foretold: The Lord will make an utter end of the place thereof.
Affliction shall not rise up the second time. She is empty, void, and
waste,” Nahum i, 8, 9; ii, 10; iii, 17–19. The Lord will stretch out his
hand against the north, and destroy Assyria, and will make Nineveh a
desolation, and dry like a wilderness. How is she become a desolation, a
place for beasts to lie down in,” Zeph. ii, 13–15. In the second
century, Lucian, a native of a city on the banks of the Euphrates,
testified that Nineveh was utterly perished, that there was no vestige
of it remaining, and that none could tell where once it was situated.
This testimony of Lucian, and the lapse of many ages during which the
place was not known where it stood, render it at least somewhat doubtful
whether the remains of an ancient city, opposite to Mosul, which have
been described as such by travellers, be indeed those of ancient
Nineveh. It is, perhaps, probable that they are the remains of the city
which succeeded Nineveh, or of a Persian city of the same name, which
was built on the banks of the Tigris by the Persians subsequently to A.
D. 230, and demolished by the Saracens, A. D. 632. In contrasting the
then existing great and increasing population, and the accumulating
wealth of the proud inhabitants of the mighty Nineveh, with the utter
ruin that awaited it, the word of God by the Prophet Nahum, was, Make
thyself many as the canker worm, make thyself many as the locusts. Thou
hast multiplied thy merchants above the stars of heaven: the canker worm
spoileth and flieth away. Thy crowned are as the locusts, and thy
captains as the great grasshoppers which camp in the hedges in the cold
day: but when the sun riseth, they flee away; and their place is not
known where they are,” or were. Whether these words imply that even the
site of Nineveh would in future ages be uncertain or unknown; or, as
they rather seem to intimate, that every vestige of the palaces of its
monarchs, of the greatness of its nobles, and of the wealth of its
numerous merchants, would wholly disappear; the truth of the prediction
cannot be invalidated under either interpretation. The avowed ignorance
respecting Nineveh, and the oblivion which passed over it, for many an
age, conjoined with the meagreness of evidence to identify it, still
prove that the place where it stood was long unknown, and that, even
now, it can scarcely with certainty be determined. And if the only spot
that bears its name, or that can be said to be the place where it was,
be indeed the site of one of the most extensive of cities on which the
sun ever shone, and which continued for many centuries to be the capital
of Assyria,--the principal mounds, few in number, which show neither
bricks, stones, nor other materials of building,--but are in many places
overgrown with grass, and resemble the mounds left by intrenchments and
fortifications of ancient Roman camps, and the appearances of other
mounds and ruins less marked than even these, extending for ten miles,
and widely spread, and seeming to be the wreck of former
buildings,--show that Nineveh is left without one monument of royalty,
without any token whatever of its splendour or wealth; that their place
is not known where they were; and that it is indeed a desolation, empty,
void, and waste,” its very ruins perished, and less than the wreck of
what it was. Such an utter ruin, in every view, has been made of it; and
such is the truth of the divine predictions!
NISAN, a month of the Hebrews, answering to our March, and which
sometimes takes from February or April, according to the course of the
moon. It was made the first month of the sacred year, at the coming out
of Egypt, Exod. xii, 2; and it was the seventh month of the civil year.
By Moses it is called Abib. The name Nisan was introduced only since the
time of Ezra, and the return from the captivity of Babylon.
NISROCH, a god of the Assyrians. Sennacherib was killed by two of his
sons, while he was paying his adorations in the temple of this deity, 2
Kings xix, 37; Isaiah xxxvii, 38. It is uncertain who this god was.
NITRE, נתר, Prov. xxv, 20; Jer. ii, 22. This is not the same that we
call nitre, or saltpetre, but a native salt of a different kind,
distinguished among naturalists by the name of natrum. The natrum of the
ancients was an earthy alkaline salt. It was found in abundance
separated from the water of the lake Natron in Egypt. It rises from the
bottom of the lake to the top of the water, and is there condensed by
the heat of the sun into the hard and dry form in which it is sold. This
salt thus scummed off is the same in all respects with the Smyrna soap
earth. Pliny, Matthiolus, and Agricola, have described it to us:
Hippocrates, Galen, Dioscorides, and others, mention its uses. It is
also found in great plenty in Sindy, a province in the inner part of
Asia, and in many other parts of the east; and might be had in any
quantities. The learned Michaëlis plainly demonstrates, from the nature
of the thing and the context, that this fossil and natural alkali must
be that which the Hebrews called _nether_. Solomon must mean the same
when he compares the effect which unseasonable mirth has upon a man in
affliction to the action of vinegar upon nitre, Prov. xxv, 20; for
vinegar has no effect upon what we call nitre, but upon the alkali in
question has a great effect, making it rise up in bubbles with much
effervescence. It is of a soapy nature, and was used to take spots from
clothes, and even from the face. Jeremiah alludes to this use of it, ii,
22.
