coming from the Levant, that is, the eastern part of the Mediterranean; but a 'Levanter,' though properly an east wind, shifts about constantly, and thus excites fearful tempests. Such a wind would produce precisely the effects recorded in the passage to which we have above referred (comp. Odyss. v. 331).

EUTYCHUS (G.), a young man who, during a discourse of Paul's at Troas, prolonged till midnight, was overtaken by sleep, and in consequence fell from the third loft of a house, and was taken up dead. The apostle, immediately descending to his aid, recalled his departing spirit; and when he left the place the next morning, he enjoyed the satisfaction of having the youth brought to him alive.

In this incident, the narration of which occupies only a few lines, there is evidence corroborative of the reality of the scene and the truth of the gospel.

The assembly seems to have been held in a large room in the third story. The address was continued till midnight. The audience was large. Hence lamps were necessary hence, also, the windows were open with a view to ventilation. Seated on the sill of one of these, the young man, overpowered by the vitiated atmosphere and lengthened fatigue, fell from his dangerous position into the quadrangle forming the court or yard, which, as usual, was within the house. The accident broke up the meeting. Paul went down into the court, and, having restored the young man, delivered him to his parents, who, probably the owners of the house, took their child, and, devoting to him their best attention during the remaining hours of night, were able to bring him alive into the apostle's presence before he departed in the morning.

Notwithstanding the fall, the assembled friends did not leave the place. The young man was not dead, and therefore might they without impropriety resume their connection with the apostle; and being eager to learn the wonderful things concerning the kingdom of God, and, probably, to have certain difficulties solved and certain dark points illustrated, they keep Paul in conversation ' a long while, even till break of day.'

This narrative is composed from hints and indications in the Scripture, which here, as in so many other places, supplies, in incidental and fragmentary notices, evidences the most satisfactory of its containing a genuine and credible record. The scene here set forth bears the unmistakeable impress of reality. It is in every respect that which we should naturally have expected from the relations in which Paul stood to the world.

The writer evidently regarded the restoration of Eutychus as operated by miraculous power. And it seems to be owing to the deep and lively impression made by the ac

cident, especially by its happy termination in the revival of the youth, that we are indebted for the passing mention made of the circumstance, and the corroboration of the gospel history that hence ensues.

EVANGELISTS, from the Greek euangelion, good news,' is a word denoting heralds of the good tidings of great joy which is to all people' (Luke ii. 10). Thus the angels were the first evangelists, and universal salvation the burden of their proclamatory song. Hence the character of a true evangelist may be ascertained, and we may gain a criterion by which to try the spirits whether they are of God, for many false prophets are gone out into the world' (1 John iv. 1).

6

In its general import, then, the term denotes one who declares the gospel made known by its primary source, Jesus Christ. Hence the four who have given a record of his teachings bear the name of Evangelists. These four are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, whose lives and writings will be spoken of under their several names. On the subject of there being more than one evangelist, the following passage from Chrysostom deserves perusal :- How then? Was not one evangelist sufficient to say all? Certainly, one might have sufficed; but as there are four such authors, who did not write at one and the same time, nor in the same place; who neither met together nor acted in concert, and nevertheless speak, as it were, out of one mouth, there hence arises a stronger proof of their credibility. But (it is replied) the contrary rather took place; many passages convict them of dissimilarity in their accounts. This also is a greater proof of their credibility; for if they agreed minutely in all, both as to time, place, and expression, their opponents would never believe that they had not written their memoirs by agreement or by personal understanding. Such a similarity could not be the work of freewill. But, now, the apparent contradiction in minor matters frees them from such a suspicion, and is the most beautiful apology for the conduct of the historians. And if they detail some things differently as far as it regards time and place, this also is without prejudice an argument for the truth of the matter.' See GOSPELS.

Now,

In the primitive church, the name evangelist was borne by a class of teachers who were distinct from apostles, prophets, pastors, and teachers (Ephes. iv. 11). Philip is expressly termed 'the evangelist' (Acts xxi. 8); but Philip preached the gospel (viii. 4, 26, 40), yet, as would appear from the passages last referred to, only within a certain district. Philip's district was bounded by Azotus (on the Mediterranean) on the south, Jerusalem on the east, Samaria on the north, and Cæsarea on the northwest. Hence an evangelist was a district preacher; one who, instead of travelling

abroad, remained at home, and within a comparatively small compass endeavoured to bring men over to the Lord Jesus. Comp. 2 Tim. iv. 5.

