fied his curiosity by catching, under the fig-tree, a view of Christ, as he passed along; but when led judiciously by a friend's hand, he enters into the presence of the Saviour of mankind, and receives as his reward the largest blessing which can fall to the lot of a human being. How happy bis conversion must have made Philip! There is a great disproportion between the amount of good which the apostles wrought, and the space that their names occupy on the page of history. A very few lines relate all that is known respecting Bartholomew. Even his name is a subject of doubt. At first view, it is impossible not to regret this want of full and detailed information. We soon, however, learn to see that, in this as in other cases, the actual ordinations of Providence are the best. Bartholomew and his associates had a great work to perform, and were so ardently and exclusively engaged in it, that they had neither time nor thought to write down their deeds. They were too busy, too disinterested, too unconscious, to become historians of their own doings. They were men of deeds, not words, intent on saving the world, rather than erecting a memorial to their own honour. And so, in active and ceaseless labours, their lives passed away till the time was gone when they themselves had strength, and others could readily in that age find materials for biography. They died, and left to earth only the blessed deeds which they had wrought- their own holy example, and the good and happy lives of their numerous converts. They died, and found their reward on high. This state of things is very natural in the actual circumstances of most of the apostles; and as such it carries evidence with it of its own truth and reality. It is also a very high eulogium on Bartholomew and others. Most faithful, devoted, and unselfish, was their service in the cause of Christ. They show to us, and to men of all coming times, the way to become truly great. BARTIMEUS (C. son of Timaeus) was a blind beggar, who, seated on the road near Jericho, implored the restoration of his sight from the Saviour, when the latter was at a short distance from the town, and had his eyes graciously unclosed in consequence of his faith; while the crowd, who followed the steps of Jesus, reproved the urgency with which the blind man preferred his petition. So far, the narratives of the evangelists agree (Matt. xx. 29, seq. Mark x. 46, seq. Luke xviii. 35, seq.). In other words their three accounts are substantially the same. Yet are there variations in them. Matthew speaks of two blind men; Mark and Luke, of one: Mark names that one; Luke calls him a certain blind man: Matthew says, Jesus was proceeding from Jericho; Mark, that he was going towards Jericho; Luke, that he was drawing nigh to Jericho. Yet we defy even an enemy of the gospel to read these three narratives, at least in the original, and to deny that they refer to one event, and are in substance the same. Nor are we solicitous to explain the origin of the diversities. The Gospels are to us more credible with, than they would be without, these diversities; for they show that we have here the narratives of three independent witnesses,men who in their love of truth would rather vary than copy from each other, or servilely transcribe a received standard. But while these three accounts are substantially the same, they are the same with a difference-a difference of manner, which does not lie in minute variations, but in the general character of the narratives. Thus while Matthew is Hebraistic, and Luke approaches to a correct Greek style, Mark (as is customary with him) is striking and graphic, seizing and setting forth individual points. And here probably in the peculiarity of Mark's own mind-lies the reason why he speaks of only one beggar, and why he assigns to that one his name. Nor do we need any other proof to show that we have here to do with a real event, than is furnished by the way in which Mark speaks of this blind beggar,- 'Blind Bartimeus sat by the way-side, begging.' This is a master's stroke. No one could be ignorant who blind Bartimæus was, and therefore no explanations are added. The person of the beggar was well known in Judea at the time, and Mark was too simple and unconscious a writer to think of pos terity. The idea of one man- of blind Bartimeus was in his mind, and with a stroke or two of his pen he sets him down before the eyes of his readers in his wonted place, by the road-side; a picture which will remain to all ages. BARUCH (H. blessed. A.M. 4943; A.C. C05; V. 605), son of Neriah, a faithful friend of the prophet Jeremiah,- who, in the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, wrote down from the lips of the prophet his predictions touching the invasion of the Babylonians, and the deportation of the Israelites. The 'roll of the book' in which this 'burden' was written, having been destroyed at the instance of Jehoiakim, Baruch made a second record, similar to the first; but the guilty nation did not heed the divine warnings, even though they were solemnly read to the king and his princes, at the command of the Most High, under the direction of the prophet, and by the lips of Baruch, who gave the court an exact account of the manner in which these charges and admonitions had been committed to writing. The reward of this faithful service was, that both Jeremiah and Baruch were obliged to consult their safety by concealment (Jer. xxxvi. 