NO, or NO-AMMON, a city of Egypt, supposed to be Thebes.
NOAH, the son of Lamech. Amidst the general corruption of the human
race, Noah only was found righteous, Gen. vi, 9. He therefore found
grace in the sight of the Lord,” and was directed for his preservation
to make an ark, the shape and dimensions of which were prescribed by the
Lord. In A. M. 1656, and in the six hundredth year of his age, Noah, by
divine appointment, entered the ark with his family, and all the animals
collected for the renewal of the world. (See _Deluge_.) After the ark
had stranded, and the earth was in a measure dried, Noah offered a
burnt-sacrifice to the Lord, of the pure animals that were in the ark;
and the Lord was pleased to accept of his offering, and to give him
assurance that he would no more destroy the world by water, Genesis ix.
He gave Noah power over all the brute creation, and permitted him to
kill and eat of them, as of the herbs and fruits of the earth, except
the blood, the use of which was prohibited. After the deluge Noah lived
three hundred and fifty years; and the whole time of his life having
been nine hundred and fifty years, he died, A. M. 2006. According to
common opinion, he divided the earth among his three sons, Shem, Ham,
and Japheth. To Shem he gave Asia, to Ham Africa, and to Japheth Europe.
Some will have it, that beside these three sons he had several others.
St. Peter calls Noah a preacher of righteousness, because before the
deluge he was incessantly preaching and declaring to men, not only by
his discourses, but by the building of the ark, in which he was employed
a hundred and twenty years, that the cloud of divine vengeance was about
to burst upon them. But his faithful ministry produced no effect, since,
when the deluge came, it found mankind practising their usual
enormities, Matt. xxiv, 37. Several learned men have observed that the
Heathens confounded Saturn, Deucalion, Ogyges, the god Cœlus or
Ouranus, Janus, Protheus, Prometheus, &c, with Noah. The fable of
Deucalion and his wife Pyrrha is manifestly drawn from the history of
Noah. The rabbins pretend that God gave Noah and his sons certain
general precepts, which contain, according to them, the natural duties
which are common to all men indifferently, and the observation of which
alone will be sufficient to save them. After the law of Moses was given,
the Hebrews would not suffer any stranger to dwell in their country,
unless he would conform to the precepts of Noah. In war, they put to
death without quarter all who were ignorant of them. These precepts are
seven in number: the first was against the worship of idols; the second,
against blasphemy, and required to bless the name of God; the third,
against murder; the fourth, against incest and all uncleanness; the
fifth, against theft and rapine; the sixth required the administration
of justice; the seventh was against eating flesh with life. But the
antiquity of these precepts is doubted, since no mention of them is made
in the Scripture, or in the writings of Josephus, or in Philo; and none
of the ancient fathers knew any thing of them.
NOD, LAND OF, the country to which Cain withdrew after the murder of
Abel. As the precise situation of this country cannot possibly be known,
so it has given rise to much ingenious speculation. All that we are told
of it is, that it was on the east of Eden,” or, as it may be rendered,
before Eden;” which very country of Eden is no sure guide for us, as the
situation of that also is disputed. But, be it on the higher or lower
Euphrates, (see _Eden_,) the land of Nod which stood before it with
respect to the place where Moses wrote, may still preserve the curse of
barrenness passed on it for Cain’s sake, namely, in the deserts of Syria
or Arabia. The Chaldee interpreters render the word Nod, not as the
proper name of a country, but as an appellative applied to Cain himself,
signifying a vagabond or fugitive, and read, He dwelt a fugitive in the
land.” But the Hebrew reads expressly, He dwelt in the land of Nod.”
NONCONFORMISTS, dissenters from the church of England; but the term
applies more particularly to those ministers who were ejected from their
livings by the Act of Uniformity in 1662; the number of whom, according
to Dr. Calamy, was nearly two thousand; and to the laity who adhered to
them. The celebrated Mr. Locke says, Bartholomew-day (the day fixed by
the Act of Uniformity) was fatal to our church and religion, by throwing
out a very great number of worthy, learned, pious, and orthodox divines,
who could not come up to this and other things in that act. And it is
worth your knowledge, that so great was the zeal in carrying on this
church affair, and so blind was the obedience required, that if you
compare the time of passing the act with the time allowed for the clergy
to subscribe the book of Common Prayer thereby established, you shall
plainly find, it could not be printed and distributed, so as one man in
forty could have seen and read the book before they did so perfectly
assent and consent thereto.”