EVIL (T.) cannot be predicated of the material world without ascribing to the Creator a want of power, of wisdom, or of goodness; and in the case of a being so shortsighted as man, reason would suggest that any appearances of evil might receive a satisfactory explanation, were the workings, tendencies and results of the great whole contemplated on a larger scale. Viewed in its relation to God, who, as in part we know, educeth good out of ill, moral evil also might grow less, or even disappear, could we comprehend the remoter issues of the government of the world. Meanwhile, with our present narrow vision, we can do no more than embrace with faith what the intellect suggests and the heart approves; and faith may find welcome support also in the progress observable in the general history of man, and specially in the portion of it which has elapsed since the revival of letters; but whether that progress will for ever be bounded by the limits of time, or be carried forward under happier auspices in another world, and so lead on to the extinction of ill and the universal prevalence of good, reason can in no way determine, whatever pleasing visions hope and desire may call into being. Hence we are directed to revelation for the solution of the problem of evil, on which the greatest minds have in all ages speculated, and for the most part speculated in vain. But though the question of the origin and final issue of evil seems to belong in a special manner to revelation, since none but God can explain the primary and ultimate bearings of the moral world, revelation confines itself to a few great facts falling within the brief period of human history; which, however, while they can by no means satisfy the speculatist, may afford important light in duty, and valuable nutriment to faith. The origin of moral evil the Scriptures place in man's free will (Gen. iii. Matt. xv. 19. James i. 15), without stating how it was that that will was so weak as to yield to temptation; for though we are told that the creature was made subject to vanity in hope (Rom. viii. 20, 21), yet we are furnished with no explanation why a hopeful subjection to evil took place, or what will be its final result; unless the passage to which we have just referred should in reality intimate that in the final prevalence of universal and unmingled good may be found both the reason why evil was originated, and the ultimate condition of the whole human family. This view certainly finds support in the benevolent spirit of the Saviour, and in the disclosure which he made that God is our Father;' for under a government of which Jesus is the great vice

gerent, and his Father the supreme au thority, it is difficult to think that sin or suffering can, as ultimate issues, remain. If it is the will of God that all men should be saved (1 Tim. ii. 4), the prevalence of that will must be universal happiness, while the predominance of the will of man must hinder and retard that greatest of blessings. It thus appears that of the two wills in the universe, that of God and that of man, the former is for good, the latter for evil. In such an issue we have solid grounds for thinking that the result will be in favour of good. The extinction of evil becomes a question of power, and if God is in truth almighty, his righteous will must finally prevail.

In agreement with these views, the Scriptures represent evil as essentially hostile to the will of God, whose purpose from the earliest ages, and specially by his Son Jesus Christ, has been to reconcile the world unto himself (Col. i. 20). Man also is described as set in conflict by the operation of evil, which struggles against a better power within (Rom. vii. 18, seq.), to which better power God's gracious aids are given both to will and to do (Phil. ii. 12, 13). Hence we are confirmed in the conclusion that good will eventually subdue evil, and God be all in all' (1 Cor. xv. 28). See the article DEVIL.

EVILMERODACH, son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, reigned about the year 560 A. C. Respecting the length of his reign, ancient historians are not agreed, it being variously stated at twelve, eighteen, and two years. The last seems the most probable. During the rest of one of the two other assigned periods, he may have exercised the office of regent in consequence of the mental incapacity of his father. He was slain by his brother-in-law and successor, Neriglissar. The Biblical narratives are limited to stating that Evilmerodach, in the first year of his reign, released Jehoiachin, after an incarceration of thirtyseven years, and raised him to the highest position of dependent dignity at his court (Jer. lii. 31-34).

EXACTORS (L. ex, 'from,' and ago, 'I drive or force'), persons who employ compulsion for an object, and specifically for enforcing tribute or imposts; hence those who impose or gather taxes (Is. lx. 17; comp. 2 Kings xxiii. 35, and Neh. x. 31).

EXCHANGERS are those who barter or give something in return for what they take. In the New Testament the word means those who 'give change,' or deal in money (Matt. xxv. 27). These bankers, because they sat in public places, such as the porticos of the temple (Matt. xxi. 12), before a table or bench (bank), on which they kept their money, and transacted their business, were called trapezitæ, table-men (Matt. xxv. 27), also kollubistai, from kollubos, a small coin (Matt. xxi. 12). Their office seems to have

been two-fold; first, to give the current money of Judea for foreign coin; secondly, to receive and put out money on interest (Luke xix. 23).