4, seq.). Baruch was regarded with special dislike by the Jews, under the suspicion of inducing Jeremiah to utter hard sayings against them (Jer. xliii. 3); but, when dismayed at the terrors he saw gathering around him, he was com forted by a special communication which Jeremiah pronounced on his behalf (xlv.). It is said, that after Jeremiah had died in Egypt, Baruch went to Babylon, where he. ended his days. If faithful men could have saved the Jews from captivity, the assaults of their enemies would have been in vain ; for, in high as well as in humble life, did prophets make their appearance, and utter their awful voices. Baruch was of an illustrious family in the court of Judah, where his brother held a distinguished post (xxxii. 12; li. 59). The apocryphal book, entitled Baruch, was not written by the person of whom we have now spoken. During the siege of Jerusalem, Baruch was concerned in a transaction designed to show that the Jews would be restored to their native country, which is full of instruction regarding ancient Hebrew usages. (Jer. хххіі. 12). BASHAN (H. a fruitful land) was a district that lay beyond Jordan, on the east of the Lake of Galilee, having the river Jabbok, which flows from the east into the Jordan, for its southern extremity; and on the north, an undetermined line, bordering on Mount Hermon. In the division of Palestine, it fell to the lot of the half-tribe of Manasseh, comprehending all the kingdom of Og, king of Bashan, and all the towns of Jair, which are in Bashan, threescore cities' After the exile, the Chaldee pronunciation, substituting at for an s or an sh, changed the name Bashan into Batanæa, though properly the province of Batanæa was only the Acsouthern part of the ancient Bashan. cording to Robinson, the ancient name is still substantially retained in Bethenyeh. BAT is the English rendering of a Hebrew word, Gatuleph, which, according to Aben Ezra, whose opinion is generally followed, conveys the idea of flying in the dark, meaning that does not ill accord with the slight indications supplied by the three passages in which the term is found (Lev. xi. 19. Deut. xiv. 18. Isa. ii. 20). Bats are found on the Egyptian monuments, as these copies show: The catalogue of unclean birds, as given in the law, begins with the eagle, the highest and noblest of the feathered race, and ends with the bat, which is the lowest, and forms the connecting link between the quadruped and the winged species. The prohibition implies that there were, at the time it was given, those who eat bats; nor is there a doubt that the larger species of bats have supplied nutriment to more than one portion of the human race. It is not easy now to assign a satisfactory reason why the bat was accounted unclean by Moses. Not improbably its peculiar formation and habits may have created against it a prejudice, on which a certain disgust may have been founded; which disgust may have been the occasion of the legislator's prohibition. That prohibition, however, has confirmed and perpetuated the aversion to the bat, which is, in many countries, so deep as to wear the appearance of being natural. Though, however, bats in Syria inhabit dark, hidden, and ruinous places, they also make their appearance in towns, as well as in frequented and decorated rooms. Nor is there any thing in their make to justify strong feelings of dislike. 'The bat,' says Dr. Kitto, 'is a delicate and beautiful creature, covered with a fine fur of very pale yellow; while the fine integuments, forming what are called the wings, are, when expanded, ribbed with the bright red lines of the bony prolongations, by which they are managed and supported.' BATHSHEBA (H. daughter of an oath), child of Eliam, and wife of Uriah the Hittite, whom David coveted in consequence of her beauty, and of whose person his royal power and will unjustly made him master. Having done this injury to Uriah, the king took his measures to make the fruit of his criminality appear the natural offspring of that warrior; but failing, through the persistence of the latter in not visiting his home, he sent him back to the army then besieging Rabbah under the command of Joab, directing that general to set Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle, and to retire, so that he might be slain. David's orders were but too well executed. Joab suffered a repulse; but he knew his master's guilty wishes, and ordered the messenger that bore the unwelcome tidings to mention, as a cover, the death of the Hittite. This adroitness had its designed effect on David. The husband being thus disposed of, and the days of his wife's mourning decently terminated, David took to his house Bathsheba, who became his wife, and bare him a son. There is, however, a power higher and stronger than princes. This wickedness displeased the Almighty, who sent Nathan to David with a terrible reproof, which was the more overpowering in its delivery, because conveyed in one of those parables for which the Hebrew literature is celebrated, and which in all their excellence have no equals in any language. And the Lord struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.' The guilty man prayed, fasted, and mourned:in vain; the child died. After this, Bathsheba bore Solomon, who was regarded with divine favour. She herself appears to have long retained influence with her husband; for, when he had grown old, and Adonijah his son had taken measures to usurp the royal authority, she was chosen by Nathan to