the first day of the moon or month. The Hebrews had a particular
veneration for the first day of every month; and Moses appointed
peculiar sacrifices for the day, Num. xxviii, 11, 12; but he gave no
orders that it should be kept as a holy day, nor can it be proved that
the ancients observed it so: it was a festival of merely voluntary
devotion. It appears that even from the time of Saul they made, on this
day, a sort of family entertainment, since David ought then to have been
at the king’s table; and Saul took his absence amiss, 1 Sam. xx, 5, 18.
Moses insinuates that, beside the national sacrifices then regularly
offered, every private person had his particular sacrifices of devotion,
Num. x, 10. The beginning of the month was proclaimed by sound of
trumpet, at the offering of the solemn sacrifices. But the most
celebrated neomenia was that at the beginning of the civil year, or
first day of the month Tizri, Lev. xxiii, 24. This was a sacred day, on
which no servile labour was performed; on this they offered public or
national burnt-sacrifices, and sounded the trumpets in the temple. In
the kingdom of the ten tribes, the serious among the people used to
assemble at the houses of the prophets, to hear their instructions. The
Shunamite, who entertained Elisha, proposing to visit that prophet, her
husband said to her, Why do you go to-day, since it is neither Sabbath
nor new moon?” 2 Kings iv, 23. Isaiah declares that the Lord abhors the
new moons, the Sabbaths, and other days of festival and assembly of
those Jews who in other things neglected his laws, Isaiah i, 13, 14.
Ezekiel says that the burnt-offerings offered on the day of the new moon
were provided at the king’s expense, and that on this day was to be
opened the eastern gate of the court of the priests, Ezek. xiv, 17;
xlvi, 1, 2; 1 Chron. xxiii, 31; 2 Chron. viii, 13. Judith kept no fast
on festival days, or on the new moon, Judith viii, 6. The modern Jews
keep the neomenia only as a feast of devotion, to be observed or not at
pleasure. They think it rather belongs to the women than to the men. The
women forbear work, and indulge a little more on this day than on
others. In the prayers of the synagogue, they read from Psalm cxiii, to
cxviii. They bring forth the roll of the law, and read therein to four
persons. They call to remembrance the sacrifice that on this day used to
be offered in the temple. On the evening of the Sabbath which follows
the new moon, or some other evening following, when the new moon first
appears, they assemble and pray to God, as the Creator of the planets,
and the restorer of the new moon; raising themselves toward heaven, they
entreat of God to be preserved from misfortune; then, after mentioning
David, they salute each other, and separate. See MOON.
NEONOMIANISM, so called from the Greek νέος, _new_, and νόμος, _law_.
This is not the appellation of a separate sect, but of those both among
Arminians and Calvinists who regard Christianity as a _new law_,
mitigated in its requisitions for the sake of Christ. This opinion has
many modifications, and has been held by persons very greatly differing
from each other in the consequences to which they carry it, and in the
principles from which they deduce it. One opinion is, that the new
covenant of grace which, through the medium of Christ’s death, the
Father made with men, consists, according to this system, not in our
being justified by faith, as it apprehends the righteousness of Christ;
but in this, that God, abrogating the exaction of perfect legal
obedience, reputes or accepts of faith itself, and the imperfect
obedience of faith, instead of the perfect obedience of the law, and
graciously accounts them worthy of the reward of eternal life. Toward
the close of the seventeenth century, a controversy was agitated among
the English Dissenters, in which the one side, who were partial to the
writings of Dr. Crisp, were charged with antinomianism, and the other,
who favoured those of Mr. Baxter, were accused of neonomianism. Dr.
Daniel Williams was a principal writer on what was called the neonomian
side.
