERS, a religious society which began to be distinguished
about the middle of the seventeenth century. Their doctrines were first
promulgated in England, by George Fox, about the year 1647; for which he
was imprisoned at Nottingham, in the year 1649, and the year following
at Derby. Fox evidently considered himself as acting under a divine
commission, and went, not only to fairs and markets, but into courts of
justice and “steeple houses,” as he called the churches, warning all to
obey the Holy Spirit, speaking by him. It is said, that the appellation
of Quakers was given them in reproach by one of the magistrates, who, in
1650, committed Fox to prison, on account of his bidding him, and those
about him, to _quake_ at the word of the Lord. But they adopted among
themselves, and still retain, the kind appellation of Friends.
From their first appearance, they suffered much persecution. In
New-England they were treated with peculiar severity, imprisoned,
scourged, (women as well as men,) and at Boston four of them were even
hanged, among whom was one woman; and this was the more extraordinary
and inexcusable, as the settlers themselves had but lately fled from
persecution in the parent country! During these sufferings, they applied
to King Charles II, for relief; who, in 1661, granted a mandamus, to put
a stop to them. Neither were the good offices of this prince in their
favour confined to the colonies; for in 1672, he released, under the
great seal, four hundred of these suffering people who were imprisoned
in Great Britain. To what has been alleged against them, on account of
James Naylor and his associates, they answer that their extravagancies
and blasphemies were disapproved at the time, and the parties disowned;
nor was Naylor restored till he had given signs of a sincere repentance,
and publicly condemned his errors.
In 1681, Charles II, granted to W. Penn the province of Pennsylvania.
Penn’s treaty with the Indians, and the liberty of conscience which he
granted to all denominations, even those which had persecuted his own,
do honour to his memory. In the reign of James II, the Friends, in
common with other English Dissenters, were relieved by the suspension of
the penal laws. But it was not till the reign of William and Mary that
they obtained any thing like a proper legal protection. An act was
passed in the year 1696, which, with a few exceptions, allowed to their
affirmation the legal force of an oath, and provided a less oppressive
mode for recovering tithes under a certain amount; which provisions,
under the reign of George I, were made perpetual. For refusing to pay
tithes, &c, however, they are still liable to suffer in the exchequer
and ecclesiastical court, both in Great Britain and Ireland.
The true Friends are orthodox, as to the leading doctrines of
Christianity, but express themselves in peculiar phrases. They hold
special revelations of the Holy Spirit, yet not to the disparagement of
the written word, which they regard as the infallible rule of faith and
practice. They reject a salaried ministry, and interpret the sacraments
mystically. They are advocates of the interior spiritual life of
religion, to which, indeed, they have borne constant testimony; and they
are distinguished by probity, philanthropy, and a public spirit. [In the
United States, the Friends are divided into the Orthodox, (so called,)
and Hicksites, or followers of the late Elias Hicks. The latter are
considered as having departed from the original doctrines of the
Friends, and very far from the leading doctrines of Christianity, as
held by Protestant Christians in general.]