Chapter XXXIX: Part 39

EAR, the organ of hearing. The Scripture uses the term figuratively. Uncircumcised ears are ears inattentive to the word of God. To signify God’s regard to the prayers of his people, the Psalmist says, “His ears are open to their cry,” Psalm xxxiv, 15. Among the Jews, the slave, who renounced the privilege of being made free from servitude in the sabbatical year, submitted to have his ear bored through with an awl; which was done in the presence of some judge, or magistrate, that it might appear a voluntary act. The ceremony took place at his master’s door, and was the mark of servitude and bondage. The Psalmist says, in the person of the Messiah, “Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened.” Heb. “Thou hast digged my ears.” This either means, Thou hast opened them, removed impediments, and made them attentive; or, thou hast pierced them, as those of such servants were pierced, who chose to remain with their masters; and therefore imports the _absolute_ and _voluntary_ submission of Messiah to the will of the Father. “Make the ears of this people heavy,” Isaiah vi, 10; that is, render their minds inattentive and disobedient; the prophets being said often to do that of which they were the innocent occasion.

EAR-RINGS and nose-jewels were favourite ornaments among the eastern females. Both are frequently mentioned in Scripture. Thus the Prophet Ezekiel: “And I put a jewel on thy forehead,” or, as it should have been rendered, on thy nose. This ornament was one of the presents which the servant of Abraham gave to Rebecca, in the name of his master: “I put,” said he, “the ear-ring upon her face;” more literally, I put the ring on her nose. They wore ear-rings beside; for the household of Jacob, at his request, when they were preparing to go up to Bethel, gave him all the ear-rings which were in their ears, and he hid them under the oak which was by Shechem. Sir John Chardin says, “It is the custom in almost all the east for the women to wear rings in their noses, in the left nostril, which is bored low down in the middle. These rings are of gold, and have commonly two pearls and one ruby between them, placed in the ring; I never saw a girl, or young woman in Arabia, or in all Persia, who did not wear a ring after this manner in her nostril.” Some writers contend, that by the nose-jewel, we are to understand rings, which women attached to their forehead, and let them fall down upon their nose; but Chardin, who certainly was a diligent observer of eastern customs, no where saw this frontal ring in the east, but every where the ring in the nose. His testimony is supported by Dr. Russel, who describes the women in some of the villages about Aleppo, and all the Arabs and Chinganas, (a sort of gipsies,) as wearing a large ring of silver or gold, through the external cartilage of their right nostril. It is worn, by the testimony of Egmont, in the same manner by the women of Egypt. Two words are used in the Scriptures to denote these ornamental rings, נזם and עגיל. Mr. Harmer seems to think they properly signified ear-rings; but this is a mistake; the sacred writers use them promiscuously for the rings both of the nose and of the ears. That writer, however, is probably right in supposing that _nezem_ is the name of a much smaller ring than _agil_. Chardin observed two sorts of rings in the east; one so small and close to the ear, that there is no vacuity between them; the other so large, as to admit the fore finger between it and the ear; these last are adorned with a ruby and a pearl on each side, strung on the ring. Some of these ear-rings had figures upon them, and strange characters, which he believed were talismans or charms; but which were probably the names and symbols of their false gods. We know from the testimony of Pliny, that rings with the images of their gods were worn by the Romans. The Indians say, they are preservatives against enchantment; upon which Chardin hazards a very probable conjecture, that the ear-rings of Jacob’s family were perhaps of this kind, which might be the reason of his demanding them, that he might bury them under the oak before they went up to Bethel.

EARTH is used for that gross element which sustains and nourishes us by producing plants and fruits; for the continent as distinguished from the sea, “God called the dry land earth,” Gen. i, 10; for the terraqueous globe, and its contents, men, animals, plants, metals, waters, &c. “The earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof”, Psalm xxiv, 1; for the inhabitants of the earth, or continent, “The whole earth was of one language,” Genesis xi, 1; for Judea, or the whole empire of Chaldea and Assyria. Thus Cyrus says, Ezra i, 2, “The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth.” The restriction of the term “earth” to Judea is more common in Scripture than is usually supposed; and this acceptation of it has great effect on several passages, in which it ought to be so understood.

Earth in a moral sense is opposed to heaven, and to what is spiritual. “He that is of the earth is earthy, and speaketh of the earth; he that cometh from above is above all,” John iii, 31. “If ye then be risen with Christ, set your affections on things above, not on things on the earth,” Col. iii, 1, 2.

