but with great variety in the style of composition. Some are simply
odes. An ode is a dignified sort of song, narrative of the facts, either
of public history or private life, in a highly adorned and figured
style. But the figure in the Psalms is that which is peculiar to the
Hebrew language, in which the figure gives its meaning with as much
perspicuity as the plainest speech. Some are of the sort called elegiac,
which are pathetic compositions upon mournful subjects. Some are ethic,
delivering grave maxims of life, or the precepts of religion, in solemn,
but for the most part simple, strains. Some are enigmatic, delivering
the doctrines of religion in enigmata, contrived to strike the
imagination forcibly, and yet easy to be understood. In all these the
author delivers the whole matter in his own person. But a very great, I
believe the far greater, part are a sort of dramatic ode, consisting of
dialogues between persons sustaining certain characters. In these
dialogue Psalms the persons are frequently the psalmist himself, or the
chorus of priests and Levites, or the leader of the Levitical band,
opening the ode with a proem declarative of the subject, and very often
closing the whole with a solemn admonition drawn from what the other
persons say. The other persons are Jehovah, sometimes as one, sometimes
as another, of the three Persons; Christ in his incarnate state,
sometimes before, sometimes after, his resurrection; the human soul of
Christ as distinguished from the divine essence. Christ, in his
incarnate state, is personated sometimes as a priest, sometimes as a
king, sometimes as a conqueror; and in those Psalms in which he is
introduced as a conqueror, the resemblance is very remarkable between
this conqueror in the book of Psalms and the warrior on the white horse
in the book of Revelation, who goes forth with a crown on his head, and
a bow in his hand, conquering and to conquer. And the conquest in the
Psalms is followed, like the conquest in the Revelation, by the marriage
of the conqueror. These are circumstances of similitude which, to any
one versed in the prophetic style, prove beyond a doubt that the
mystical conqueror is the same personage in both.
PSALMODY. The service of the ancient Christian church usually began with
reading or with the singing of psalms. We are not to understand this as
if their psalmody was performed in one course of many psalms together,
without intermission, but rather, with some respite, and a mixture of
other parts of divine service, to make the whole more agreeable and
delightful. As to the persons concerned in singing the Psalms publicly
in the church, they may be considered in four different respects,
according to the different ways of psalmody; for sometimes the Psalms
were sung by one person alone; and sometimes the whole assembly joined
together, men, women, and children: this was the most ancient and
general practice. At other times the Psalms were sung alternately; the
congregation dividing themselves into two parts, and singing verse for
verse. Beside all these, there was yet a fourth way of singing, pretty
common in the fourth century, which was, when a single person began the
verse, and the people joined with him in the close.
Psalmody was always esteemed a considerable part of devotion, and upon
that account was usually performed in the standing posture. As to the
voice or pronunciation, used in singing, it was of two sorts, the plain
song, and the more artificial; the plain song was only a gentle
inflexion, or turn of the voice, not very different from the chanting in
our cathedrals; the artificial song seems to have been a regular musical
composition, like our anthems. It was no objection against the psalmody
of the church, that she sometimes made use of psalms and hymns of human
composition, beside those of the inspired writers. St. Augustine himself
made a psalm of many parts, in imitation of the hundred and nineteenth,
to preserve his people from the errors of the Donatists. St. Hilary and
St. Ambrose likewise made many hymns, which were sung in their
respective churches. But two corruptions crept into the psalmody, which
the fathers declaim against with great zeal. The first was, the
introducing secular music, or an imitation of the light airs of the
theatre, in the devotions of the church. The other was, the regarding
more the sweetness of the composition than the sense and meaning;
thereby pleasing the ear, without raising the affections of the soul.
The use of musical instruments in singing of psalms, seems to be as
ancient as psalmody itself. The first psalm we read of was sung to a
timbrel, namely, that which Moses and Miriam sung after the deliverance
of the children of Israel from Egypt; and afterward, at Jerusalem, when
the temple was built, musical instruments were constantly used at their
public services. And this has been the common practice in all ages of
the church. When the use of organs was first introduced, is not
certainly known; but we find, that about A. D. 660, Constantine
Copronymus, emperor of Constantinople, sent a present of an organ to
King Pepin of France.