make the king acquainted with the attempt, for which she was the ra ther fitted as being the mother of Solomon, the promised successor; in consequence of which the latter was immediately proclaimed. Indeed, she appears to have enjoyed in the court much of the influence of a queenmother; for, not long after the commencement of the new reign, this same Adonijah successfully entreats her good offices to procure for him a wife of his choice, namely, Abishag, the Shunamite. This short history is quite oriental:- the resistless passions of the monarch; the pas siveness of Bathsheba; the king's entire command over the life of Uriah; the ready obedience of Joab; the boldness and religious elevation of Nathan; and the power at court of the mother of the heir apparent, may have resemblances, but not parallels, in western countries. These qualities authenticate the history in which they are found, and may suggest that we shall misjudge events, if we apply to the conduct of the king and his paramour rules and tests which the gospel enforces in modern times, and in these lands. The guilt of David with Bathsheba was very great. It was also severely punished and bitterly deplored. Sin, in all climes and all countries, is, before God, equally sin. But let us not be harsh, still less unjust, in our condemnation; remembering that the license to do such wickedness is one of the heavy disadvantages under which monarchs, and especially oriental monarchs, are placed by their position; a position which is owing as much to the weakness of their fellow-men as to their own ambition. BATTLEMENT is the rendering of a Hebrew word, Mahgakeh (Deut. xxii. 8), the root of which in the Arabic still signifies to surround. Battlement denotes an elevation or parapet wall, which, with a becoming regard to human life, the law expressly required to be put round a house when built; the necessity of which resulted from the roofs of houses being, for the most part, flat, and from their being used for recreation and pleasure. When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.' BAY-TREE (a green bay-tree) is a phrase which is found only once in the Scriptures: 'I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay-tree' (Ps. xxxvii. 35). Authorities, however, are not agreed as to whether the Psalmist speaks of some species of tree, or of the flourishing condition of a tree in general. lators had the laurel in their minds; yet the marginal rendering is a green tree, that groweth in his own soil;' that is, indigenous, or not transplanted, continuing to grow where it sprang up. The Greek Septuagint Our trans BDE translation has the cedar of Lebanon.' Tholuck renders, a tree well rooted and full of foliage;' Noyes, following the Seventy, translates the words, In 'I have seen a wicked man in great power, And spreading himself like a green cedar.' Geddes is almost verbally the same. the north-western part of Syria, Hasselquist rested under a green bay-tree,' of which kind of tree he had not met with any specimens in Judea or Galilee; but, whether it was a species of cedar or not, the traveller does not say. We incline to the rendering of the Septuagint, whose authority in questions of natural history carries with it much weight. Besides, some specific tree, distinguished for its native luxuriance, and actually flourishing in strength and beauty, is a more striking image than is presented by a tree any tree whatsoever-which is in a thriving condition, because in its native soil. And certainly the cedar, of all the trees of Syria, would afford the noblest idea of external grandeur. Yet even the cedar perishes before the hurricane, as the wicked man, great as he may be, is cut down by the resistless hand of an avenging Providence. The Psalmist makes prophetic reference to those idolatrous empires which were to arise and fill the earth, and threaten to extinguish the church. The first of these empires, the Assyrian, is presented to us under the symbol of a flourishing cedar planted by the waters. But fear not. They shall live their time and then vanish. The church shall survive and til the earth. BDELLIUM is a Greek word, not much dissimilar in form to the original Hebrew for which it stands, and which occurs only Numb. twice in the Bible (Gen. ii. 12. xi. 7). In the first passage it is mentioned, together with the onyx and gold, as products of the land of Havilah. The mere mention of the word here in this very brief notice of most momentous events, provesapart from the fact of its standing with gold and onyx-stone-that it represented an object of great value, yet not altoWe conclude also, gether uncommon. from the second passage, that it could not have been very rare, because it is used as an object of comparison: The colour of the manna was as the colour of bdellium.' stone. The passages before spoken of seem, however, to us to denote some precious Bochart and others have mentioned the pearl; and we think it very probable that the same word should denote such a gum as is above described, and a precious stone bearing a resemblance to it. Gum and gem are not dissimilar either in form or in signification. BEAM (T. to radiate). — The etymological import of this word, as denoting the radiating of the sun, may serve to suggest that it did not, when Wickliffe first introduced it as a translation of the Greek Dokos, in Matt. vii. 3,-And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?' signify any thing so large and so long as the piece of timber which is now entitled a beam. The use of this term, beam, when unexplained, takes away from, if it does not destroy, the propriety of the metaphor. A reference to the etymology will show, that, if length is implied in the idea conveyed by the word, slenderness also The antithetical word is essential to it. rendered mote would be better represented by our word splinter; by which change, in union with a right understanding of the term beam, the correspondence of the words as found in the original is preserved in its Even the figuraEnglish representative. tive diction of our Lord observes the rules of propriety. 