EXECRATION (L. er, out of,' and sacra, 'sacred things') is properly the act of putting a person beyond the protecting power of religion. Hence the word means a devotement or curse, or a devoted and accursed person or thing. It is used of the terrible evils which the Jews would bring on themselves if they continued to disobey God, and the threatening proved awfully true (Jer. xlii. 18; xliv. 12; comp. Acts xxiii. 12). See ANATHEMA.

EXORCISTS (G. ex, 'out of,' and orkos, 'an oath'), persons who pretended to cast out evil spirits by an oath or form of adjuration (Acts xix. 13; comp. Luke xi. 19). See the article DEVIL.

EXPEDIENT (L. er, 'from,' and pes, a foot') is that which clears the way, and so aids us in our progress and purposes. Accordingly, it stands (John xi. 50; xvi. 7. 1 Cor. vi. 12) for a Greek word, which signifies to be useful,' or advantageous.' The narrower meaning, by which what is expedient is set in opposition to what is right, is of modern origin, and finds no support in Scripture.

EXTORTION (L. ex, from,' and torqueo, 'I twist') means taking by violence, and is used (Matt. xxiii. 25) for a Greek word, arpage, which signifies plundering,' or 'robbery' Comp. Luke xviii. 11.

EYE, the organ of vision, which is used in the Scriptures in a variety of metaphorical applications, most of which need no special illustration. In Ps. exxiii. 2, the eyes of servants are represented as directed to the hand of their master and mistress. In the East, orders are given by the clapping of the hands, and travellers speak of the fixed attention with which domestics watch the eyes of their superior, in order to learn and execute his will.

The eyes of the present Egyptian women are eminently beautiful; as, if we may judge from the moderns, were those of Judah's daughters of old. This beauty the Egyptians try to enhance, partly by concealing the other features with a veil, partly by painting or blackening the edge of the eyelids, both above and below the eye, with a black powder called 'kohl.'

The same practice prevailed among the ancient Egyptians and Israelites. Thus Jezebel, on the approach of Jehu, with other means of increasing her attractions, put her

eyes in painting-so does the original run (2 Kings ix. 30; comp. Ezek. xxiii. 40). This kohl, or 'eye-saive' (Rev. iii. 18, collyrion) is commonly composed of the smokeblack produced by burning a kind of 'liban,' an aromatic resin. It is also prepared of the smoke-black produced by burning the shells of almonds. These two kinds, though believed to be beneficial to the eyes, are used merely for ornament; but there are other sorts that are employed for medicinal purposes, particularly the powder of several kinds of lead-ore.

The inhabitants of Egypt, from constant exposure to the sun, have a habit of half shutting the eyes. Great numbers are blind in one eye, if not in both. Foundations for diseases of the eye are early laid in Egypt. The eyes of the young are often very filthy. It is common to see half-a-dozen or more flies in each eye, unheeded and unmolested. The parents consider it injurious to wash the eyes when they discharge that acrid humour which attracts the flies.

The fear of the evil eye-that is, of evil from some evil spirit, communicated by a look-is common in Western Asia. It prevails in Egypt with great strength, especially in regard to children, who, as being great blessings, are accounted most liable to the fascination. Envy is supposed to be the actuating impulse with those who exert this baneful influence. Hence, in order to avoid exciting envy, parents let their children appear in dirt and rags, and try to pass off boys as girls. 'An evil eye' in Scripture means, an ungenerous and grudging disposition, qualities that are the root of the supposed 'evil eye' of superstition (Prov. xxiii. 6; xxviii. 22. Matt. vi. 23; xx. 15. Mark vii. 22).

་

The exaction ordained by the old law, but abolished by Jesus, of an eye for an eye' (Exod. xxi. 23-25. Matt. v. 38), still prevails in the East; we fear we may add, that in nominally Christian lands it is honoured in observance, though disallowed in profession. In Egypt, sometimes a fine is accepted instead of an equivalent in kind. With the Bedouins, the law of the avenging of blood is terribly severe. With them, any single person descended from the manslayer, or from his father, grandfather, great grandfather, or great grandfather's father, may be killed by any of such relations of the person murdered or slain in fight. But among most tribes a pecuniary compensation is often accepted. Cases of blood revenge are very common among the peasantry of Egypt. The relations of a person who has been killed in an Egyptian village generally retaliate with their own hands rather than apply to the government, and often do so with disgusting cruelty, and even mangle and insult the corpse of their victim. Even when retaliation has been made, animosity

EYEWITNESSES of the Lord Jesus were in the first ages very numerous, for 'these things were not done in a corner,' but throughout the land, especially in the thickly-peopled Galilee, and at the concourse of Jews from all parts of the world at the national feasts in Jerusalem. From Luke i. 2, we learn that the argumentative narration which his gospel supplies depended for its original sources on eye-witnesses. No one could be an apostle in the highest sense of the term who had not seen the Lord (1 Cor. ix. 1). Of the evangelical narrators, Matthew and John were eye-witnesses; comp. 1 John i. 1. The three great events in our Lord's history-his death, resurrection, and ascension, are attested by eye-witnesses (John xix. 30, 35. Matt. xxviii. Acts i. 3. 1 Cor. xv. 48. Acts xxii. 14). These facts show that it is on a solid historical foundation the church of Christ is built.