EARTHQUAKE. The Scripture speaks of several earthquakes. One happened in the twenty-seventh year of Uzziah, king of Judah, in the year of the world 3221. This is mentioned in Amos i, 1, and in Zechariah xiv, 5. Josephus says that its violence divided a mountain, which lay west of Jerusalem, and drove one part of it four furlongs. A very memorable earthquake is that which happened at our Saviour’s death, Matt. xxvii, 51. Many have thought that this was perceived throughout the world. Others are of opinion that it was felt only in Judea, or even in the temple at Jerusalem. St. Cyril of Jerusalem says, that the rocks upon mount Calvary were shown in his time, which had been rent asunder by this earthquake. Maundrell and Sandys testify the same, and say that they examined the breaches in the rock, and were convinced that they were the effects of an earthquake. It must have been terrible, since the centurion and those with him were so affected by it, as to acknowledge the innocence of our Saviour, Luke xxiii, 47. Phlegon, Adrian’s freedman, relates that, together with the eclipse, which happened at noon day, in the fourth year of the two hundred and second Olympiad, or A. D. 33, a very great earthquake was also felt, principally in Bythynia. The effects of God’s power, wrath, and vengeance are compared to earthquakes, Psalm xviii, 7; xlvi, 2; cxiv, 4. An earthquake signifies also, in prophetic language, the dissolution of governments and the overthrow of states.

EAST, one of the four cardinal points of the world; namely, that particular point of the horizon in which the sun is seen to rise. The Hebrews express the east, west, north, and south by words which signify before, behind, left, and right, according to the situation of a man who has his face turned toward the east. By the east, they frequently describe, not only Arabia Deserta, and the lands of Moab and Ammon, which lay to the east of Palestine, but also Assyria, Mesopotamia, Babylonia, and Chaldea, though they are situated rather to the north than to the east of Judea. Balaam, Cyrus, and the wise men who visited Bethlehem at the time Christ was born, are said to come from the east, Num. xxiii, 7; Isaiah xlvi, 11; Matt. ii, 1.

EASTER, the day on which the Christian church commemorates our Saviour’s resurrection. Easter is a word of Saxon origin, and imports a goddess of the east. This goddess was Astarte, in honour of whom sacrifices were annually offered about the passover time of the year, the spring; and hence the Saxon name “æaster” became attached by association of ideas to the Christian festival of the resurrection.

EATING. The ancient Hebrews did not eat indifferently with all persons: they would have esteemed themselves polluted and dishonoured by eating with people of another religion, or of an odious profession. In Joseph’s day they neither ate with the Egyptians, nor the Egyptians with them, Gen. xliii, 32; nor, in our Saviour’s time, with the Samaritans, John iv, 9. The Jews were scandalized at Christ’s eating with publicans and sinners, Matt. ix, 11. As there were several sorts of meats, the use of which was prohibited, they could not conveniently eat with those who partook of them, fearing to receive pollution by touching such food, or if by accident any particles of it should fall on them. The ancient Hebrews, at their meals, had each his separate table. Joseph, entertaining his brethren in Egypt, seated them separately, each at his particular table; and he himself sat down separately from the Egyptians, who ate with him; but he sent to his brethren portions out of the provisions which were before him, Gen. xliii, 31, &c. Elkanah, Samuel’s father, who had two wives, distributed their portions to them separately, 1 Sam. i, 4, 5. In Homer, each guest has his little table apart; and the master of the feast distributes meat to each. We are assured that this is still practised in China; and that many in India never eat out of the same dish, nor on the same table, with another person, believing that they cannot do so without sin; and this, not only in their own country, but when travelling, and in foreign lands.

The ancient manners which we see in Homer we see likewise in Scripture, with regard to eating, drinking, and entertainments: we find great plenty, but little delicacy; and great respect and honour paid to the guests by serving them plentifully. Joseph sent his brother Benjamin a portion five times larger than those of his other brethren. Samuel set a whole quarter of a calf before Saul. The women did not appear at table in entertainments with the men: this would have been an indecency; as it is at this day throughout the east. The present Jews, before they sit down to table, carefully wash their hands: they speak of this ceremony as essential and obligatory. After meals they wash them again. When they sit down to table, the master of the house, or the chief person in the company, taking bread, breaks it, but does not wholly separate it; then, putting his hand on it, he recites this blessing: “Blessed be thou, O Lord our God, the King of the world, who producest the bread of the earth.” Those present answer, “Amen.” Having distributed the bread among the guests, he takes the vessel of wine in his right hand, saying, “Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the world, who hast produced the fruit of the vine.” They then repeat the twenty-third Psalm. Buxtorf, and Leo of Modena, who have given particular accounts of the Jewish ceremonies, differ in some circumstances: the reason is, Buxtorf wrote principally the ceremonies of the German Jews, and Leo, those of the Italian Jews. They take care that, after meals, there shall be a piece of bread remaining on the table; the master of the house orders a glass to be washed, fills it with wine, and, elevating it, says, “Let us bless Him of whose benefits we have been partaking:” the rest answer, “Blessed be He who has heaped his favours on us, and by his goodness has now fed us.” Then he recites a pretty long prayer, wherein he thanks God for his many benefits vouchsafed to Israel; beseeches him to pity Jerusalem and his temple, to restore the throne of David, to send Elias and the Messiah, to deliver them out of their long captivity, &c. All present answer, “Amen;” and then recite Psalm xxxiv, 9, 10. Then, giving the glass with the little wine in it to be drunk round, he drinks what is left, and the table is cleared. See BANQUETS.

