a he-goat, a she-goat, or kid, Levit. xxii. 24. 3. Of the sheep kind; a ewe, ram, or lamb. When it is said sheep are offered, rams are chiefly meant, especially in burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin; for as to peace-offerings, or sacrifices of pure devotion, a female might be sometimes offered, provided it was pure, and without blemish, Levit. iii. 1. Besides these three sorts of animals used in sacrifices, many others might be eaten, wild or tame; as the stag, the roe-buck, and in general all that have cloven feet, or that chew the cud, Levit. ix. 2, 3, &c. All that have not cloven hoofs, and do not chew the cud, were esteemed impure, and could neither be offered nor eaten. The fat of all sorts of animals sacrificed was forbidden to be eaten. The blood of all kinds of animals generally, and in all cases, was prohibited on pain of death, Levit. iii. 17; vii. 23-27. Neither did the Israelites eat animals which had been taken and touched by a devouring or impure beast, as a dog, a wolf, a boar, &c., Exodus xxii. 3.; nor of any animal that died of itself. Whoever touched its carcase was impure until the evening; and till that time, and before he had washed his clothes, he did not return to the company of other Jews, Levit. xi. 39, 40; xvii. 15; xxii. 8. Fish that had neither fins nor scales were unclean, Levit. xi. 10. Birds which walk on the ground with four feet, as bats, and flies that have many feet, were impure. The law, however, excepts locusts, which have their hind feet higher than those before, and rather leap than walk. These were clean, and might be eaten, Levit. xi. 21, 22, as they still are in Palestine. The distinction between clean and unclean animals has been variously accounted for. Some have thought it symbolical, intended to teach the avoidance of those evil qualities for which the unclean animals were remarkable; others, that, in order that the Hebrews might be preserved from idolatry, they were commanded to kill and eat many animals which were sacred among the Egyptians, and were taught to look with abhorrence upon others which they reverenced. Others have found a reason in the unwholesomeness of the flesh of the creatures pronounced by the law to be unclean, so that they resolve the whole into a sanative regulation. But it is not to be forgotten that this division of animals into clean and unclean existed both before the law of Moses, and even prior to the flood. The foundation of it was therefore clearly sacrificial; for before the deluge it could not have reference to health, since animal food was not allowed to man prior to the deluge; and as no other ground for the distinction appears, except that of sacrifice, it must therefore have had reference to the selection of victims to be solemnly offered to God, as a part of worship, and as the means of drawing near to him by expiatory rites for the forgiveness of sins. Some, it is true, have regarded this distinction of clean and unclean beasts as used by Moses by way of prolepsis, or anticipation, a notion which, if it could not be refuted by the context, would be perfectly arbitrary. Not only are the beasts, which Noah was to receive, spoken of as clean and unclean; but it will be noticed, that, in the command to take them into the ark, a difference is made in the number to be preserved, the clean being to be received by sevens, and the unclean by two of a kind. This shows that this distinction among beasts had been established in the time of Noah; and thus the assumption of a prolepsis is refuted. The critical attempts which have been made to show that animals were allowed to man for food, previous to the flood, have wholly failed. A second argument is furnished by the prohibition of blood for food, after animals had been granted to man for his sustenance along with the "herb of the field." This prohibition is repeated by Moses to the Israelites, with this explanation :—“ I have given it upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls." From this it has indeed been argued, that the doctrine of the atoning power of blood was new, and was then, for the first time, announced by Moses, or the same reason for the prohibition would have been given to Noah. To this we may reply, 1. That unless the same be supposed as the ground of the prohibition of blood to Noah, as that given by Moses to the Jews, no reason at all can be conceived for this restraint being put upon the appetite of mankind from Noah to Moses. 