By this act, the clergy were required to subscribe, _ex animo_,
[sincerely,] their assent and consent to all and every thing contained
in the book of Common Prayer,” which had never before been insisted on,
so rigidly as to deprive them of their livings and livelihood. Several
other acts were passed about this time, very oppressive both to the
clergy and laity. In the preceding year 1661, the Corporation Act
incapacitated all persons from offices of trust and honour in a
corporation, who did not receive the sacrament in the established
church. The Conventicle Act, in 1663 and 1670, forbade the attendance at
conventicles; that is, at places of worship other than the
establishment, where more than five adults were present beside the
resident family; and that under penalties of fine and imprisonment by
the sentence of magistrates without a jury. The Oxford Act of 1665
banished nonconforming ministers five miles from any corporate town
sending members to parliament, and prohibited them from keeping or
teaching schools. The Test Act of the same year required all persons,
accepting any office under government, to receive the sacrament in the
established church.
Such were the dreadful consequences of this intolerant spirit, that it
is supposed that near eight thousand died in prison in the reign of
Charles II. It is said that Mr. Jeremiah White had carefully collected a
list of those who had suffered between Charles II. and the revolution,
which amounted to sixty thousand. The same persecutions were carried on
in Scotland; and there, as well as in England, numbers, to avoid the
persecution, left their country. But, notwithstanding all these dreadful
and furious attacks upon the dissenters, they were not extirpated. Their
very persecution was in their favour. The infamous character of their
informers and persecutors; their piety, zeal, and fortitude, no doubt,
had influence on considerate minds; and, indeed, they had additions from
the established church, which several clergymen in this reign deserted
as a persecuting church, and took their lot among them. King William
coming to the throne, the famous Toleration Act passed, by which they
were exempted from suffering the penalties above mentioned, and
permission was given them to worship God according to the dictates of
their own consciences. In the reign of George III., the Act for the
Protection of Religious Worship superseded the Act of Toleration, by
still more liberal provisions in favour of religious liberty; and in the
last reign the Test and Corporation Acts were repealed.
NOPH, Memphis, a celebrated city of Egypt, and, till the time of the
Ptolemies, who removed to Alexandria, the residence of the ancient kings
of Egypt. It stood above the dividing of the river Nile, where the Delta
begins. Toward the south of this city stood the famous pyramids, two of
which were esteemed the wonders of the world; and in this city was fed
the ox Apis, which Cambyses slew, in contempt of the Egyptians who
worshipped it as a deity. The kings of Egypt took much pleasure in
adorning this city; and it continued in all its beauty till the Arabians
made a conquest of Egypt under the Caliph Omar. The general who took it
built another city near it, named Fustal, merely because his tent had
been a long time set up in that place; and the Fatimite caliphs, when
they became masters of Egypt, added another to it, which is known to us
at this day by the name of Grand Cairo. This occasioned the utter decay
of Memphis, and led to the fulfilment of the prophecy, that it should be
waste and without inhabitant.” The prophets often speak of this city,
and foretel the miseries it was to suffer from the kings of Chaldea and
Persia, Isaiah xix, 13; Jer. xliv, 1; xlvi, 14, 19; Hosea ix, 6; Ezek.
xxx, 13, 16.
NOVATIANS, the followers of Novatian, a priest of Rome, and of Novatus,
a priest of Carthage, in the third century. They were distinguished
merely by their discipline; for their religious and doctrinal tenets do
not appear to be at all different from those of the church. They
condemned second marriages, and for ever excluded from their communion
all those who after baptism had fallen into sin. They affected very
superior purity; and, though they conceived that the worst might
possibly hope for eternal life, they absolutely refused to reädmit into
their communion any who had lapsed into sin. They separated from the
church of Rome, because the members of it admitted into their communion
many who had, during a season of persecution, rejected the Christian
faith.
NUMBERS, a canonical book of the Old Testament, being the fourth of the
Pentateuch, or five books of Moses; and receives its denomination from
the numbering of the families of Israel by Moses and Aaron, who mustered
the tribes, and marshalled the army, of the Hebrews in their passage
through the wilderness. A great part of this book is historical,
relating several remarkable events which happened in that journey, and
also mentioning various of their journeyings in the wilderness. This
book comprehends the history of about thirty-eight years, though the
greater part of the things recorded fell out in the first and last of
those years; and it does not appear when those things were done which
are recorded in the middle of the book. See PENTATEUCH.