Partaking of the benefits of Christ’s passion by faith is also called eating, because this is the support of our spiritual life, John vi, 53, 56. Hosea reproaches the priests of his time with eating the sins of the people, Hosea iv, 8; that is, feasting on their sin offerings, rather than reforming their manners. John the Baptist is said to have come “neither eating nor drinking,” Matt. xi, 18; that is, as other men did; for he lived in the wilderness, on locusts, wild honey, and water, Matt. iii, 4; Luke i, 15. This is expressed, in Luke vii, 33, by his neither eating “bread,” nor drinking “wine.” On the other hand, the Son of Man is said, in Matt. xi, 19, to have come “eating and drinking;” that is, as others did; and that too with all sorts of persons, Pharisees, publicans, and sinners.

EBAL, a celebrated mountain in the tribe of Ephraim, near Shechem, over against Mount Gerizim. These two mountains are within two hundred paces of each other, and separated by a deep valley, in which stood the town of Shechem. The two mountains are much alike in magnitude and form, being of a semi-circular figure, about half a league in length, and, on the sides nearest Shechem, nearly perpendicular. One of them is barren; the other, covered with a beautiful verdure. Moses commanded the Israelites, as soon as they should have passed the river Jordan, to go directly to Shechem, and divide the whole multitude into two bodies, each composed of six tribes; one company to be placed on Ebal, and the other on Gerizim. The six tribes that were on Gerizim were to pronounce blessings on those who should faithfully observe the law of the Lord, and the six others on Mount Ebal were to pronounce curses against those who should violate it, Deut. xi, 29, &c; xxvii, and xxviii; Joshua viii, 30, 31.

This consecration of the Hebrew commonwealth is thought to have been performed in the following manner: The heads of the first six tribes went up to the top of Mount Gerizim, and the heads of the other six tribes to the top of Mount Ebal. The priests, with the ark, and Joshua at the head of the elders of Israel, took their station in the middle of the valley which lies between the two mountains. The Levites ranged themselves in a circle about the ark; and the elders, with the people, placed themselves at the foot of the mountain, six tribes on a side. When they were thus disposed in order, the priests turned toward Mount Gerizim, on the top of which were the six heads of the six tribes who were at the foot of the same mountain, and pronounced, for example, these words:--“Blessed be the man that maketh not any graven images.” The six princes who were upon the top of the mountain, and the six tribes who were below at its foot, answered, “Amen.” Afterward, the priests, turning toward Mount Ebal, upon which were the princes of the other six tribes, cried, with a loud voice, “Cursed be the man that maketh any graven image;” and were answered by the princes opposite to them and their tribes, “Amen.” The Scripture, at first view, seems to intimate that there were six tribes upon one mountain, and six on the other; but beside that it is by no means probable that the tribes of the Israelites, who were so numerous, should be able to stand on the summits of these two mountains, it would not have been possible for them to have seen the ceremony, nor to have heard the blessings and curses in order to answer them. Moreover, the Hebrew particle, in the original, signifies, _near_, _over against_, as well as _at the top_, Joshua viii, 33. Accordingly, we may say, that neither Joshua, nor the priests or tribes, went up to the top of the mountains, but the heads only, who in their persons might represent all the tribes.

EBENEZER, the name of that field wherein the Israelites were defeated by the Philistines, when the ark of the Lord was taken, 1 Sam. iv, 1; also a memorial stone set up by Samuel to commemorate a victory over the Philistines. The word signifies _the stone of help_; and it was erected by the prophet, saying, “Hitherto the Lord hath helped us.”

EBIONITES, a sect of the first two or three centuries; but it is not certain whether they received their name from a leader of the name of Ebion, (whom Dr. Lardner considers as a disciple of Cerinthus,) or from the meaning of the Hebrew word _ebion_, which implies poverty; and if the latter, whether they assumed the name, as affecting to be poor, like the Founder of Christianity; or whether it was conferred on them by way of reproach, as being of the lower orders. The use of the term, also, according to Dr. Horsley, was various and indefinite. Sometimes it was the peculiar name of those sects that denied both the divinity of our Lord, and his miraculous conception. Then its meaning was extended, to take in another party; who admitted the miraculous conception of Jesus, but still denied his divinity, and questioned his previous existence. At last, it seems, the Nazarites, whose error was rather a superstitious severity in their practice, than any deficiency in their faith, were included by Origen in the infamy of the appellation. Dr. Priestley, claiming the Ebionites as Jewish Unitarians, considers the ancient Nazarenes, that is, the first Jewish converts, as the true Ebionites; these, he thinks, were called Nazarenes, from their attachment to Jesus of Nazareth; and Ebionites, from their poor and mean condition, just as some of the reformers were called Beghards, or beggars. The Doctor cites the authorities of Origen and Epiphanius, to prove that both these denominations related to the same people, differing only, like the Socinians, in receiving or rejecting the fact of the miraculous conception; and neither, as he assures us, were reckoned heretics by any writers of the two first centuries. To this Dr. Horsley replies, that both Jews and Heathens called the first Christians Nazarenes, in allusion to the mean and obscure birthplace of their Master, Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew ii, 23; Acts x, 38; but insists, and answers every pretended proof to the contrary, that the term Nazarenes was never applied to any distinct sect of Christians before the final destruction of Jerusalem by Adrian. Dr. Semler, a German writer, gives the following opinion: “Those who more rigidly maintained the Mosaic observances, and who were numerous in Palestine, are usually called Ebionites and Nasaræans. Some believe that they ought not to be reckoned heretics; others think that they were united in doctrine, differing only in name; others place them in the second century. It is of little consequence whether we distinguish or not the Nazarenes, or Nazaræans from the Ebionites. It is certain that both these classes were tenacious of the Mosaic ceremonies, and more inclined to the Jews than to the Gentiles, though they admitted the Messiahship of Jesus in a very low and Judaizing manner. The Ebionites held in execration the doctrine of the Apostle Paul.” Dr. J. Pye Smith, who quotes this passage from Dr. Semler, adds, “Such, it is apprehended, on grounds of reasonable probability, was the origin of Unitarianism; the child of Judaism misunderstood, and of Christianity imperfectly received.”