2. That it is a mistake to suppose, that the declaration of Moses to the Jews, that God had 'given them the blood for an atonement," is an additional reason for the interdict, not to be found in the original prohibition to Noah. The whole passage in Levit. xvii. is, "And thou shalt say to them, Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood, I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and I will cut him off from among his people: FOR THE LIFE of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it upon the altar, to make atonement for your souls: For it is the BLOOD (or LIFE) that maketh atonement for the soul." The great reason, then, of the prohibition of blood is, that it is the LIFE; and what follows respecting atonement is exegetical of this reason; the life is in the blood, and the blood or life is given as an atonement. Now, by turning to the original prohibition in Genesis, we find that precisely the same reason is given: "But the flesh with the blood, which is the life thereof, shall ye not eat." The reason, then, being the same, the question is, whether the exegesis added by Moses must not necessarily be understood in the general reason given for the restraint to Noah. Blood is prohibited for this cause, that it is the life; and Moses adds, that it is "the blood," or üife, “which makes atonement." Let any one attempt to discover any cause for the prohibition of blood to Noah, in the mere circumstance that it is "the life," and he will find it impossible. It is no reason at all, moral or instituted, except that as it was life substituted for life, the life of the animal in sacrifice for the life of man, and that it had a sacred appropriation. The manner, too, in which Moses introduces the subject is indicative that, although he was renewing a prohibition, he was not publishing a new doctrine;" he does not teach his people that God had then given, or appointed, blood to make atonement; but he prohibits them from eating it, because he had made this appointment, without reference to time, and as a subject with which they were familiar. Because the blood was the life, it was sprinkled upon, and poured out at, the altar and we have in the sacrifice of the paschal lamb, and the sprinkling of its blood, a sufficient proof, that, before the giving of the law, not only was blood not eaten, but was appropriated to a sacred sacrificial purpose. Nor was this confined to the Jews; it was customary with the Romans and Greeks, who, in like manner, poured out and sprinkled the blood of victims at their altars, a rite derived, probably, from the Egyptians, as they derived it, not from Moses, but from the sons of Noah. notion, indeed, that the blood of the victims was peculiarly sacred to the gods, is impressed upon all ancient pagan mythology. : The If, therefore, the distinction of animals into clean and unclean existed before the flood, and was founded upon the practice of animal sacrifice, we have not only a proof of the antiquity of that practice, but that it was of divine institution and appointment, since almighty God gave laws for its right and acceptable performance. Still further, if animal sacrifice was of divine appointment, it must be concluded to be typical only, and designed to teach the great doctrine of moral atonement, and to direct faith to the only true sacrifice which could take away the sins of men ;-"the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world," the victim "without spot," who suffered the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God. -See SACRIFICES. ANISE, an annual umbelliferous plant, the seeds of which have an aromatic smell, a pleasant warm taste, and a carminative quality. But by ǎvnov, Matt. xxiii. 23, the dill is meant. Our translators seem to have been first misled by a resemblance of the sound. No other versions have fallen into the mistake. The Greek of anise is avσov; but of dill, άνηθον. ANNA, the daughter of Phanuel, a prophetess and widow, of the tribe of Asher, Luke ii. 36, 37. She was married early, and had lived only seven years with her husband. Being then disengaged from the ties of mar riage, she thought only of pleasing the Lord; and continued without ceasing in the temple, serving God night and day, with fasting and prayer, as the evangelist expresses it. However, her serving God at the temple night and day, says Dr. Prideaux, is to be understood no otherwise than that she constantly attended the morning and evening sacrifice at the temple; and then with great devotion offered up her prayers to God; the time of morning and evening sacrifice being the most solemn time of prayer among the Jews, and the temple the most solemn place for this devotion. Anna was fourscore years of age when the holy virgin came to present Jesus in the temple; and, entering accidentally, while Simeon was