the Roman Catholic, since the inhabitants of that country use holy
water, and a singing service. They also offer alms, prayers, and
sacrifices for the dead. They have a vast number of convents filled with
monks and friars, amounting to thirty thousand, and confessors chosen by
their superiors. They use beads, wear the mitre, like the bishops; and
their _delai lama_ is nearly the same among them as the sovereign
pontiff was formerly, in the zenith of his power, among the Roman
Catholics. So complete is the resemblance, that, when one of the first
Romish missionaries penetrated Thibet, he came to the conclusion that
the devil had set up there an imitation of the rites of the Catholic
church, in order the more effectually to destroy the souls of men.
Captain Turner, speaking of the religion of Thibet, says, It seems to be
the schismatical offspring of the religion of the Hindoos, deriving its
origin from one of the followers of that faith, a disciple of Bouddhu,
who first broached the doctrine which now prevails over the wide extent
of Tartary. It is reported to have received its earliest admission in
that part of Tibet, or Thibet, bordering upon India, which from hence
became the seat of the sovereign lamas, to have traversed over
Mantchieux Tartary, and to have been ultimately disseminated over China
and Japan. Though it differs from the Hindoo in many of its outward
forms, yet it still bears a very close affinity with the religion of
Brumha in many important particulars. The principal idol in the temples
of Tibet, or Thibet, is Muha-Moonee, the Booddhu of Bengal, who is
worshipped under these and various other epithets, throughout the great
extent of Tartary, and among all nations to the eastward of the
Brumhapootru. In the wide-extended space over which this faith prevails,
the same object of veneration is acknowledged under numerous titles:
among others, he is styled Godumu, or Gotumu, in Assam and Ava, Shumunu
in Siam, Amida Buth in Japan, Fohi in China,” &c.
LAMBETH ARTICLES. See PREDESTINATION.
LAMECH, a descendant of Cain, the son of Mathusael, and father of Jabal,
Jubal, Tubal-Cain, and Naamah, Gen. iv, 18–20, &c. He stands branded as
the father of polygamy, the first who dared to violate the sacred
command, Gen. ii, 24; giving way to his unbridled passion, and thus
overleaping the divine mound raised by the wisdom of our great Creator;
which restraint is enforced by the laws of nature herself, who peoples
the earth with an equal number of males and females, and thereby teaches
foolish man that polygamy is incompatible with her wise regulations. He
married Adah and Zillah: the former was the mother of Jabal and Jubal,
and the latter of Tubal-Cain and Naamah, his sister.
2. LAMECH, the son of Methuselah, and father of Noah. He lived a hundred
fourscore and two years before the birth of Noah, Gen. v, 25, 31; after
which he lived five hundred and ninety-five years longer: thus the whole
term of his life was seven hundred and seventy-seven years.
LAMENTATIONS OF JEREMIAH. This book was formerly annexed to his
prophecies, though it now forms a separate book. Josephus, and several
other learned men, have referred them to the death of Josiah; but the
more common opinion is, that they were applicable only to some period
subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. But though
it be allowed that the Lamentations were primarily intended as a
pathetic description of present calamities, yet while Jeremiah mourns
the desolation of Judah and Jerusalem during the Babylonian captivity,
he may be considered as prophetically painting the still greater
miseries they were to suffer at some future time: this seems plainly
indicated by his referring to the time when the punishment of their
iniquity shall be accomplished, and they shall no more be carried into
captivity, Lam. iv, 22. The Lamentations are written in metre, and
consist of a number of plaintive effusions, composed after the manner of
funeral dirges. They seem to have been originally written by their
author as they arose in his mind, and to have been afterward joined
together as one poem. There is no regular arrangement of the subject, or
disposition of the parts: the same thought is frequently repeated with
different imagery, or expressed in different words. There is, however,
no wild incoherency, or abrupt transition; the whole appears to have
been dictated by the feelings of real grief. Tenderness and sorrow form
the general character of these elegies; and an attentive reader will
find great beauty in many of the images, and great energy in some of the
expressions. This book of Lamentations is divided into five chapters; in
the first, second, and fourth, the prophet speaks in his own person, or
by an elegant and interesting personification introduces the city of
Jerusalem as lamenting her calamities, and confessing her sins; in the
third chapter a single Jew, speaking in the name of a chorus of his
countrymen, like the Coryphæus of the Greeks, describes the punishment
inflicted upon him by God, but still acknowledges his mercy, and
expresses some hope of deliverance; and in the fifth chapter, the whole
nation of the Jews pour forth their united complaints and supplications
to almighty God.