2. On this controversy great light has, however, been since thrown by Dr. Burton. It is well known to those who have studied the Unitarian controversy, that it has been often asserted that the Cerinthians and Ebionites were the teachers of genuine Christianity, and that the doctrine of Christ’s divinity, and of universal redemption through his blood, were the inventions of those who corrupted the preaching of the Apostles. If this were so, we must convict all the fathers, not merely of ignorance and mistake, but of deliberate and wilful falsehood. To suppose that the fathers of the second century were ignorant of what was genuine and what was false in Christianity, would be a bold hypothesis; but if Irenæus, the disciple of Polycarp, asserted, as a matter of fact, that St. John wrote his Gospel to refute the errors of Cerinthus, it is idle, or something worse, to say that Irenæus did not know for certain if the fact was really so. As far, then, as the testimony of the fathers is concerned, the Cerinthians and Ebionites were decidedly heretics. The Unitarians, on the other hand, maintain that the Ebionites were the true and genuine believers; and it is easy to see that the preference was given to these teachers, because they held that Jesus was born of human parents. Never, I conceive, was there a more unfortunate and fatal alliance formed than that between the Ebionites and modern Unitarians. We find the Ebionites referred to, as if they agreed in every point with the Socinian or Unitarian creed; and yet it may almost be asserted, that in not one single point do their sentiments exactly coincide. If a real Ebionite will declare himself, we are not afraid to meet him. Let him avow his faith; let him believe of Christ as Ebion or Cerinthus taught; let him adopt the ravings of the Gnostics; we shall then know with whom we have to combat; we may gird on the sword of Irenæus, and meet him in the field. But let him not select a few ingredients only from the poison; let him not take a part only of their infatuated system. If he will lean on that broken reed, let him talk no more of Ebion or Cerinthus only; but let him say boldly, either that the Gnostics agreed with the Apostles, or that the Gnostics preached the true Gospel, while the Apostles were in error.

3. We can hardly suppose the Unitarians to be ignorant that the Ebionites and Cerinthians were a branch of the Gnostics. If the fact be denied, the whole of this discussion might as well at once be closed. We know nothing of Cerinthus and Ebion, but from the writings of the fathers. If it had not been for them, we should never have known that these persons believed Jesus to be born of human parents: the same fathers unanimously add, that in this point they differed from the preceding Gnostics, though agreeing with them on other points. If we are to receive the testimony of the fathers in one particular, but to reject it in every other, I need not say that argument is useless. But the fact can never be denied nor evaded. The Cerinthians, to whom some Unitarians have appealed, did not ascribe the creation of the world to God, but to an inferior being. Like the rest of the Gnostics, who engrafted that philosophy on Judaism, the Cerinthians and Ebionites retained some of the Jewish ceremonies, though they rejected some of the Jewish Scriptures. Many of them taught that the restraints of morality were useless; and the Cerinthians, it is well known, promised to their followers a millennium of sensual indulgence. With respect to their notions concerning Christ, it is true that they believed Jesus to be born of human parents; and this fact is referred to, as if it proved the falsehood of what is called the miraculous conception of Jesus. But it is plain that this tenet is mentioned by the fathers, as being opposed to that of the other Gnostics, who held that the body of Jesus was an illusive phantom. Such had hitherto been the belief of all the Gnostics. But Cerinthus and Ebion, who were perhaps more rational in their speculations, and who lived after the publication of the three first Gospels, could not resist the evidence that Jesus was actually born, and that he had a real, substantial body. This is the meaning of the statement, that Cerinthus and Ebion believed Jesus to be born of human parents. It shows that they were not _Docetæ_. But because there were other Gnostics who were more irrational and visionary than themselves, we are not immediately to infer that their own notion concerning the birth of Christ was the true one. They believed, at least, many of them believed, that Jesus was born in the ordinary way; that Joseph was his parent as well as Mary. But they could hardly help believing so; for they agreed with all the Gnostics in thinking (though it might seem as if this point had been forgotten) that Jesus and Christ were separate persons: they believed, as I have already stated, that Christ descended upon Jesus at his baptism, and quitted him before his crucifixion. They were therefore almost compelled to believe that Jesus, who was wholly distinct from Christ, had nothing divine in his nature, and nothing miraculous in his birth; in the same manner that they believed that the death of Jesus, from whom Christ had then departed, was like the death of any ordinary mortal, and that no atonement was made by it. But are we on these grounds to reject the miraculous conception and the atonement of Christ? Or are the Unitarians to quote these Gnostics as holding the human nature of Jesus, and to forget that by Jesus they meant a person wholly different from Christ?