pronouncing his thanksgiving, she likewise began to praise God, and to speak of the Messiah to all those who waited for redemption in Jerusalem. We know nothing more either of the life or death of this holy woman. ANNAS, or ANANUS, as Josephus calls him, was the son of Seth, and High Priest of the Jews. He succeeded Joazar, the son of Simon, enjoyed the high-priesthood eleven years, and was succeeded by Ishmael, the son of Phabi. After he was deposed, he still preserved the title of High Priest, and had a great share in the management of public affairs. He is called High Priest in conjunction with Caiaphas, when John the Baptist entered upon the exercise of his mission; though Calmet thinks that at that time he did not, strictly speaking, possess or officiate in that character, Luke iii. 2. On the contrary, Macknight and some others are of opinion, that at this time Caiaphas was only the deputy of Annas. He was father-in-law to Caiaphas; and Jesus Christ was carried before him, directly after his seizure in the garden of Olives, John xviii. 13. Josephus remarks, that Annas was considered as one of the happiest men of his nation, for five of his sons were High Priests, and he himself possessed that great dignity many years. This was an instance of good fortune, which, till that time, had happened to no person. ANOINT, to pour oil upon, Gen. xxviii. 18; xxxi. 13. The setting up of a stone and anointing it by Jacob, as here recorded, in grateful memory of his celestial vision, probably became the occasion of idolatry in succeeding ages, and gave rise to the erection of temples composed of shapeless masses of unhewn stone, of which so many astonishing remains are scattered up and down the Asiatic and the European world. Under the law persons and things set apart for sacred purposes were anointed with the holy oil; which appears to have been a typical representation of the communication of the Holy Ghost to Christ and to his church. See Exod. xxviii., xxix. Hence the Holy Spirit is called an unction or anointing, 1 John ii. 20, 27; and our Lord is called the "Messiah," or "Anointed One," to denote his being called to the offices of mediator, prophet, priest, and king, to all of which he was consecrated by the anointing of the Holy Ghost, Matt. iii. 16, 17. When we hear of the anointing of the Jewish kings, we are to understand by it the same as their inauguration; inasmuch as anointing was the principal ceremony on such an occasion, 2 Sam. ii. 4; v. 3. As far as we are informed, however, unction, as a sign of investiture with the royal authority, was bestowed only upon Saul and David, and subsequently upon Solomon and Joash, who ascended the throne under such circumstances, that there was danger of their right to the succession being forcibly disputed, 1 Sam. x. 24; 2 Sam. ii. 4; v. 1-3; 1 Chron. xi. 1, 2; 2 Kings xi. 12—20; 2 Chron. xxiii. 1-21. The ceremony of regal anointing needed not to be repeated in every instance of succession to the throne, because the unction which the first one who held the sceptre in any particular line of princes had received was supposed to suffice for the succeeding incumbents in the same descent. In the kingdom of Israel, those who were inducted into the royal office appear to have been inaugurated with some additional ceremonies, 2 Kings ix. 13. The private anointings which we learn to have been performed by the prophets, 2 Kings ix. 3, comp. 1 Sam. x. 1; xvi. 1—13, were only prophetic symbols or intimations that the persons who were thus anointed should eventually receive the kingdom. The holy anointing oil which was made by Moses, Exod. xxx. 22-33, for the maintaining and consecrating of the king, the High Priest, and all the sacred vessels made use of in the house of God, was one of those things, as Dr. Prideaux observes, which was wanting the second temple. The oil made and consecrated for this use was commanded to be kept by the children of Israel, throughout their generations, and therefore it was laid up in the most holy place of the tabernacle and the first temple. ANOMŒEANS, the name by which the pure Arians were called in the fourth century, in contradistinction to the Semi-Arians. The word is formed from the Greek avóμotos, different. For the pure Arians asserted, that the Son was of a nature different from, and in nothing like, that of the Father; whereas the Semi-Arians acknowledged a likeness of nature in the Son, at the same time that they denied, with the pure Arians, the consubstantiality of the Word. The Semi-Arians condemned the Anomoans in the council of Seleucia; and the Anomoans, in their turn, condemned the Semi-Arians in the councils of Constantinople and Antioch, erasing the word like out of the formula of Rimini and Constantinople. ANSWER. Beside the common usage of this word, in the sense of a reply, it has other significations. Moses, having composed a thanksgiving, after the passage of the Red Sea, Miriam, it is said, answered, "Sing ye to the Lord," &c., meaning, that Moses, with the men on one side, and Miriam, with the women on the other side, sung the same song, as it were, in two choruses, or divisions; of which one answered the other. Numb. xxi. 17, "Then Israel sang this song, Spring up, O well, answer unto it;" that is, sing responsively, one side (or choir) singing first, and then the other. 