Every chapter, with the exception of the third, contains twenty-two
verses, corresponding in number with the letters of the Hebrew alphabet;
and each verse commences with a different letter, the first with aleph,
the second with beth, the third with gimel, &c. The third chapter,
consisting of sixty-six verses, has three verses together beginning with
the same letter, the following three with the next letter, &c. This
peculiarity may be seen in Psalm cxix; the first eight verses in which
commence with aleph, the next eight with beth, &c, till the whole
alphabet has been consecutively taken. This mode of versification, which
has some distant resemblance to the modern acrostic style, seems to have
been employed by the Hebrews in some of their elegiac poetry, perhaps to
assist the memory.
LAMP, λαμπας. There is frequent mention of lamps in Scripture, and the
word is often used figuratively. The houses in the east were, from the
remotest antiquity, lighted with lamps; and hence it is so common in
Scripture to call every thing which enlightens the body or mind, which
guides or refreshes, by the name of a lamp. These lamps were sustained
by a large candlestick set upon the ground. The houses of Egypt, in
modern times, are never without lights: they burn lamps all the night
long, and in every occupied apartment. So requisite to the comfort of a
family is this custom reckoned, or so imperious is the power which it
exercises, that the poorest people would rather retrench part of their
food than neglect it. As this custom no doubt prevailed in Egypt and the
adjacent regions of Arabia and Palestine in former times, it imparts a
beauty and force to some passages of Scripture which have been little
observed. Thus, in the language of Jeremiah, to extinguish the light in
an apartment is a convertible phrase for total destruction; and nothing
can more properly and emphatically represent the total destruction of a
city than the extinction of the lights: I will take from them the light
of a candle, and this whole land shall be a desolation and an
astonishment.” Job describes the destruction of a family among the
Arabs, and the desolation of their dwellings, in the very language of
the prophet: How oft is the candle of the wicked put out, and how oft
cometh their destruction upon them!” Job xxi, 17. Bildad expresses the
same idea in the following beautiful passage: Yea, the light of the
wicked shall be put out, and the spark of his fire shall not shine. The
light shall be dark in his tabernacle, and his candle shall be put out
with him,” Job xviii, 5, 6. A burning lamp is, on the other hand, the
chosen symbol of prosperity, a beautiful instance of which occurs in the
complaint of Job: O that I were as in months past, as in the days when
God preserved me; when his candle shined upon my head, and when by his
light I walked through darkness,” Job xxix, 2, 3. When the ten tribes
were taken from Rehoboam, and given to his rival, Jehovah promised to
reserve one tribe, and assigns this reason: That David my servant may
have a light always before me in Jerusalem,” 1 Kings xi, 36. In many
parts of the east, and in particular in the Indies, instead of torches
and flambeaux, they carry a pot of oil in one hand, and a lamp full of
oily rags in the other.
LANGUAGE, the faculty of human speech, concerning the origin of which
there have been entertained different opinions among philosophers and
learned men. The Mosaic history, which gives us an account of the
formation and first occupations of man, represents him as being
immediately capable of conversing with his Maker; of giving names to the
various tribes and classes of animals; and of reasoning consecutively,
and in perfectly appropriate terms, concerning his own situation, and
the relation he stood in to the other creatures. As in man’s first
attempt at speech, according to this account, there appear no crudeness
of conception, no barrenness of ideas, and no inexpressive or
unappropriate terms, we must certainly infer, that God who made and
endued him with corporeal and mental powers perfectly suited to his
state and condition in life, endued him, also, not only with the faculty
of speech, but with speech or language itself; which latter was as
necessary to his comfort, and to the perfection and end of his being, as
any other power or faculty which his Creator thought proper to bestow
upon him.
Among the antediluvians there was but one language; and even now the
indications that the various languages of the earth have had one common
source are very convincing. Whether this primitive language was the same
with any of the languages of which we have still any remains, has been a
subject of much dispute. That the primitive language continued at least
till the dispersion of mankind, consequent upon the building of Babel,
there seems little reason to doubt. When, by an immediate interposition
of divine power, the language of men was confounded, we are not informed
to what extent this confusion of tongues prevailed. Under the article
_Confusion of Tongues_ some reasons are given to show that the primitive
language was not lost at that event, but continued in the form of the
Hebrew.