4. We are told, indeed, that the first part of St. Matthew’s Gospel is spurious, because the Ebionites rejected it. Undoubtedly they did. They read in it that Jesus Christ was born, not Jesus only; and that he was born of a virgin. They therefore rejected this part of St. Matthew’s Gospel; or rather, by mutilating and altering the whole of it, they composed a new gospel of their own to suit their purpose; and yet this is the only authority which is quoted for rejecting the commencement of St. Matthew’s Gospel. The fact, that some even of the Ebionites believed the miraculous conception, speaks infinitely more in favour of the genuineness of that part of the Gospel, and of the truth of the doctrine itself, than can be inferred on the contrary side from those who denied the doctrine, and mutilated the Gospel. Those other Ebionites appear in this respect to have agreed with the first Socinians, and to have held that Jesus was born of a virgin, though they did not believe in his preëxistence or divinity. But the miraculous conception was so entirely contrary to all preconceived opinions, and the more simple doctrine of the other Ebionites and Cerinthians was so much more suited to the Gnostic system, which separated Jesus from Christ, that the evidence must have been almost irresistible, which led one part of the Ebionites to embrace a doctrine contrary to all experience, contrary to the sentiments of their brethren, and hardly reconcilable with other parts of their own creed. The testimony, therefore, of these Ebionites, in favour of the miraculous conception, is stronger, perhaps, than even that of persons who received the whole of the Gospel, and departed in no points from the doctrine of the Apostles. If the Apostles had preached, according to the statement of the Unitarians, that Jesus Christ was a mere human being, born in the ordinary way, what could possibly have led the Gnostics to rank him immediately with their Æons, whom they believed to have been produced by God, and to have dwelt with him from endless ages in the pleroma? There literally was not one single heretic in the first century, who did not believe that Christ came down from heaven: they invented, it is true, various absurdities to account for his union with the man Jesus; but the fair and legitimate inference from this fact would be, that the Apostles preached that in some way or other the human nature was united to the divine. So far from the Socinian or Unitarian doctrine being supported by that of the Cerinthians and Ebionites, I have no hesitation in saying, that not one single person is recorded in the whole of the first century who ever imagined that Christ was a mere man. It has been observed, that one branch of the Ebionites resembled the first Socinians, that is, they believed in the miraculous conception of Jesus, though they denied his preëxistence; but this was because they held the common notion of the Gnostics, that Jesus and Christ were two separate persons; and they believed in the preëxistence and divine nature of Christ, which Socinus and his followers uniformly denied.