1 Sam. xxix. 5, "Is not this David, of whom they sung one to another in dances, saying, Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands?" They sung this song to his honour in distinct choruses. This word is taken likewise for, to accuse or to defend any one, judicially. Gen. xxx. 33, “My righteousness shall answer for me;" it shall be my advocate before thee. Deut. xxxi. 21, "The song which thou shalt compose and teach them shall testify (answer) against them as a witness." Isaiah says, "The show of their countenance will testify (answer) against them;" their impudence will be like a witness and an accuser. Hosea v. 5, "The pride of Israel doth testify (answer) to his face." To answer, is likewise taken in a bad sense; as when it is said that a son answers his father insolently, or a servant his master. Rom. ix. 20, "Who art thou that repliest against God?" that is, to contest or debate with him._ John xviii. 22, "Answerest thou the High Priest so?" St. Paul declares that he "had in himself the answer (or sentence) of death;" 2 Cor. i. 9; like a man who has had notice of condemnation, he had a certain assurance of dying. To answer is also used in scripture for the commencement of a discourse, when no reply to any question or objection is intended. This mode of speaking is often used by the evangelists, " And Jesus answered and said." It is a Hebrew idiom. ANT,, in the Turkish and Arabic, neml, Prov. vi. 6; xxx. 25. It is a little insect, famous from all antiquity for its social habits, its economy, unwearied industry, and prudent foresight. It has afforded a pattern of commendable frugality to the profuse, and of unceasing diligence to the slothful. Solomon calls the ants exceeding wise; for though a race not strong, yet they prepare their meat in the summer." He therefore sends the sluggard to these little creatures, to learn wisdom, foresight, care, and diligence. "Go to the ant; learn of its ways, be wise: That the ant hoarded up grains of corn against winter for its sustenance, was very generally believed by the ancients, though modern naturalists seem to question the fact. Thus Horace says, "For thus the little ant (to human lore No mean example) forms her frugal store, Gather'd with mighty toil on every side, Nor ignorant nor careless to provide For future want; yet, when the stars appear That darkly sadden the declining year, No more she comes abroad, but wisely lives On the fair stores industrious summer gives." Bochart has quoted Pliny, Lucian, Ælian, Zoroaster, Origen, Basil, and Epiphanius, the Jewish rabbins and the Arabian naturalists, to prove that ants cut off the heads of grain, to prevent their germinating; and it is observable that the Hebrew name of the insect is derived from the verb 5, which signifies to cut off, and is used for cutting off ears of corn, Job xxiv. 24. The following remarks are from "the Introduction to Entomology," by Kirby and Spence : "Till the manners of exotic ants are more accurately explored, it would be rash to affirm that no ants have magazines of provisions; for, although, during the cold of our winters in this country, they remain in a state of torpidity, and have no need of food, yet in warmer regions, during the rainy seasons, when they are probably confined to their nests, a store of provisions may be necessary for them. Even in northern climates, against wet seasons, they may provide in this way for their sustenance and that of the young brood, which, as Mr. Smeatham observes, are very voracious, and cannot bear to be long deprived of their food; else why do ants carry worms, living insects, and many other such things, into their nests? Solomon's lesson to the sluggard has been generally adduced as a strong confirmation of the ancient opinion: it can, however, only relate to the species of a warm climate, the habits of which are probably different from those of a cold one; so that his words, as commonly interpreted, may be perfectly correct and consistent