The following objection, among others, was made by several ministers in
1692, against Dr. Williams’s Gospel Truth Stated,” &c: “To supply the
room of the moral law, vacated by him, he turns the Gospel into a new
law, in keeping of which we shall be justified for the sake of Christ’s
righteousness, making qualifications and acts of ours a disposing
subordinate righteousness, whereby we become capable of being justified
by Christ’s righteousness.” To this, among other things, he answers:
“The difference is not, 1. Whether the Gospel be a new law in the
Socinian, popish, or Arminian sense. This I deny. Nor, 2. Is faith, or
any other grace or acts of ours, any atonement for sin, satisfaction to
justice, meriting qualification, or any part of that righteousness for
which we are justified at God our Creator’s bar. This I deny in places
innumerable. Nor, 3. Whether the Gospel be a law more new than is
implied in the first promise to fallen Adam, proposed to Cain, and
obeyed by Abel, to the differencing him from his unbelieving brother.
This I deny. 4. Nor whether the Gospel be a law that allows sin, when it
accepts such graces as true, though short of perfection, to be the
conditions of our personal interest in the benefits purchased by Christ.
This I deny. 5. Nor whether the Gospel be a law, the promises whereof
entitle the performers of its conditions to the benefits as of debt.
This I deny. The difference is, 1. Is the Gospel a law in this sense;
namely, God in Christ thereby commandeth sinners to repent of sin, and
receive Christ by a true operative faith, promising that thereupon they
shall be united to him, justified by his righteousness, pardoned, and
adopted; and that, persevering in faith and true holiness, they shall be
finally saved; also threatening that if any shall die impenitent,
unbelieving, ungodly, rejecters of his grace, they shall perish without
relief, and endure sorer punishments than if these offers had not been
made to them? 2. Hath the Gospel a sanction, that is, doth Christ
therein enforce his commands of faith, repentance, and perseverance, by
the foresaid promises and threatenings, as motives to our obedience?
Both these I affirm, and they deny; saying, the Gospel in the largest
sense is an absolute promise without precepts and conditions, and a
Gospel threat is a bull. 3. Do the Gospel promises of benefits to
certain graces, and its threats that those benefits shall be withheld,
and the contrary evils inflicted for the neglect of such graces, render
these graces the condition of our personal title to those benefits? This
they deny, and I affirm,” &c.
It does not appear to have been a question in this controversy, whether
God in his word commands sinners to repent, and believe in Christ, nor
whether he promises life to believers, and threatens death to
unbelievers; but whether it be the Gospel under the form of a new law
that thus commands or threatens, or the moral law on its behalf, and
whether its promises to believing render such believing a condition of
the things promised. In another controversy, however, which arose about
forty years afterward among the same people, it became a question
whether God did by his word, call it law or Gospel, command unregenerate
sinners to repent and believe in Christ, or do any thing also, which is
spiritually good. Of those who took the affirmative side of this
question, one party maintained it on the ground of the Gospel being a
new law, consisting of commands, promises, and threatenings, the terms
or conditions of which were repentance, faith, and sincere obedience.
But those who first engaged in the controversy, though they allowed the
encouragement to repent and believe to arise merely from the grace of
the Gospel, yet considered the formal obligation to do so as arising
merely from the moral law, which, requiring supreme love to God,
requires acquiescence in any revelation which he shall at any time make
known.
NERO. The Emperor Nero is not named in Scripture; but he is indicated by
his title of emperor, and by his surname Cæsar. To him St. Paul appealed
after his imprisonment by Felix, and his examination by Festus, who was
swayed by the Jews. St. Paul was therefore carried to Rome, where he
arrived A. D. 61. Here he continued two years, preaching the Gospel with
freedom, till he became famous even in the emperor’s court, in which
were many Christians; for he salutes the Philippians in the name of the
brethren who were of the household of Cæsar, that is, of Nero’s court,
Phil. i, 12, 13; iv, 22. We have no particular information how he
cleared himself from the accusations of the Jews, whether by answering
before Nero, or whether his enemies dropped their prosecutions, which
seems probable, Acts xxviii, 21. However, it appears that he was
liberated in the year 63. Nero is reckoned the first persecutor of the
Christian church: his persecution was A. D. 64. Nero, the most cruel and
savage of all men, and also the most wicked and depraved, began his
persecution against the Christian church, A. D. 64, on pretence of the
burning of Rome, of which some have thought himself to be the author. He
endeavoured to throw all the odium on the Christians: those were seized
first that were known publicly as such, and by their means many others
were discovered. They were condemned to death, and were even insulted in
their sufferings. Some were sewed up in skins of beasts, and then
exposed to dogs to be torn in pieces; some were nailed to crosses;
others perished by fire. The latter were sewed up in pitched coverings,
which, being set on fire, served as torches to the people, and were
lighted up in the night. Nero gave leave to use his own gardens, as the
scene of all these cruelties. From this time edicts were published
against the Christians, and many martyrs suffered, especially in Italy.