The connection of those who were eyewitnesses of the Lord Jesus with the commencement of the second century, is impor. tant, both to aid in accounting for the rapid spread of the gospel, especially in Asia Minor, as indicated in the letter of Pliny (A. D. 107) addressed to the emperor Trajan (see Beard's 'Voices of the Church in reply to Strauss,' p. 42), and aiso to unite the days of Jesus with those of ecclesiastical history, which in Irenæus, Justin Martyr, and others, may be said to commence in the middle of the second century, while by clear implication much of their testimony extends at least half a century still further back. For instance, the citations found in Justin put it beyond a doubt that a spoken current and written gospel, if Lot the very narratives which we possess under the name

gospels,' had prevailed in the Christian world long prior to the time when he wrote (cir. A. D. 130-170). A sufficient guarantee for the preservation of this gospel free from serious error or mythological depradation existed, if persons survived till the beginning of the second century, who either had themselves seen the Lord, or were intimate with eye-witnesses. Now, from 1 Cor. xv. 6, we learn that of the five hundred brethren who had seen Christ, the greater part remained when Paul wrote that letter. In Ephesus and in some smaller cities of Asia Minor, there had in the second half of the first century formed itself a circle of Christians who were immediate disciples of Jesus himself, and in part, as in the case of John, Andrew and Philip, belonged to the band of twelve apostles. Two of this circle, by name Aristion and John the presbyter, outlived John

the apostle, who did not die till the end of the century, and were still in existence when Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, in Phrygia (cir. A. D. 118), a scholar of John and of Polycarp, himself a scholar of John, wrote his five books on the Discourses of the Lord.' And from Eusebius (iii. 32), we learn that in the time of Trajan (98-116 A. D.), Simeon, a scholar of Jesus, suffered martyrdom, being 120 years old. Polycarp, who lost his life for the gospel under Marcus Aurelius (cir. 165 A. D.), had, according to his pupil Irenæus, intercourse with many eye-witnesses of Jesus, and was made bishop of Smyrna by apostolic hands. In these facts we trace a line of competent witnesses from the time of the public ministry of Jesus down to the middle of the second century, when our sacred books are known to have been in existence, and when the gospel had gained prevalence in the chief parts of the civilised world.

EZEKIEL (H. God will strengthen), the name of the Hebrew prophet who wrote the book so denominated. He was of the priestly order, and son of Buzi. As his place of abode ecclesiastical history gives Sarera, of which there is no mention in the Old Testament. With Jehoiachin, king of Judah, Ezekiel, and many of the chief inhabitants of the land, were by Nebuchadnezzar carried captive into Mesopotamia, eleven years before the destruction of Jerusalem (A. C. 599). His place of abode in Babylon cannot be approximated to more nearly than by saying that it was on the Chebar, which falls into the Euphrates, near Carchemish (i. 1), though from iii. 15, it is not improbable that he resided at a small town called Tel-abib. He possessed a house, and was married, but lost his wife (iii. 24; viii. 1; xxiv. 18). What age he had reached at the time of his deportation is not stated; but the minute ace quaintance displayed in the latter part of his writings with the localities and dimensions of the temple, makes it probable that before he went into captivity he had exercised the priestly office, which, though we have not certain information, could scarcely have been entered on before the age of manhood. Church-fathers relate that he was put to death by one of his fellow-exiles, whom he had reproached for his addictedness to idolatry. In the middle ages, what was called his tomb was shown on the Euphrates, some distance from Bagdad. It was so much an object of reverence, that Jews of Media and Persia used to make pilgrimages thither.

Ezekiel began his prophetic duties in the fifth year after the capture of Jehoiachin (i. 2), in the seventh year before the overthrow of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and continued them at least till the twentyseventh year of his banishment (xxix. 17), that is, till the sixteenth year after the fall

of Jerusalem, or during a period of two and twenty years. He discharged, therefore, the severe and perilous duties of a prophet from the year 594 A. C. to the year 572 A. C., having lived, in all, not less than seven and twenty years in exile. He was, accordingly, a contemporary of Jeremiah.