ECBATANA, a city of Media, which, according to Herodotus, was built by Dejoces, king of the Medes. It was situated on a gentle declivity, distant twelve stadia from Mount Orontes, and was in compass one hundred and fifty stadia, and, next to Nineveh and Babylon, was one of the strongest and most beautiful cities of the east. After the union of Media with Persia, it was the summer residence of the Persian kings. Sir R. K. Porter, in his Travels, says, “Having for a few moments gazed at the venerable mountain, (Orontes, at the foot of which Ecbatana was built,) and at the sad vacuum at its base; what had been Ecbatana, being now shrunk to comparative nothingness; I turned my eye on the still busy scene of life which occupied the adjacent country; the extensive plain of Hamadan, and its widely extending hills. On our right, the receding vale was varied, at short distances, with numberless castellated villages rising from amidst groves of the noblest trees; while the great plain itself stretched northward and eastward to such far remoteness, that its mountain boundaries appeared like clouds upon the horizon. This whole tract seemed one carpet of luxuriant verdure, studded with hamlets, and watered by beautiful rivulets. On the south-west, Orontes, or Elwund, (by whichever name we may designate this most towering division of the mountain,) presents itself, in all the stupendous grandeur of its fame and form. Near to its base, appear the dark coloured dwellings of Hamadan, crowded thickly on each other; while the gardens of the inhabitants with their connecting orchards and woods, fringe the entire slope of that part of the mountain.” “The site of the modern town, like that of the ancient, is on a gradual ascent, terminating near the foot of the eastern side of the mountain; but there all trace of its past appearance would cease, were it not for two or three considerable elevations, and overgrown irregularities on and near them, which may have been the walls of the royal fortress, with those of the palaces, temples, and theatres, seen no more. I passed one of these heights, standing to the south-west, as I entered the city, and observed that it bore many vestiges of having been strongly fortified. The sides and summit are covered with large remnants of ruined walls of a great thickness, and also of towers, the materials of which were sun-dried bricks. It has the name of the Inner Fortress, and certainly holds the most commanding station near the plain.” Of the interior of the city, the same author says, “The mud alleys, which now occupy the site of the ancient streets or squares, are narrow, interrupted by large holes or hollows in the way, and heaps of the fallen crumbled walls of deserted dwellings. A miserable bazaar or two are passed through in traversing the town; and large lonely spots are met with, marked by broken low mounds over older ruins; with here and there a few poplars, or willow trees, shadowing the border of a dirty stream, abandoned to the meanest uses; which, probably, flowed pellucid and admired, when these places were gardens, and the grass-grown heap some stately dwelling of Ecbatana. In one or two spots I observed square platforms, composed of large stones; the faces of many of which were chiselled all over into the finest arabesque fretwork, while others had, in addition, long inscriptions in the Arabic character. They had evidently been tomb-stones of the inhabitants, during the caliph rule in Persia. But when we compare relics of the seventh century, with the deep antiquity of the ruins on which they lie, these monumental remains seem but the register of yesterday.” Here is shown the tomb of Mordecai and Esther; as well as that of Avicenna, the celebrated Arabian physician. The sepulchre of the former stands near the centre of the city of Hamadan: the tombs are covered by a dome, on which is the following inscription in Hebrew: “This day, 15th of the month Adar, in the year 4474 from the creation of the world, was finished the building of this temple over the graves of Mordecai and Esther, by the hands of the good-hearted brothers, Elias and Samuel, the sons of the deceased Ismael of Kashan.” This inscription, the date of which proves the dome to have been built eleven hundred years, was sent by Sir Gore Ouseley to Sir John Malcolm, who has given it in his History of Persia; who also says that the tombs, which are of a black coloured wood, are evidently of very great antiquity, but in good preservation, as the wood has not perished, and the inscriptions are still very legible. Sir R. K. Porter has given a more particular description of this tomb. He says, “I accompanied the priest through the town, over much ruin and rubbish, to an enclosed piece of ground, rather more elevated than any in its immediate vicinity. In the centre was the Jewish tomb; a square building of brick, of a mosque-like form, with a rather elongated dome at the top. The whole seems in a very decaying state, falling fast to the mouldering condition of some wall fragments around, which, in former times, had been connected with, and extended the consequence of, the sacred enclosure. The door that admitted us into the tomb, is in the ancient sepulchral fashion of the country, very small; consisting of a small stone of great thickness, and turning on its own pivots from one side. Its key is always in possession of the head of the Jews resident at Hamadan.” “On passing through the little portal, which we did in an almost doubled position, we entered a small arched chamber, in which are seen the graves of several rabbies: probably, one may cover the remains of the pious Ismael; and, not unlikely, the others may contain the bodies of the first rebuilders after the sacrilegious destruction by Timour. Having ‘trod lightly by their graves,’ a second door of such very confined dimensions presented itself at the end of this vestibule, we were constrained to enter it on our hands and knees, and then standing up, we found ourselves in a larger chamber, to which appertained the dome. Immediately under its concave, stand two sarcophagi, made of a very dark wood, carved with great intricacy of pattern, and richness of twisted ornament, with a line of inscription in Hebrew running round the upper ledge of each. Many other inscriptions, in the same language, are cut on the walls; while one of the oldest antiquity, engraved on a slab of white marble, is let into the wall itself.” This inscription is as follows: “Mordecai, beloved and honoured by a king, was great and good. His garments were as those of a sovereign. Ahasuerus covered him with this rich dress, and also placed a golden chain around his neck. The city of Susa rejoiced at his honours, and his high fortune became the glory of the Jews.” The inscription which encompasses the sarcophagus of Mordecai, is to this effect: “It is said by David, Preserve me, O God! I am now in thy presence. I have cried at the gate of heaven, that thou art my God; and what goodness I have received from thee, O Lord! Those whose bodies are now beneath in this earth, when animated by thy mercy were great; and whatever happiness was bestowed upon them in this world, came from thee, O God! Their grief and sufferings were many, at the first; but they became happy, because they always called upon thy holy name in their miseries. Thou liftedst me up, and I became powerful. Thine enemies sought to destroy me, in the early times of my life; but the shadow of thy hand was upon me, and covered me, as a tent, from their wicked purposes!--MORDECAI.” The following is the corresponding inscription on the sarcophagus of Esther: “I praise thee, O God, that thou hast created me! I know that my sins merit punishment, yet I hope for mercy at thy hands; for whenever I call upon thee, thou art with me; thy holy presence secures me from all evil. My heart is at ease, and my fear of thee increases. My life became, through thy goodness, at the last, full of peace. O God, do not shut my soul out from thy divine presence! Those whom thou lovest, never feel the torments of hell. Lead me, O merciful Father, to the life of life; that I may be filled with the heavenly fruits of paradise!--ESTHER.” The Jews at Hamadan have no tradition of the cause of Esther and Mordecai having been interred at that place; but however that might be, there are sufficient reasons for believing the validity of their interment in this spot. The strongest evidence we can have of the truth of any historical fact, is, its commemoration by an annual festival. It is well known, that several important events in Jewish history are thus celebrated; and among the rest, the feast of Purim is kept on the 13th and 14th of the month Adar, to commemorate the deliverance obtained by the Jews, at the intercession of Esther, from the general massacre ordered by Ahasuerus, and the slaughter they were permitted to make of their enemies. Now on this same festival, in the same day and month, Jewish pilgrims resort from all quarters to the sepulchre of Mordecai and Esther; and have done so for centuries,--a strong presumptive proof that the tradition of their burial in this place rests on some authentic foundation.