Clement Marot, groom of the bed chamber to Francis I., king of France,
was the first who engaged in translating the Psalms into metre. He
versified the first fifty at the instigation of Vatablus, Hebrew
professor at Paris; and afterward, upon his return to Geneva, he made an
acquaintance with Beza, who versified the rest, and had tunes set to
them; and thus they began to be sung in private houses, and afterward
were brought into the churches of the French and other countries. In
imitation of this version, Sternhold, one of the grooms of the privy
chamber to our King Edward VI., undertook a translation of the Psalms
into metre. He went through but thirty-seven of them, the rest being
soon after finished by Hopkins and others. This translation was at first
discountenanced by many of the clergy, who looked upon it as done in
opposition to the practice of chanting the Psalms in the cathedrals.
Early in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, metrical psalmody was introduced
into this country. The new morning prayer began at St. Antholin’s,
London, when a psalm was sung in the Geneva fashion, all the
congregation, men, women, and boys singing together. Bishop Jewel says,
that “the singing of psalms, begun in one church in London, did quickly
spread itself, not only through the city, but in the neighbouring
places; sometimes at Paul’s Cross six thousand people singing together.”
A curious controversy on this subject arose among the Dissenters in the
end of the seventeenth century. Whether singing in public worship had
been partially discontinued during the times of persecution to avoid
informers, or whether the miserable manner in which it was performed
gave persons a distaste to it, so it appears, that in 1691, Mr. Benjamin
Keach published a tract entitled, “The Breach Repaired in God’s Worship:
or, Psalms, Hymns, &c, proved to be a Holy Ordinance of Jesus Christ.”
To us it may appear strange that such a point should be disputed; but
Mr. Keach was obliged to labour earnestly, and with a great deal of
prudence and caution, to obtain the consent of his people to sing a hymn
at the conclusion of the Lord’s Supper. After six years more, they
agreed to sing on the thanksgiving days; but it required still fourteen
years more before he could persuade them to sing every Lord’s day; and
then it was only after the last prayer, that those who chose it might
withdraw without joining in it! Nor did even this satisfy these
scrupulous consciences; for, after all, a separation took place, and the
inharmonious seceders formed a new church in May’s Pond, where it was
above twenty years longer before singing the praises of God could be
endured. It is difficult at this period to believe it; but Mr. Ivimey
quotes Mr. Crosby, as saying, that Mr. Keach’s was the first church in
which psalm singing was introduced. This remark, however, must probably
be confined to the Baptist churches. The Presbyterians, it seems, were
not quite so unmusical; for the Directory of the Westminster divines
distinctly stated, that “it is the duty of Christians to praise God
publicly by singing of Psalms together in the congregation.” And beside
the old Scotch Psalms, Dr. John Patrick, of the Charter house, made a
version which was in very general use among Dissenters, Presbyterians,
and Independents, before it was superseded by the far superior
compositions of Dr. Watts. These Psalms, however, like those of the
English and Scotch establishment, were drawled out in notes of equal
length, without accent or variety. Even the introduction of the
triple-time tunes, probably about the time of Dr. Watts’s psalms, gave
also great offence to some people, because it marked the accent of the
measure. Old Mr. Thomas Bradbury used to call this time “a long leg and
a short one.” The beautiful compositions of Dr. Watts, Mr. C. Wesley,
and others, have produced a considerable revolution in modern psalmody.
Better versions of the Psalms, and many excellent collections of hymns,
are now in use, and may be considered as highly important gifts bestowed
upon the modern church of God.
PSALTERY. See MUSIC.
PTOLEMAIS. See ACCHO.
PUBLICAN, a collector or receiver of the Roman revenues. Judea being
added to the provinces of the Roman empire, and the taxes paid by the
Jews directly to the emperor, the publicans were the officers appointed
to collect them. The ordinary taxes which the Romans levied in the
provinces were of three sorts: 1. Customs upon goods imported and
exported; which tribute was therefore called _portorium_, from _portus_,
“a haven.” 2. A tax upon cattle fed in certain pastures belonging to the
Roman state, the number of which being kept in writing, this tribute was
called _scriptura_. 3. A tax upon corn, of which the government demanded
a tenth part. This tribute was called _decuma_. These publicans are
distinguished by Sigonius into three sorts or degrees,--the farmers of
the revenue, their partners, and their securities; in which he follows
Polybius. These are called the _mancipes_, _socii_, and _prædes_, who
were all under the _quæstore særarii_, that presided over the finances
at Rome. The _mancipes_ farmed the revenue of large districts or
provinces, had the oversight of the inferior publicans, received their
accounts and collections, and transmitted them to the _quæstores
ærarii_. They often let out their provinces in smaller parcels to the
_socii_; so called, because they were admitted to a share in the
contract, perhaps for the sake of more easily raising the purchase
money; at least to assist in collecting the tribute. Both the _mancipes_
and _socii_ are therefore properly styled τελῶναι, from τελος,
_tributum_, and ὠνέομαι, _emo_. They were obliged to procure _prædes_,
or sureties, who gave security to the government for the fulfilment of
the contract. The distribution of Sigonius, therefore, or rather of
Polybius, is not quite exact, since there were properly but two sorts of
publicans, the _mancipes_ and the _socii_. The former are, probably,
those whom the Greeks call ἀρχιτελώναι, _chiefs of the publicans_; of
which sort was Zaccheus. As they were superior to the common publicans
in dignity, being mostly of the equestrian order, so they were generally
in their moral character. But as for the common publicans, the
collectors or receivers, as many of the _socii_ were, they are spoken of
with great contempt, by Heathens as well as Jews; and particularly by
Theocritus, who said, that “among the beasts of the wilderness, bears
and lions are the most cruel; among the beasts of the city, the publican
and parasite.” The reason of the general hatred to them was, doubtless,
their rapine and extortion. For, having a share in the farm of the
tribute, at a certain rate, they were apt to oppress the people with
illegal exactions, to raise as large a fortune as they could for
themselves. Beside, publicans were particularly odious to the Jews, who
looked upon them to be the instruments of their subjection to the Roman
emperors, to which they generally held it sinful for them to submit.