St. Peter and St. Paul are thought to have suffered martyrdom,
consequent on this persecution, A. D. 65. The revolt of the Jews from
the Romans happened about A. D. 65 and 66, in the twelfth and thirteenth
of Nero. The city of Jerusalem making an insurrection, A. D. 66, Florus
there slew three thousand six hundred persons, and thus began the war. A
little while afterward, those of Jerusalem killed the Roman garrison.
Cestius on this came to Jerusalem to suppress the sedition; but he was
forced to retire, after having besieged it about six weeks, and was
routed in his retreat, A. D. 66. About the end of the same year, Nero
gave Vespasian the command of his troops against the Jews. This general
carried on the war in Galilee and Judea during A. D. 67 and 68, the
thirteenth and fourteenth of Nero. But Nero killing himself in the
fourteenth year of his reign, Jerusalem was not besieged till after his
death, A. D. 70, the first and second of Vespasian.
NESTORIANS, a denomination which arose in the fifth century, from
Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople; a man of considerable learning and
eloquence, and of an independent spirit. The Catholic clergy were fond
of calling the Virgin Mary Mother of God,” to which Nestorius objected,
as implying that she was mother of the divine nature, which he very
properly denied; and this raised against him, from Cyril and others, the
cry of heresy, and perhaps led him into some improper forms of
expression and explication. It is generally agreed, however, by the
moderns, that Nestorius showed a much better spirit in controversy than
his antagonist, St. Cyril. As to the doctrine of the trinity, it does
not appear that Nestorius differed from his antagonists, admitting the
coëquality of the divine Persons; but he was charged with maintaining
two distinct persons, as well as natures, in the mysterious character of
Christ. This, however, he solemnly and constantly denied; and from this,
as a foul reproach, he has been cleared by the moderns, and particularly
by Martin Luther, who lays the whole blame of this controversy on the
turbulent and angry Cyril. (See HYPOSTATIC UNION.) The discordancy not
only between the Nestorians and other Christians, but also among
themselves, arose, no doubt, in a great measure, from the ambiguity of
the Greek terms _hypostasis_ and _prosopon_. The councils assembled at
Seleucia on this occasion decreed that in Christ there were two
_hypostases_. But this word, unhappily, was used both for person and
subsistence, or existence; hence the difficulty and ambiguity: and of
these _hypostases_ it is said the one was divine, and the other
human;--the divine Word, and the man Jesus. Now of these two
_hypostases_ it is added, they had only one _barsopa_, the original term
used by Nestorius, and usually translated by the Greeks, person;” but to
avoid the appearance of an express contradiction, Dr. Mosheim translates
this barbarous word aspect,” as meaning a union of will and affection,
rather than of nature or of person. And thus the Nestorians are charged
with rejecting the union of two natures in one person, from their
peculiar manner of expressing themselves, though they absolutely denied
the charge.