ECCLESIASTES, a canonical book of the Old Testament, of which Solomon was the author, as appears from the first sentence. The design of this book is to show the vanity of all sublunary things; and from a review of the whole, the author draws this pertinent conclusion, “Fear God, and keep his commandments, for this is the whole of man;”--his whole wisdom, interest, and happiness, as well as his whole duty. Ecclesiastes, according to a modern author, is a dialogue, in which a man of piety disputes with a libertine who favoured the opinion of the Sadducees. His reason is, that there are passages in it which seem to contradict each other, and could not, he thinks, proceed from the same person. But this may be accounted for by supposing that it was Solomon’s method to propose the objections of infidels and sensualists, and then to reply to them.

ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY, the rules by which churches are governed, as to their spiritual concerns. The reformers having renounced the pope as antichrist, and having laid it down as their fundamental principle, that Scripture is the only rule of faith, and that it is the privilege of every man to interpret it according to his own judgment, had to consider in what manner the churches which they had formed were to be regulated; and there soon arose among them upon this point diversity of sentiment. Melancthon and the earliest reformers viewed with veneration the hierarchy which had so long subsisted, as also many of the ceremonies which for ages had been observed; and they expressed their readiness to continue that distinction of pastors which their researches into the history of the church had enabled them to trace back to the early ages of Christianity. But while they declared in favour of this form of ecclesiastical polity, they did so, not upon the ground that it was of divine institution, or positively required by the author of Christianity as inseparable from a church; but on the ground, that taking into estimation every thing connected with it, it appeared to them eminently adapted to carry into effect that renovation of piety, and that religious influence, which they were so eager to promote. They thus made ecclesiastical polity a matter of expediency, or of prudential regulation; the one thing in their view, binding upon all Christians, being to strengthen the practical power of religion. That this is a just representation of the state of opinion among the first Protestants, will be placed beyond a doubt by a few quotations from the confession of Augsburg, and from the works of some of the most eminent divines who then flourished. Speaking of this subject, the compilers of the confession declare, “that they were most desirous to preserve the ecclesiastical polity, and those degrees in the church which had been introduced by human authority, knowing that, for wise and good purposes, the discipline, as described in the canons, had been introduced by the fathers.” “We wish,” they add, “to testify that we would willingly preserve the ecclesiastical and canonical polity, if the bishops would cease to act with cruelty against our churches.” And once again they remark, that they had often declared that they venerated not only the ecclesiastical power which was instituted in the Gospel, but that they approved of the ecclesiastical polity which had subsisted, and wished, as much as was in their power, to preserve it. It is quite plain from these passages, that the framers of that confession, and those who adhered to it as the standard of their faith, viewed ecclesiastical polity as a matter of human appointment; and that, although they venerated that form of it which had long existed, they looked upon themselves as at liberty, under peculiar circumstances, to depart from it. The truth, accordingly, is, that a great part of the Lutheran churches, as we shall afterward find, did introduce many deviations from that model for which their founders had expressed respect and admiration; although episcopacy was in several places continued.

2. In consequence, however, of the exertions of Calvin, what were denominated the reformed churches deemed it expedient wholly to change this form of polity, and to introduce again the equality among pastors which had existed in the primitive times. That celebrated theologian, resting upon the undisputed fact, that in the Apostolic age no distinction subsisted between bishops and presbyters, thought himself at liberty to frame a system of polity upon this principle, persuaded that, by doing so, he would most effectually guard against those abuses that had given rise to the Papal tyranny which Protestants had abjured. He accordingly introduced his scheme where he had influence to do so; and he employed all the vigour of his talents in pressing upon distant churches the propriety of regulating, in conformity with his sentiments, their ecclesiastical government. But, while he was firmly persuaded that an equality among pastors was agreeable to the Apostolic practice, he has shown that he did not conceive this equality to be so absolutely required by Scripture, that there could in no case be a departure from it. He was, in fact, convinced that all the purposes of religion might be accomplished under a form of polity in which it was not recognised: “Wherever,” he says, “the preaching of the Gospel is heard with reverence, and the sacraments are not neglected, there at that time there is a church.” Speaking of faithful pastors, he describes them to be “those who by the doctrine of Christ lead men to true piety, who properly administer the sacred mysteries, and who preserve and exercise right discipline.” In tracing the progress of the hierarchy, he observes, that “those to whom the office of teaching was assigned were denominated presbyters; that to avoid the dissensions often arising among equals, they chose one of their number to preside, to whom the title of bishop was exclusively given; and that the practice, as the ancients admitted, was introduced by human consent, from the necessity of the times.” That this exaltation of the bishop, and, of course, this departure from parity, did not, in his estimation, render the church unchristian, is apparent from what he says of it after the change was introduced: “Such was the severity of these times, that all the ministers were led to discharge their duty as the Lord required of them.” Even after archbishops and patriarchs had arisen, he merely says, in recording their introduction, “This arrangement was calculated to preserve discipline.”