They considered it as incompatible with their liberty to pay tribute to
any foreign power, Luke xx, 22, &c; and those of their own nation that
engaged in this employment they regarded as Heathens, Matthew xviii, 17.
It is even said, that they would not allow them to enter into their
temple or synagogues, nor to join in prayers, nor even allow their
evidence in a court of justice on any trial; nor would they accept of
their offerings in the temple.
It appears by the Gospel that there were many publicans in Judea at the
time of our Saviour. Zaccheus, probably, was one of the principal
receivers, since he is called the chief of the publicans, Luke xix, 2;
but St. Matthew was only an inferior publican. The Jews reproached our
Saviour for showing kindness to these persons, Luke vii, 34; and he
himself ranks them with harlots, Matt. xxi, 31. Some of them, it should
seem, had humbling views of themselves, Luke xviii, 10. Zaccheus assures
our Lord, who had honoured him with a visit, that he was ready to give
the half of his goods to the poor, Luke xix, 8, and to return fourfold
of whatever he had unjustly acquired.
PUBLIUS, the governor of Melita, Acts xxviii, 7–9. When St. Paul was
shipwrecked on this island, Publius received him and his company into
his house very kindly, and treated them for three days with great
humanity.
PUL, king of Assyria. He came into the land of Israel in the time of
Manahem, king of the ten tribes, 2 Kings xv, 19, &c, and invaded the
kingdom on the other side of Jordan. But Manahem, by a present of one
thousand talents of silver, prevailed on the king of Assyria, not only
to withdraw his forces, but to recognize his title to the crown of
Israel before he left the kingdom. This is the first time that we find
any mention made of the kingdom of Assyria since the days of Nimrod; and
Pul is the first monarch of that nation who invaded Israel, and began
their transportation out of their own country.
PULSE, קלי, Lev. xxiii, 14; 1 Sam. xvii, 17; 2 Sam. xvii, 28; a term
applied to those grains or seeds which grow in pods, as beans, peas,
vetches, &c, from פול, _a bean_. The Vulgate renders this _kali_ in 2
Sam. xvii, 28, _frixum cicer_, “parched peas.” In Daniel i, 12, 16, the
word זרעים, rendered _pulse_, may signify seeds in general.
PUNISHMENTS OF THE HEBREWS. There were several sorts of punishments in
use among the Jews which are mentioned in the Scripture. 1. The
punishment of the cross. (See _Cross_.) 2. Suspension, Esther vii, 10;
Joshua viii, 29; 2 Samuel xxi, 12. 3. Stoning. 4. Fire. This punishment
was common, Gen. xxxviii, 24; Leviticus xxi, 9. 5. The rack or tympanum,
mentioned Heb. xi, 35. Commentators are much divided about the meaning
of this punishment; but most of them are of opinion that the bastinado,
or the punishment of the stick, is intended, and that the Apostle
alludes to the cruelties exercised upon old Eleazar; for, in 2 Mac. vi,
19, where his martyrdom is spoken of, it is said that he came to the
tympanum. 6. The precipice, or throwing persons headlong from a rock,
with a stone tied about the neck, 2 Chron. xxv, 12. 7. Decapitation,
Gen. xl, 19; Judges ix, 5; 2 Kings x, 7; Matt. xiv, 8. 8. The punishment
of the saw, or to be cut asunder in the middle, Heb. xi, 37. This
punishment was not unknown to the Hebrews. Some think it was originally
from the Persians or Chaldeans. 9. Plucking out the eyes, Exod. xxi, 24.