NURSE. The nurse in an eastern family is always an important personage.
Modern travellers inform us, that in Syria she is considered as a sort
of second parent, whether she has been foster-mother or otherwise. She
always accompanies the bride to her husband’s house, and ever remains
there an honoured character. Thus it was in ancient Greece. This will
serve to explain Genesis xxiv, 59: And they sent away Rebekah their
sister, and her nurse.” In Hindostan the nurse is not looked upon as a
stranger, but becomes one of the family, and passes the remainder of her
life in the midst of the children she has suckled, by whom she is
honoured and cherished as a second mother. In many parts of Hindostan
are mosques and mausoleums, built by the Mohammedan princes, near the
sepulchres of their nurses. They are excited by a grateful affection to
erect these structures in memory of those who with maternal anxiety
watched over their helpless infancy: thus it has been from time
immemorial.
OAK. The religious veneration paid to this tree, by the original natives
of our island in the time of the Druids, is well known to every reader
of British history. We have reason to think that this veneration was
brought from the east; and that the Druids did no more than transfer the
sentiments their progenitors had received in oriental countries. It
should appear that the Patriarch Abraham resided under an oak, or a
grove of oaks, which our translators render the plain of Mamre; and that
he planted a grove of this tree, Gen. xiii, 18. In fact, since in hot
countries nothing is more desirable than shade, nothing more refreshing
than the shade of a tree, we may easily suppose the inhabitants would
resort for such enjoyment to
Where’er the oak’s thick branches spread
A deeper, darker shade.
Oaks, and groves of oaks, were esteemed proper places for religious
services; altars were set up under them, Joshua xxiv, 26; and, probably,
in the east as well as in the west, appointments to meet at conspicuous
oaks were made, and many affairs were transacted or treated of under
their shade, as we read in Homer, Theocritus and other poets. It was
common among the Hebrews to sit under oaks, Judges vi, 11; 1 Kings xiii,
14. Jacob buried idolatrous images under an oak, Gen. xxxv, 4; and
Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse, was buried under one of these trees, Genesis
xxxv, 8. See 1 Chron. x, 12. Abimelech was made king under an oak,
Judges ix, 6. Idolatry was practised under oaks, Isaiah i, 29; lvii, 5;
Hosea iv, 13. Idols were made of oaks, Isa. xliv, 14.
OATH, a solemn invocation of a superior power, admitted to be acquainted
with all the secrets of our hearts, with our inward thoughts as well as
our outward actions, to witness the truth of what we assert, and to
inflict his vengeance upon us if we assert what is not true, or promise
what we do not mean to perform. Almost all nations, whether savage or
civilized, whether enjoying the light of revelation or led only by the
light of reason, knowing the importance of truth, and willing to obtain
a barrier against falsehood, have had recourse to oaths, by which they
have endeavoured to make men fearful of uttering lies, under the dread
of an avenging Deity. Among Christians, an oath is a solemn appeal for
the truth of our assertions, the sincerity of our promises, and the
fidelity of our engagements, to the one only God, the Judge of the whole
earth, who is every where present, and sees, and hears, and knows,
whatever is said, or done, or thought in any part of the world. Such is
that Being whom Christians, when they take an oath, invoke to bear
testimony to the truth of their words, and the integrity of their
hearts. Surely, then, if oaths be a matter of so much moment, it well
behoves us not to treat them with levity, nor ever to take them without
due consideration. Hence we ought, with the utmost vigilance, to abstain
from mingling oaths in our ordinary discourse, and from associating the
name of God with low or disgusting images, or using it on trivial
occasions, as not only a profane levity in itself, but tending to
destroy that reverence for the supreme Majesty which ought to prevail in
society, and to dwell in our own hearts.