In the earliest ages of Nestorianism, the various branches of that
numerous and powerful sect were under the spiritual jurisdiction of the
Catholic patriarch of Babylon,--a vague appellation which has been
successively applied to the sees of Seleucia, Ctesiphon, and
Bagdad,--but who now resides at Mousul. In the sixteenth century the
Nestorians were divided into two sects; for in 1551 a warm dispute arose
among them about the creation of a new patriarch, Simeon Barmamas, or
Barmana, being proposed by one party, and Sulaka, otherwise named Siud,
earnestly desired by the other; when the latter, to support his
pretensions the more effectually, repaired to Rome, and was consecrated
patriarch in 1553, by Pope Julius III., whose jurisdiction he had
acknowledged, and to whose commands he had promised unlimited submission
and obedience. Upon this new Chaldean patriarch’s return to his own
country, Julius sent with him several persons skilled in the Syriac
language, to assist him in establishing and extending the papal empire
among the Nestorians; and from that time, that unhappy people have been
divided into two factions, and have often been involved in the greatest
dangers and difficulties, by the jarring sentiments and perpetual
quarrels of their patriarchs. In 1555, Simeon Denha, archbishop of Gelu,
adopted the party of the fugitive patriarch, who had embraced the
communion of the Latin church; and, being afterward chosen patriarch
himself, he fixed his residence in the city of Van, or Ormia, in the
mountainous parts of Persia, where his successors still continue, and
are all distinguished by the name of Simeon; but they seem of late to
have withdrawn themselves from their communion with the church of Rome.
The great Nestorian pontiffs who form the opposite party, and who have,
since 1559, been distinguished by the general denomination of Elias, and
reside constantly at Mousul, look with a hostile eye on this little
patriarch; but since 1617 the bishops of Ormus have been in so low and
declining a state, both in opulence and credit, that they are no longer
in a condition to excite the envy of their brethren at Mousul, whose
spiritual dominion is very extensive, taking in great part of Asia, and
comprehending within its circuit the Arabian Nestorians, as also the
Christians of St. Thomas, who dwell along the coast of Malabar.
NETHINIMS. The Nethinims were servants who had been given up to the
service of the tabernacle and temple, to perform the meanest and most
laborious services therein, in supplying wood and water. At first the
Gibeonites were appointed to this service, Joshua ix, 27. Afterward the
Canaanites who surrendered themselves, and whose lives were spared, were
consigned to the performance of the same duties. We read, Ezra viii, 20,
that the Nethinims were slaves devoted by David and the other princes to
the ministry of the temple; and elsewhere, that they were slaves given
by Solomon; the children of Solomon’s servants, Ezra ii, 58; and we see,
in 1 Kings ix, 20, 21, that this prince had subdued the remains of the
Canaanites, and had constrained them to several servitudes; and, it is
very probable, he gave a good number of them to the priests and Levites
for the service of the temple. The Nethinims were carried into captivity
with the tribe of Judah, and there were great numbers of them near the
coast of the Caspian Sea, from whence Ezra brought some of them back,
Ezra viii, 17. After the return from the captivity, they dwelt in the
cities appointed them, Ezra ii, 17. There were some of them also at
Jerusalem, who inhabited that part of the city called Ophel, Neh. iii,
26. Those who returned with Ezra were to the number of two hundred and
twenty, Ezra viii, 20; and those who followed Zerubbabel made up three
hundred and ninety-two, Ezra ii, 58. This number was but small in regard
to the offices that were imposed on them; so that we find them afterward
instituting a solemnity called _Xylophoria_, in which the people carried
wood to the temple with great ceremony, to keep up the fire on the altar
of burnt sacrifices.
NETTLES. We find this name given to two different words in the original.
The first is חרול, Job xxx, 7; Proverbs xxiv, 31; Zeph. ii, 9. It is not
easy to determine what species of plant is here meant. From the passage
in Job, the nettle could not be intended; for a plant is referred to
large enough for people to take shelter under. The following extract
from Denon’s Travels may help to illustrate the text, and show to what
an uncomfortable retreat those vagabonds must have resorted. One of the
inconveniences of the vegetable thickets of Egypt is, that it is
difficult to remain in them; as nine-tenths of the trees and the plants
are armed with inexorable thorns, which suffer only an unquiet enjoyment
of the shadow which is so constantly desirable, from the precaution
necessary to guard against them.” The קימוש, Prov. xxiv, 31; Isaiah
xxxiv, 13; Hosea ix, 6; is by the Vulgate rendered _urtica_,” which is
well defended by Celsius, and very probably means the nettle.”