Some think this punishment was seldom executed, but the offender was
made to suffer in his property rather than in his person: yet there are
some instances on record, Judges xvi, 21; 1 Sam. xi, 2; 2 Kings xxv, 7.
10. The cutting off the extremities of the feet and hands, Judges i,
5–7; 2 Sam. iv, 12.
PUR, פור, κλῆρος, signifies _lot_. Pur, Phur, or Purim, was a solemn
feast of the Jews, instituted in memory of the lots cast by Haman, the
enemy of the Jews, Esther iii, 7. These lots were cast in the first
month of the year, and gave the twelfth month of the same year for the
execution of Haman’s design, to destroy all the Jews in Persia. Thus the
superstition of Haman, in crediting these lots, caused his own ruin, and
the preservation of the Jews, who, by means of Esther, had time to avert
this blow. The Jews have exactly kept this feast down to our times. See
HAMAN, ESTHER, and MORDECAI.
PURGATORY, a place in which, according to the church of Rome, the just,
who depart out of this life, are supposed to expiate certain offences
which do not merit eternal damnation. Broughton has endeavoured to prove
that this notion has been held by Pagans, Jews, and Mohammedans, as well
as by Christians; and that in the days of the Maccabees, the Jews
believed that sin might be expiated by sacrifice after the death of the
sinner. The arguments advanced for purgatory by the papists are these:
Every sin, how slight soever, though no more than an idle word, as it is
an offence to God, deserves punishment from him, and will be punished by
him hereafter, if not cancelled by repentance here. 2. Such small sins
do not deserve eternal punishment. 3. Few depart this life so pure as to
be totally exempt from spots of this nature, and from every kind of debt
due to God’s justice. 4. Therefore, few will escape without suffering
something from his justice for such debts as they have carried with them
out of this world, according to the rule of divine justice, by which he
treats every soul hereafter according to his works, and according to the
state in which he finds it in death. From these positions, which the
papist considers as so many self-evident truths, he infers that there
must be some third place of punishment; for since the infinite holiness
of God can admit nothing into heaven that is not clean and pure from all
sin, both great and small, and his infinite justice can permit none to
receive the reward of bliss, who as yet are not out of debt, but have
something in justice to suffer, there must, of necessity, be some place
or state, where souls departing this life, pardoned as to the eternal
guilt of sin, yet obnoxious to some temporal penalty, or with the guilt
of some venial faults, are purged and purified before their admittance
into heaven. And this is what he is taught concerning purgatory; though
he know not where it is, of what nature the pains are, or how long each
soul is detained there, yet he believes that those who are in this place
are relieved by the prayers of their fellow members here on earth, as
also by alms and masses offered up to God for their souls. And as for
such as have no relations or friends to pray for them, or give alms to
procure masses for their relief, they are not neglected by the church,
which makes a general commemoration of all the faithful departed, in
every mass, and in every one of the canonical hours of the divine
office. Beside the above arguments, the following passages are alleged
as proofs: 2 Macc. xii, 43–45; Matt. xii, 31, 32; 1 Cor. iii, 15; 1
Peter iii, 19. But it may be observed, 1. That the books of Maccabees
have no evidence of inspiration, therefore quotations from them are not
to be regarded. 2. If they were, the texts referred to would rather
prove that there is no such place as purgatory, since Judas did not
expect the souls departed to reap any benefit from the sin-offering till
the resurrection. The texts quoted from the Scriptures have no reference
to the doctrine, as may be seen by consulting the context, and any just
commentator upon it. 3. The Scriptures, in general, speak of departed
souls going immediately, at death, to a fixed state of happiness or
misery, and give us no idea of purgatory, Isaiah lvii, 2; Rev. xiv, 13;
Luke xvi, 22; 2 Cor. v, 8. 4. It is derogatory from the doctrine of the
satisfaction of Christ. If Christ died for us, and redeemed us from sin
and hell, as the Scripture speaks, then the idea of farther meritorious
suffering detracts from the perfection of his sacrifice, and places
merit still in the creature; a doctrine exactly opposite to the
Scriptures.