3. What Calvin thus taught in his “Institutes,” he confirmed in many of the interesting letters which he wrote to various eminent persons. In these letters he speaks with the highest respect of the church of England, where the distinction of clerical orders was preserved. He corresponds with the highest dignitaries of that church in a style which he assuredly would not have adopted, had he considered them as upholding an antichristian polity; and he repeatedly avows the principle, that, in regulating the government of the church, attention must be paid to the circumstances in which its members were placed. Beza, who was warmly attached to presbytery, and who upon every occasion, strenuously defended it, still admits that the human order of episcopacy was useful, as long as the bishops were good; and he professes all reverence for those modern bishops who strive to imitate the primitive ones in the reformation of the church according to the word of God: adding that it was a calumny against him, and those who entertained his sentiments, to affirm, as some had done, that they wished to prescribe their form of government to all other churches. In the excellent letter which he addressed to Grindal, bishop of London, and in which he pleads the cause of those ministers who scrupled to use the ceremonies which their brethren approved, he bears his testimony to the conformity of the church of England in doctrine with his church, expresses himself with the highest respect of the prelate to whom he was writing, and concludes by asking his prayers in his own behalf, and in that of the church of Geneva; all of which is quite inconsistent with the tenet, that presbytery is absolutely prescribed by divine authority.

4. The same general principle was avowed by the most eminent English divines. Cranmer explicitly declared, that bishops and priests were of the same order at the commencement of Christianity; and this was the opinion of several of his distinguished contemporaries. Holding this maxim, their support of episcopacy must have proceeded from views of expediency, or, in some instances, from a conviction which prevailed very generally at this early period, that it belonged to the supreme civil magistrate to regulate the spiritual no less than the political government; an idea involving in it that no one form of ecclesiastical polity is of divine institution. At a later period, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, we find the same conviction, that it was no violation of Christianity to choose different modes of administering the church. Archbishop Whitgift, who distinguished himself by the zeal with which he supported the English hierarchy, frequently maintains, that the form of discipline is not particularly, and by name, set down in Scripture; and he also plainly asserts, “that no form of church government is, by the Scriptures, prescribed or commanded to the church of God.” This principle is admirably illustrated and confirmed by the venerable Hooker, in the third book of his work on ecclesiastical polity; and another divine of the English church, who lived about the same period, has laid down what he conceives to be an unquestionable position, “that all churches have not the same form of discipline; neither is it necessary that they should, because it cannot be proved that any particular form of church government is enjoined by the word of God.” We have, indeed, a succession of testimonies from the introduction of the reformation down through the reign of Elizabeth,--testimonies given by the primates, and bishops, and theologians, who have been venerated as the luminaries of the church of England, that the divine right or institution of episcopacy constituted no part of their faith; and this is confirmed by their correspondence with reformed divines, who did not live under the episcopal model, but who, notwithstanding, were often consulted as to the ecclesiastical arrangements which the convocation should adopt. The same general sentiment is to be traced in those churches which had reverted to the primitive equality among the ministers of Christ. In the second Helvetic confession, which was approved by many churches, it is taught, that bishops and presbyters in the beginning governed the church with equal power, none exalting himself above another; the inequality which soon was introduced originating from the desire of preserving order. Various passages from Cyprian and Jerom are quoted in confirmation of this; and the article thus concludes: “Wherefore no one can be lawfully hindered from returning to the ancient constitution of the church of God, and to adopt it in preference to what custom has introduced.” Had the compilers believed that this ancient constitution was of divine obligation, they would have expressed themselves much more strongly with respect to it; and instead of representing the return to it as what ought not to be hindered, they would have enjoined it, as what it was a violation of the law of God to neglect.

5. The reformation in Scotland, conducted by Knox, who had spent a considerable part of his life at Geneva, and who had imbibed the opinions of Calvin, proceeded upon those views of polity which that reformer had adopted. Still, however, he authorized a modification of these opinions, accommodated to the state of his native country; for although the title of bishop was not used, superintendents, with powers little inferior to those committed to prelates in England, were sanctioned by the first Book of Discipline; and these superintendents were classed, in the acts of different general assemblies, among the necessary ministers of the church. The necessity must have arisen out of the circumstances of the period when the book was framed; for the polity which it prescribed was said to be only for a time; and the office of superintendent, as has been strenuously urged by some of the most zealous defenders of presbytery, was not intended to be permanent. The Lutheran church, with the exception of those branches of it established in Denmark and Sweden, has adopted a kind of intermediate constitution between episcopacy and presbytery. While it holds that there is no divine law creating a distinction among ministers, it yet contends that such a distinction is on many accounts expedient; and accordingly a diversity in point of rank and privileges has been universally introduced, approaching in different places, more or less, to the hierarchy which subsisted before the reformation. But, although it has thus regulated its own practice, it unambiguously admits, that as the Gospel is silent as to any particular form of polity, different forms may be chosen, without any breach of Christian union.