NICE or NICENE CREED is so denominated, because the greater part of it,
namely, as far as the words, Holy Ghost,” was drawn up and agreed to at
the council of Nice, or Nicæa, in Bithynia, A. D. 325. This council was
assembled against Arius, who, though he brought down the Son to the
condition of a creature, inferior, for that reason, in nature to the
Father, yet acknowledged his personal subsistence before the world, and
his superiority in nature to all the things that were created by him. So
that there was need of some higher expression in this case than the
other, to import his equal dignity of nature with the Father and Creator
of all; and nothing was found to answer the purpose so well as the term
ὁμοούσιος. The rest of this creed was added at the council of
Constantinople, A. D. 581, except the words, and the Son,” which follow
the words, who proceedeth from the Father,” and they were inserted A. D.
447. The addition made at Constantinople was caused by the denial of the
divinity of the Holy Ghost by Macedonius and his followers; and the
creed, thus enlarged, was immediately received by all orthodox
Christians. The insertion of the words, and the Son,” was made by the
Spanish bishops; and they were soon after adopted by the Christians in
France. The bishops of Rome for some time refused to admit these words
into the creed; but at last, A. D. 883, when Nicholas the First was
pope, they were allowed, and from that time they have stood in the
Nicene creed, in all the western churches; but the Greek church has
never received them. See ARIUS.
NICODEMUS, a disciple of Jesus Christ, a Jew by nation, and a Pharisee,
John iii, 1, &c. At the time when the priests and Pharisees had sent
officers to seize Jesus, Nicodemus declared himself openly in his
favour, John vii, 45, &c; and still more so when he went with Joseph of
Arimathea to pay the last duties to his body, which they took down from
the cross, embalmed, and laid in a sepulchre.
NICOLAITANS. St. John says in his Revelation, to the angel of the church
of Ephesus, But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the
Nicolaitans, which I also hate,” Rev. ii, 6; and again, to the angel of
the church of Pergamos: So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of
the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate,” Rev. ii, 15. These are the only
two places where the Nicolaitans are mentioned in the New Testament: and
it might appear at first, that little could be inferred from these
concerning either their doctrine or their practice. It is asserted,
however, by all the fathers, that the Nicolaitans were a branch of the
Gnostics: and the epistles, which were addressed by St. John to the
seven Asiatic churches, may perhaps lead us to the same conclusion. Thus
to the church at Ephesus he writes: Thou hast tried them which say they
are Apostles and are not, and hast found them liars,” Rev. ii, 2. This
may be understood of the Gnostic teachers, who falsely called themselves
Christians, and who would be not unlikely to assume also the title of
Apostles. It appears from this and other passages, that they had
distinguished themselves at Ephesus; and it is when writing to that
church, that St. John mentions the Nicolaitans. Again, when writing to
the church at Smyrna, he says: I know the blasphemy of them which say
they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan,” Rev. ii, 9.
The Gnostics borrowed many doctrines from the Jews, and thought by this
means to attract both the Jews and Christians. We might therefore infer,
even without the testimony of the fathers, that the Gnostic doctrines
were prevalent in these churches, where St. John speaks of the
Nicolaitans: and if so, we have a still more specific indication of
their doctrine and practice, when we find St. John saying to the church
in Pergamos, I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there
them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a
stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed
unto idols, and to commit fornication,” Rev. ii, 14. Then follow the
words already quoted, So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of
the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.” There seems here to be some
comparison between the doctrine of Balaam and that of the Nicolaitans:
and I would also point out, that to the church in Thyatira the Apostle
writes, I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that
woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to
seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed
unto idols,” Rev. ii, 20. The two passages are very similar, and may
enable us to throw some light upon the history of the Nicolaitans.
Tertullian has preserved a tradition, that the person here spoken of as
Jezebel was a female heretic, who taught what she had learned from the
Nicolaitans: and whether the tradition be true or not, it seems certain,
that to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication, was
part of the practice of the Nicolaitans.