PURITANS. In England, the term Puritans was applied to those who wished
for a farther degree of reformation in the church than was adopted by
Queen Elizabeth; and a purer form, not of faith, but of discipline and
worship. It was a common name given to all who, from conscientious
motives, though on different grounds, disapproved of the established
religion, from the reformation under Elizabeth, to the Act of Uniformity
in 1662. From that time to the revolution in 1688, as many as refused to
comply with the established worship, (among whom were about two thousand
clergymen, and perhaps five hundred thousand people,) were denominated
Nonconformists. From the passing of the Act of Toleration on the
accession of William and Mary, the name of Nonconformists was changed to
that of Protestant Dissenters. Prior to the grand rebellion in 1640, the
Puritans were, almost without exception, Episcopalians; but after the
famous “League and Covenant” of those turbulent times the greater part
of them became Presbyterians. Some, however, were Independents, and some
Baptists. The objections of the latter were more fundamental; they
disapproved of all national churches, as such, and disavowed the
authority of human legislation in matters of faith and worship. The
persecutions carried on against the Puritans during the reigns of
Elizabeth and the Stuarts served to lay the foundation of a new empire,
and eventually a vast republic, in the western world. Thither, as into a
wilderness, they fled from the face of their persecutors; and, being
protected in the free exercise of their religion, continued to increase,
until at length they became an independent nation. The different
principles, however, on which they had originally divided from the
church establishment at home, operated in a way that might have been
expected, when they came to the possession of the civil power abroad.
Those who formed the colony of Massachusetts having never relinquished
the principle of a national church, and of the power of the civil
magistrate in matters of faith and worship, were less tolerant than
those who settled at New Plymouth, at Rhode Island, and Providence
Plantations. The very men who had just escaped the persecutions of the
English prelates, now, in their turn, persecuted others who dissented
from them; until, at length, the liberal system of toleration
established in the parent country at the revolution, extended to the
colonies, and in a good measure put an end to these censurable
proceedings.
PURPLE, ארגמן, Exodus xxv, 4, &c; ϖορφύρα, Mark xv, 17, 20; Luke xvi,
19; John xix, 2, 5; Rev. xvii, 4; xviii, 12, 16. This is supposed to be
the very precious colour extracted from the _purpura_ or _murex_, a
species of shell fish; and the same with the famous Tyrian dye, so
costly, and so much celebrated in antiquity. The purple dye is called in
1 Macc. iv, 23, “purple of the sea,” or sea purple; it being the blood
or juice of a turbinated shell fish, which the Jews call חלזון. (See
_Scarlet_.) Among the blessings pronounced by Moses upon the tribes of
Israel, those of Zebulun and Issachar are, “They shall suck of the
abundance of the seas, and of the treasures hid in the sand,” Deut.
xxxiii, 19. Jonathan Ben Uzziel explains the latter clause thus: “From
the sand are produced looking glasses, and glass in general; the
treasures, the method of finding and working which, was revealed to
these tribes.” Several ancient writers inform us, that there were havens
in the coasts of the Zebulunites, in which the sand proper for making
glass was found. The words of Tacitus are remarkable: “_Et Belus amnis
Judaico mari illabitur, circa ejus os lectæ arenæ admixto nitro in
vitrum excoquuntur_.” “The river Belus falls into the Jewish sea, about
whose mouth those sands mixed with nitre are collected, out of which
glass is formed.” But it seems much more natural to explain “the
treasures hid in the sand,” of those highly valuable _murices_ and
_purpuræ_ which were found on the sea coast, near the country of Zebulun
and Issachar, and of which those tribes partook in common with their
Heathen neighbours of Tyre, who rendered the curious dyes made from
those shell fish so famous among the Romans by the names of _Sarranum
ostrum_, _Tyrii colores_. In reference to the purple vestment, Luke xvi,
19, it may be observed that this was not appropriately a royal robe. In
the earlier times it was the dress of any of high rank. Thus all the
courtiers were styled by the historians _purpurati_. This colour is more
properly crimson than purple; for the LXX., Josephus, and Philo,
constantly use ϖορφύραν to express the Hebrew ארגמן, by which the
Talmudists understood crimson; and that this Hebrew word expressed, not
the Tyrian purple, but that brought to the city from another country,
appears from Ezek. xxvii, 7. The purple robe put on our Saviour, John
xix, 2, 5, is explained by a Roman custom, the dressing of a person in
the robes of state, as the investiture of office. Hence the robe brought
by Herod’s or the Roman soldiers, scoffingly, was as though it had been
the _pictæ vestes_ usually sent by the Roman senate. In Acts xvi, 14,
Lydia is said to be “a seller of purple.” Mr. Harmer styles purple the
most sublime of all earthly colours, having the gaudiness of red, of
which it retains a shade, softened with the gravity of blue.