There are, however, other opinions on the oft disputed subject as to the
primitive language. The Armenians allege, that as the ark rested in
their country, Noah and his children must have remained there a
considerable time, before the lower and marshy country of Chaldea could
be fit to receive them; and it is therefore reasonable to suppose they
left their language there, which was probably the very same that Adam
spoke. Some have fancied the Greek the most ancient tongue, because of
its extent and copiousness. The Teutonic, or that dialect of it which is
spoken in the Lower Germany and Brabant, has found a strenuous patron in
Geropius Becanus, who endeavours to derive even the Hebrew itself from
that tongue. The pretensions of the Chinese to this honour have been
allowed by several Europeans. The patrons of this opinion endeavour to
support it, partly, by the great antiquity of the Chinese, and their
having preserved themselves so many ages from any considerable mixture
or intercourse with other nations. It is a notion advanced by Dr. Allix,
and maintained by Mr. Whiston, with his usual tenacity and fervour, that
the Chinese are the posterity of Noah, by his children born after the
flood; and that Fohi, the first king of China, was Noah. As for those
which are called the oriental languages, they have each their partisans.
The generality of eastern writers allow the preference to the Syriac,
except the Jews, who assert the antiquity of the Hebrew with the
greatest warmth; and with them several Christian writers agree,
particularly Chrysostom, Austin, Origen, and Jerome, among the ancients;
and among the moderns, Bochart, Heidegger, Selden, and Buxtorf. The
Sanscrit has also put in its claims; and some have thought that the Pali
bears the character of the highest antiquity. All these are however
useless speculations. The only point worth contending for is, that
language was conveyed at once to the first pair in sufficient degree for
intellectual intercourse with each other, and devotional intercourse
with God; and that man was not left, as infidel writers have been
pleased to say, to form it for himself out of rude and instinctive
sounds. On this subject the remarks of Delaney are conclusive: “That God
made man a sociable creature, does not need to be proved; and that when
he made him such, he withheld nothing from him that was in any wise
necessary for his well being in society, is a clear consequence from the
wisdom and goodness of God; and if he withheld nothing any way necessary
to his well being, much less would he withhold from him that which is
the instrument of the greatest happiness a reasonable creature is
capable of in this world. If the Lord God made ‘Adam a help meet for
him,’ because ‘it was not good for man to be alone,’ can we imagine he
would leave him unfurnished with the means to make that help useful and
delightful to him? If it was not good for him to be alone, certainly
neither was it good for him to have a companion to whom he could not
readily communicate his thoughts, with whom he could neither ease his
anxieties, nor divide or double his joys, by a kind, a friendly, a
reasonable, a religious conversation; and how he could do this in any
degree of perfection, or to any height of rational happiness, is utterly
inconceivable without the use of speech.
“If it be said, that the human organs being admirably fitted for the
formation of articulate sounds, these, with the help of reason, might in
time lead men to the use of language. I own it imaginable that they
might: but still, till that end were attained in perfection, which
possibly might not be in a series of many generations, it must be owned
that brutes were better dealt by, and could better attain all the ends
of their creation. And if that be absurd to be supposed, certainly the
other is not less absurd to be believed. Nay, I think it justly
doubtful, whether, without inspiration from God in this point, man could
ever attain the true ends of his being; at least, if we may judge in
this case, by the example of those nations who, being destitute of the
advantages of a perfect language, are, in all probability, from the
misfortune of that sole defect, sunk into the lowest condition of
barbarism and brutality. And as to the perfection in which the human
organs are framed and fitted for the formation of articulate sounds,
this is clearly an argument for believing that God immediately blessed
man with the use of speech, and gave him wherewithal to exert those
organs to their proper ends; for this is surely as credible, as that
when he gave him an appetite for food, and proper organs to eat and to
digest it, he did not leave him to seek painfully for a necessary
supply, (till his offence had made such a search his curse and
punishment,) but placed him at once in the midst of abundant plenty. The
consequence from all which is, that the perfection and felicity of man,
and the wisdom and goodness of God, necessarily required that Adam
should be supernaturally endowed with the knowledge and use of language.