with nature, and yet be not at all applicable to the species that are indigenous to Europe." from The ant, according to the royal preacher, is one of those things which are little upon the earth, but exceeding wise. The superior wisdom of the ant has been recognised by many writers. Horace, in the passage which the preceding quotation is taken, praises its sagacity; Virgil celebrates its foresight, in providing for the wants and infirmities of old age, while it is young and vigorous : atque inopi metuens formica senectæ. And we learn from Hesiod, that among the earliest Greeks it was called Idris, that is, wise, because it foresaw the coming storm, and the inauspicious day, and collected its Cicero believed that the ant is not store. only furnished with senses, but also with mind, reason and memory :-In formica non modo sensus sed etiam mens, ratio, memoria. The union of so many noble qualities in so small a corpuscle, is indeed one of the most remarkable phenomena in the works of nature. ANTHROPOMORPHITES, a sect of ancient heretics, who were so denominated from two Greek words ἄνθρωπος, man, and μόρφη, shape. They understood every thing spoken in scripture in a literal sense, and particularly that passage of Genesis in which it is said, "God made man after his own image." Hence they maintained, that God had a human shape. ANTHROPOPATHY, a metaphor by which things belonging to creatures and especially to man are ascribed to God. Instances of this abound in the scriptures, by which they adapt themselves to human modes of speaking, and to the limited capacities of men. These anthropopathies we must however interpret in a manner suitable to the the members of a human body are ascribed to majesty of the divine nature. Thus, when God, we must understand by them those perfections of which such members in us are the instruments. The eye, for instance, represents God's knowledge and watchful care; the arm, his power and strength; the ears, the regard he pays to prayer and to the cry of oppression and misery; &c. Farther, when human affections are attributed to God, we must so interpret them as to imply no imperfection, such as perturbed feeling in him. When God is said to repent, the antecedent, by a a frequent figure of speech, is put for the consequent; and in this case we are to understand an altered mode of proceeding on the part of God, which in man is the effect of repenting. In ANTICHRIST, compounded of àvrì, contra, against, and Xpisòs, Christ, in a general sense, denotes an adversary of Christ, or one who denies that the Messiah is come. this sense, Jews, infidels, &c., may be said to be antichrists. neral sense of it, is also applicable to any The epithet, in the gepower or person acting in direct opposition to Christ or his doctrine. Its particular meaning is to be collected from those passages of scripture in which it occurs. Accordingly, it may either signify one who assumes the place and office of Christ, or one who maintains a direct enmity and opposition to him. christ as a single man; though they also The Fathers all speak of antiassure us, that he is to have divers precursors, or forerunners. Yet many protestant writers apply to the Romish church, and the pope who is at the head of it, the several marks and signatures of antichrist enumerated in the Apocalypse, which would imply antichrist to be, not a single person, but a corrupt society, or a long series of persecuting pontiffs, or rather, a certain power and government, that may be held for many generations, by a number of individuals succeeding one another. The antichrist mentioned by the apostle John, 1 Epistle ii. 18, and more particularly described in the book of Revelation, seems evidently to be the same with the man of sin, &c., characterized by St. Paul in his second epistle to the Thessalonians, chap. ii.; and the whole description literally applies to the papal power. A late writer, after collecting the principal prophecies relating to antichrist, infers from them that a power, sometimes represented as the little horn, the man of sin, the antichrist, the beast, the harlot, the star falling from heaven, the false prophet, the dragon, or as the operation of false teachers, was to be expected to arise in the Christian world to persecute and oppress, and delude the disciples of Christ, corrupt the doctrine of the primitive church, enact new laws, and establish its dominion over the minds of mankind. He then proceeds to show, from the application of prophecy to history, and to the remarkable train of events that are now passing in the world, how exactly Popery, Mahometanism, and Infidelity, correspond with the character