The book of the prophet Ezekiel divides itself into four parts:-I. The introduction, i.—iii. II. A collection of oracles referring to native subjects before the destruction of Jerusalem, iv.-xxiv. III. A collection of oracles relating to foreign subjects, xxv.xxxii. IV. A collection of oracles touching native subjects after the destruction of Jerusalem, xxxiii.-xlviii.

The commencement contains a description of the inauguration of the prophet, and his introduction in his official capacity to his fellow-captives.

The prophecies on native subjects which ensue, are addressed to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and are designed to meet the peculiar state of mind of its inhabitants at the particular juncture in which the words were spoken. What that state of mind was may be learnt from Ezekiel himself, as well as from his fellow-worker, Jeremiah (xix.). They both aimed to disabuse the minds of their countrymen of the injurious notion, that notwithstanding the expatriation of many of those who stood highest in office and estimation, the state itself would not suffer overthrow. The extirpation of this error was the more needful, because it seemed to strike its roots but the more deeply with the progress of those events that were bring ing ruin on Jerusalem, and the polity of which it was the centre; and because it prevented that moral and spiritual reformation, and especially that renunciation of idolatrous worship, which were indispensable pre-requisites to the restoration of the Divine favour, and the re-establishment of individual and national happiness. But the task was no easy one, as indeed the event showed; for the iniquity continued, and the nation was enslaved. The difficulty was much increased by false prophets, who misled the people under several pretexts, namely, that God would not give over to ruin the temple, his special abode (Jer. vii. 4); that God could not leave his promises uufulfilled (xviii. 5-10); that the Jews had not deserved the threatened punishment (vii. 21, seq.); and that they ought not to suffer for the sins of their fathers (Ezek. xviii.). These misconceptions it was Ezekiel's chief aim to correct, while he strove to make his fellow-countrymen sensible of their wickedness, willing to renounce all hope of support in human aid, and ready in penitence and trust to cast themselves on the mercy of God. Guided by this aim, he handles with special attention two points:-I. That the Jewish state is ruined (iv. v. vii. xii. xv.

xix. xxi. xxiii. xxiv.). II. That the calamity is a consequence of the unbounded wickedness of the nation, in its idolatrous practices, and the moral excesses of which their idolatry was the cause (vi. 1-7; viii. 1—16; xvi. 15—36; xx. 30—39; xxii. xxiii. ). In the prosecution of his purpose, the prophet threatens with merited punishment the seducers of the people, the false prophets (xiii.; xiv. 6—11; xxii. 28). Occasionally his tone grows mild when he is drawn on to speak of a coming period of pure religion and social peace to be enjoyed by those who honoured God (xi. 16—22; xiv. 21-23; xvi. 53-56; xx. 40-45).

The prophecies relating to foreign nations are directed against the Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, Philistines, Tyrians, Sidonians, and Egyptians.

The native prophecies after the downfal of Jerusalem contain at the first reproofs and threatenings (xxxiii. xxxiv.), but afterwards consolations and promises of victory over enemies (XXXV. xxxviii. xxxix.); of the restoration of the state, and the return of the repentant and reformed (xxxvi. xxxvii.); of the renewal of the temple, and the renovation of the Mosaic polity (xl.— xlviii.).

It is impossible to read the composition and not be impressed with its purely Hebraic character. A few Aramaic words it may contain, which, however, only confirm its claims, since they belong to the period when and the place where the book was written; but in its general complexion the work has the deepest Hebrew hue, harmonising with the general aim, purpose, and tone of the Mosaic polity, and its development in the classic period of David and Solomon, and seeking its purposes by the same instrumentality as is found in the earlier canonical writings (xxx. 26; xxxvi. 22). Of the writer and of the age of the composition, explicit statements give us certain information (i. 1; xxiii. 31; xxviii. 25), did not its general character assure us that it was composed during the Babylonish captivity; for it is impossible to believe that any one writing long after the events, could employ in relation to that exile, its causes, its duration, its consequences and end, the actual feelings of the people at more conjunctures in it than one, and their relations to the entire civilised world, that true, earnest, and impassioned language, that cogency of argument, that boundless fertility of imagination, which we here find. Doubtless, each portion was written and uttered in the period to which it relates; and signs of time, which give to a composition the air of reality, abound in this collection of prophecies (i. 1; viii. 1; xxix. 1; xxxi. 1; xxxii. 1; xxxiii. 21; xl. 1). Yet it would appear as if the writer, when arrived at the decline of life, sat himself down calmly to review