And therefore, as certain as it can be, that man was made perfect and
happy, and that God is wise and good; so certain is it, that, when Adam
and Eve were formed, they were immediately enabled by God to converse
and communicate their thoughts, in all the perfection of language
necessary to all the ends of their creation. And as this was the conduct
most becoming the goodness of God, so we are assured from Moses, that it
was that to which his infinite wisdom determined him; for we find that
Adam gave names to all the creatures before Eve was formed; and,
consequently, before necessity taught him the use of speech.”
It is true that many languages bear marks of being raised to their
improved state from rude and imperfect elements, and that all are
capable of being enriched and rendered more exact; and it is this which
has given some colour to those theories which trace all language itself
up from elemental sounds, as the necessities of men, their increasing
knowledge, and their imagination led to the invention of new words and
combinations. All this is, however, consistent with the Scripture fact,
that language was taught at first by God to our first parents. The
dispersion of mankind carried many tribes to great distances, and wars
still farther scattered them, and often into wide regions where they
were farther dispersed to live chiefly by the chase, by fishing, or at
best but an imperfect agriculture. In various degrees we know they lost
useful arts; and for the same reasons they would lose much of their
original language; those terms being chiefly retained which their
immediate necessities, and the common affairs of a gross life, kept in
use. But when civilization again overtook these portions of mankind, and
kingdoms and empires were founded among them, or they became integral
parts of the old empires, then their intercourse with each other
becoming more rapid, and artificial, and intellectual, their language
was put into a new process of improvement, and to the eye of the critic
would exhibit the various stages of advancement; and in many it would be
pushed beyond that perfection which it had when it first began to
deteriorate. See LETTERS.
LANTERN. The word occurs, John xviii, 3: μετὰ φανῶν καὶ λαμπάδων: with
torches and lanterns:” but both terms appear to signify _torches_; the
former of a ruder kind than the latter, being formed of split laths
bound into bundles, throwing around a strong glare of light. They came
thus furnished to apprehend our Lord, lest he should escape through the
darkness of the night.
LAODICEA. There were several cities of this name, but the Scripture
speaks only of that in Phrygia, upon the river Lycus, near Colosse. Its
ancient name was Diospolis: it was afterward called Rhoas. Lastly,
Antiochus, the son of Stratonice, rebuilt it, and called it Laodicea,
from the name of his wife Laodice. It became the mother church of
sixteen bishoprics. Its three theatres, and the immense circus, which
was capable of containing upward of thirty thousand spectators, the
spacious remains of which (with other ruins buried under ruins) are yet
to be seen, give proof of the greatness of its ancient wealth and
population; and indicate too strongly that in that city where Christians
were rebuked, without exception, for their lukewarmness, there were
multitudes who were lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God. The
amphitheatre was built after the Apocalypse was written, and the warning
of the Spirit had been given to the church of the Laodiceans to be
zealous and repent. There are no sights of grandeur, nor scenes of
temptation around it now. Its own tragedy may be briefly told. It was
lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot; and therefore it was loathsome in
the sight of God. And it has been blotted from the world. It is now as
desolate as its inhabitants were destitute of the fear and love of God.
It is, as described in his Travels by Dr. Smith, utterly desolated, and
without any inhabitant except wolves, and jackals, and foxes.” It can
boast of no human inhabitants, except occasionally when wandering
Turcomans pitch their tents in its spacious amphitheatre. The finest
sculptured fragments are to be seen at a considerable depth, in
excavations which have been made among the ruins. And Colonel Lake
observes, There are few ancient cities more likely than Laodicea to
preserve many curious remains of antiquity beneath the surface of the
soil. Its opulence, and the earthquakes to which it was subject, render
it probable that valuable works of art were often there buried beneath
the ruins of the public and private edifices.”
LAPWING, דוכיפת, Levit. xi, 19; Deut. xiv, 18. The bird intended by the
Hebrew name in these places is undoubtedly the _hoopoe_; a very
beautiful, but most unclean and filthy, species of birds. The Septuagint
renders it ἔποπα; and the Vulgate, _upupa_; which is the same with the
Arabian interpreters. The Egyptian name of the bird is _kukuphah_; and
the Syrian, _kikuphah_; which approach the Hebrew _dukiphath_. It may
have its name from the noise or cry it makes, which is very remarkable,
and may be heard a great way.