given in scripture of the power of antichrist, which was to prevail a certain time for the especial trial and punishment of the corrupted church of Christ. Upon this system, the different opinions of the protestants and papists, concerning the power of Antichrist, derived from partial views of the subject, are not wholly incompatible with each other. With respect to the commonly received opinion, that the Church of Rome is Antichrist, Mede and Newton, Daubuz and Clarke, Lowman and Hurd, Jurieu, Vitringa, and many other members of the protestant churches who have written upon the subject, concur in maintaining, that the prophecies of Daniel, St. Paul and St. John, point directly to this church. This was likewise the opinion of the first Reformers; and it was the prevalent opinion of Christians, in the earliest ages, that antichrist would appear soon after the fall of the Roman empire. Gregory the Great, in the sixth century, applied the prophecies concerning the beast in the Revelation, the man of sin, and the apostasy from the faith mentioned by St. Paul, to him who should presume to claim the title of universal priest, or universal bishop, in the Christian church; and yet his immediate successor, Boniface III., received from the tyrant Phocas the precise title which Gregory had thus censured. At the synod of Rheims, held in the tenth century, Arnulphus, bishop of Orleans, appealed to the whole council, whether the bishop of Rome was not the antichrist of St. Paul, sitting in the temple of God," and perfectly corresponding with the description of him given by St. Paul. In the eleventh century, all the characters of antichrist seemed to be so united in the person af Pope Hildebrand, who took the name of Gregory VIL, that Johannes Aventinus, a 66 Romish historian, speaks of it as a subject in which the generality of fair, candid, and ingenuous writers agreed, that at that time began the reign of antichrist. And the Albigenses and Waldenses, who may be called the protestants of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, expressly asserted in their declarations of faith, that the church of Rome was the whore of Babylon. The papists imagine they view in the prophetical picture of antichrist, imperial Rome, elated by her victories, exulting in her sensuality and her spoils, polluted by idolatry, persecuting the people of God, and finally falling like the first Babylon; whilst a new and holy city, represented by their own communion, filled with the spotless votaries of the Christian faith, rises out of its ruins, and the victory of the cross is completed over the temples of paganism. This scheme has had its able advocates, at the head of whom may be placed Bossuet, bishop of Meaux, Grotius, and Hammond. Some writers have maintained, that Caligula was antichrist; and others have asserted the same of Nero. But in order to establish the resemblance, they violate the order of time, disregard the opinions of the primitive Christians, and overlook the appropriate descriptions of the apostles. After the point had been maturely debated at the council of Gap, held in 1603, a resolution was taken thereupon to insert an article in the confession of faith, whereby the pope is formally declared to be antichrist. Pope Clement VIII. was stung with this decision; and even king Henry ÏV. of France was not a little mortified, to be thus declared, as he said, an imp of antichrist. In the book of Daniel it is foretold, that this power should exercise dominion until a time and times, and the dividing of time, Dan. vii. 25. This expression is generally admitted to denote 1260 years. The papal power was completely established in the year 755, when it obtained the exarchate of Ravenna. Some, however, date the rise of antichrist in the year of Christ 606; and Mede places it in 456. If the rise of antichrist be not reckoned till he was possessed of secular authority, his fall will happen when this power shall be taken away. If his rise began, according to Mede in 456, he must have fallen in 1716; if in 606, it must be in 1866; if in 755, in 2015. If, however, we use prophetical years, consisting of 360 days, and date the rise of antichrist in the year 755, his fall will happen in the year of Christ 2000. Every thing however in the state of the world betokens a speedy overthrow of the papal and Mahometan powers, both of which have indeed been already greatly weakened. ANTI-LIBÁNUS. The Greeks give this name to that chain of mountains east of Libanus, which, properly speaking, forms, together with Libanus, but one ridge of mountains, extending from north to south, and afterwards from south to north, in the |