The forms of oaths,” says Dr. Paley, like other religious ceremonies,
have in all ages been various; consisting, however, for the most part of
some bodily action, and of a prescribed form of words.” Among the Jews,
the juror held up his right hand toward heaven, Psalm cxliv, 8; Rev. x,
5. The same form is retained in Scotland still. Among the Jews, also, an
oath of fidelity was taken by the servant’s putting his hand under the
thigh of his lord, Genesis xxiv, 2. Among the Greeks and Romans, the
form varied with the subject and occasion of the oath: in private
contracts, the parties took hold of each other’s hands, while they swore
to the performance; or they touched the altar of the god by whose
divinity they swore: upon more solemn occasions, it was the custom to
slay a victim; and the beast being struck down with certain ceremonies
and invocations, gave birth to the expression, _ferire pactum_; and to
our English phrase, translated from this, of striking a bargain.” The
form of oaths in Christian countries is also very different; but in no
country in the world worse contrived, either to convey the meaning or
impress the obligation of an oath, than in our own. The juror with us,
after repeating the promise or affirmation which the oath is intended to
confirm, adds, So help me God;” or, more frequently, the substance of
the oath is repeated to the juror by the magistrate, who adds in the
conclusion, So help you God.” The energy of this sentence resides in the
particle _so_: So, that is, _hâc lege_, upon condition of my speaking
the truth, or performing this promise, and not otherwise, may God help
me! The juror, while he hears or repeats the words of the oath, holds
his right hand upon a Bible, or other book containing the Gospels, and
at the conclusion kisses the book. This obscure and elliptical form,
together with the levity and frequency of them, has brought about a
general inadvertency to the obligation of oaths, which, both in a
religious and political view, is much to be lamented; and it merits
public consideration, whether the requiring of oaths upon so many
frivolous occasions, especially in the customs, and in the qualification
for petty offices, has any other effect than to make such sanctions
cheap in the minds of the people. A pound of tea cannot travel regularly
from the ship to the consumer, without costing half a dozen oaths at
least; and the same security for the due discharge of their office,
namely, that of an oath, is required from a churchwarden and an
archbishop; from a petty constable and the chief justice of England.
Oaths, however, are lawful; and, whatever be the form, the signification
is the same. Historians have justly remarked, that when the reverence
for an oath began to diminish among the Romans, and the loose epicurean
system, which discarded the belief of providence, was introduced, the
Roman honour and prosperity from that period began to decline. The
Quakers refuse to swear upon any occasion, founding their scruples
concerning the lawfulness of oaths upon our Saviour’s prohibition, Swear
not at all,” Matt. v, 34. But it seems our Lord there referred to the
vicious, wanton, and unauthorized swearing in common discourse, and not
to judicial oaths; for he himself answered, when interrogated, upon
oath, Matt. xxvi, 63, 64; Mark xiv, 61. The Apostle Paul also makes use
of expressions which contain the nature of oaths, Romans i, 9; 1 Cor.
xv, 31; 2 Cor. i, 18; Gal. i, 20; Heb. vi, 13–17. The administration of
oaths supposes that God will punish false swearing with more severity
than a simple lie, or breach of promise; for which belief there are the
following reasons: 1. Perjury is a sin of greater deliberation. 2. It
violates a superior confidence. 3. God directed the Israelites to swear
by his name, Deut. vi, 13; x, 20; and was pleased to confirm his
covenant with that people by an oath; neither of which, it is probable,
he would have done, had he not intended to represent oaths as having
some meaning and effect beyond the obligation of a bare promise.
OBADIAH the prophet is thought to have been the same as the governor of
Ahab’s house, 1 Kings xviii, 3, &c; and some are of opinion, he was that
Obadiah whom Josiah made overseer of the works of the temple, 2 Chron.
xxxiv, 12. Indeed, the age in which this prophet lived is very
uncertain. Some think that he was contemporary with Hosea, Amos, and
Joel; while others are of opinion that he lived in the time of Jeremiah
and Ezekiel, and that he delivered his prophecy about B. C. 585, soon
after the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. His book, which
consists of a single chapter, is written with great beauty and elegance,
and contains predictions of the utter destruction of the Edomites, and
of the future restoration and prosperity of the Jews.
OBED-EDOM, son of Jeduthun, a Levite, 1 Chron. xvi, 38, and the father
of Shemaiah and others, 1 Chron. xvi, 5. We learn that the Lord blessed
this man exceedingly, on account of the ark resting under his roof, 2
Sam. vi, 10, 11. David having removed the ark to the place he had
previously prepared for its reception, Obed-Edom and his sons were
appointed to be keepers of the doors of the temple, 1 Chron. xv, 18, 21.
Obed-Edom is called the Gittite, probably because he was of Gathrimmon,
a city of the Levites beyond Jordan, Joshua xxi, 24, 25.
ODED, a prophet of the Lord, who, being at Samaria when the Israelites
of the ten tribes returned from the war with their King Pekah, together
with two hundred thousand of the people of Judah, whom they had taken
captive, went out to meet them; and through his remonstrances the
captives were liberated, 2 Chron. xxviii. This circumstance is all that
is recorded concerning Oded.