LATITUDINARIANS, a term applied to those divines who, in the seventeenth
century, attempted to bring Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and
Independents, into one communion, by compromising the differences
between them. The chief leaders of this party were the great
Chillingworth and John Hales; to whom may be added More, Cudworth, Gale,
Tillotson, and Whitchcot. They were zealously attached to the church of
England, but did not look upon episcopacy as indispensable to the
constitution of the Christian church. Hence they maintained that those
who adopted other forms of government and worship, were not on that
account to be excluded from the communion, or to forfeit the title of
brethren. They reduced the fundamental doctrines of Christianity to a
few points. By this way of proceeding, they endeavoured to show that
neither the Episcopalians, who, generally speaking, were then Arminians,
nor the Presbyterians and Independents, who as generally adopted the
doctrines of Calvin, had any reason to oppose each other with such
animosity and bitterness; since the subjects of their debates were
matters non-essential to salvation, and might be variously explained and
understood without prejudice to their eternal interests. This plan
failing, through the violence of the bishops on one hand, (though
sanctioned by the Lord Chancellor Clarendon,) and by the jealousy of the
more rigid on the other, the name Latitudinarian became a term of
reproach, as implying an indifferency to all religions, and has been
generally so used ever since.
LAVER. Between the altar and the tabernacle, a little to the south,
stood a circular laver, which, together with its base, was made of the
brazen ornaments which the women had presented for the use of the
tabernacle, and was thence called כור נחשת, Exodus xxx, 18; xl, 7. The
priests, when about to perform their duties, washed their hands in this
laver.
LAW, a rule of action; a precept or command, coming from a superior
authority, which an inferior is bound to obey. The manner in which God
governs rational creatures is by a law, as the rule of their obedience
to him, and this is what we call God’s moral government of the world.
The term, however, is used in Scripture with considerable latitude of
meaning; and to ascertain its precise import in any particular place, it
is necessary to regard the scope and connection of the passage in which
it occurs. Thus, for instance, sometimes it denotes the whole revealed
will of God as communicated to us in his word. In this sense it is
generally used in the book of Psalms, i, 2; xix, 7; cxix; Isaiah viii,
20; xlii, 21. Sometimes it is taken for the Mosaical institution
distinguished from the Gospel, John i, 17; Matt. xi, 13; xii, 5; Acts
xxv, 8. Hence we frequently read of the law of Moses as expressive of
the whole religion of the Jews, Heb. ix, 19; x, 28. Sometimes, in a more
restricted sense, for the ritual or ceremonial observances of the Jewish
religion. In this sense the Apostle speaks of the law of commandments
contained in ordinances,” Eph. ii, 15; Heb. x, 1; and which, being only
a shadow of good things to come,” Christ Jesus abolished by his death,
and so in effect destroyed the ancient distinction between Jew and
Gentile, Gal. iii, 17. Very frequently it is used to signify the
decalogue, or ten precepts which were delivered to the Israelites from
Mount Sinai. It is in this acceptation of the term that the Lord Jesus
declares he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it,” Matt. v, 17;
and he explains its import as requiring perfect love to God and man,
Luke x, 27. It is in reference to this view that St. Paul affirms, By
the deeds of the law shall no flesh living be justified; for by the law
is the knowledge of sin,” Rom. iii, 20. The language of this law is, The
soul that sinneth it shall die,” and Cursed is every one that continueth
not in all things that are written,” or required, in the book of the
law, to do them,” Gal. iii, 10. To deliver man from this penalty, Christ
hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being himself made a curse
for us,” Gal. iii, 13. The law, in this sense, was not given that men
should obtain righteousness or justification by it, but to convince them
of sin, to show them their need of a Saviour, to shut them up, as it
were, from all hopes of salvation from that source, and to recommend the
Gospel of divine grace to their acceptance, Gal. iii, 19–25. Again, the
law often denotes the rule of good and evil, or of right and wrong,
revealed by the Creator and inscribed on man’s conscience, even at his
creation, and consequently binding upon him by divine authority; and in
this respect it is in substance the same with the decalogue. That such a
law was connate with, and, as it were, implanted in, man, appears from
its traces, which, like the ruins of some noble building, are still
extant in every man. It is from those common notions, handed down by
tradition, though often imperfect and perverted, that the Heathens
themselves distinguished right from wrong, by which they were a law unto
themselves, showing the work of the law written in their hearts, their
conscience bearing witness,” Rom. ii, 12–15, although they had no
express revelation.