'You The meaning of his words in the passage is sufficiently obvious. The splinter denotes the slight faults of others, which we see most clearly; the beam, our own serious misdeeds, to which our eyes are closed. The proverb that our Lord thus employed was widely spread. Seneca says, mark the pimples of your neighbour, while covered with sores yourself.' But the precise phraseology was prevalent among the Jews, When, of that generation which judges its judges, some one said, Cast the rod out of thine eye; he received for answer, From thine own eye cast the beam.' BEANS supplied, at least in their kernels, nutriment for the poorer Hebrews, which was sometimes cooked, sometimes uncooked (2 Sam. xvii. 28). In the bread which Ezekiel was directed to make of va The bdellium of the ancients (Pliny, xii.rious sorts of grain, contrary to the analogy 9. 19) was a resinous, transparent gum, sweet to the smell, but of bitter taste, which exuded in the form of drops from a tree growing in Arabia, Babylonia, Media, and India: those of Bactriana were accounted The tree was about the most valuable. size of an olive-tree, with leaves like those of the oak, and fruit like capers. Naturalists have thought the description of the ancients answered to the dom-palm, which as common in South Arabia and in Egypt. of the law of Moses (Lev. xix. 19. Deut. xxii. 9-11), as a sign and forewarning of the defiled bread which the children of Israel would have to eat when driven into exile among the Gentiles, beans are expressly mentioned (Ezek. iv. 9). According to Rabbinical authority, the bean cultivated in Palestine was the much-esteemed Egyptian bean. The same source of information declares, that the eating of beans was interdicted to the high priest on the day of atonement, from its decided tendency to bring on sleep. BEAR (T. baer, meaning hairy).—Of the existence of this animal in Palestine there is no longer any doubt. Bears are still found, though they are rare, in the mountains of Lebanon. In the time of the Crusades, they were numerous. The Syrian bear is of the brown species, which is very ferocious. There is therefore nothing but what is probable in David having to defend his flock from a bear, as well as a lion (1 Sam. xvii. 34, 35), though it is clear that the bravery he displayed was something uncommon. Nor was it extraordinary that two she-bears should come out of the wood, and tear forty-two of the children who mocked Elisha; while the Christian must confess that the curses which the prophet employed on the occasion were not likely to be specially carried into effect by the power of Him whose Son came expressly into the world to teach men to bless, and not curse (2 Kings ii. 23, 24). A bear robbed of her whelps became, in consequence of the ferocity natural to the beast, a proverbial description of ungovernable fury, not merely in Judea (2 Sam. xvii. 8. Prov. xvii. 12), but, according to Jerome, generally: "Those'- -we translate his words -'who have written on the nature of animals say, that among all wild beasts there is none so fierce as a bear when she has lost her young.' Without any unusual provocation, the temper of the animal is surly and quarrelsome; whence a bear became the figure of a capricious tyrant (Prov. xxviii. 15). 'A roaring lion and a prowling bear; A wicked ruler over a poor people.' BEARD. The beard, which may be regarded as a token of manhood, though some tribes are, from local causes, destitute of it, was worn either dressed or in its natural state by most ancient nations, yet appears to have either disappeared, or to have become less, among every people, with their approach to a higher degree of civilisation. With the Hebrews, as with Orientals generally, the beard was held in high respect. Perkins mentions the case of a Persian soldier who begged his good offices with the emir in behalf of his long beard, which was in danger of being clipped. The Arabs swear by their beard, and invoke blessings on it:-'God send his blessing on your beard' is an oriental wish of kindness. Friends express their good will by wishing on behalf of a father, that he may have a son with a fine beard. Hence the loss of the beard was a sign of weakness, disgrace, or mourning (Isa. vii. 20). With the Israelites, it was as customary to trim the beard among the duties of the toilette, as it was to wash and dress; without which it was not thought becoming to enter the presence of a great man (Gen. xli. 14. 2 Sam. xix. 24). The beard was shorn, plucked, or neglected in time of trouble, as a token of disregard to personal appearance, or as a part of self-modification (Isa. xv. 2. Jer. xli. 5. Ezra ix. 3). As kissing was a customary mode of salutation among the Jews (Matt. xxvi. 49), so it was usual to take hold of the beard respectfully with the right hand when the salutation was given (2 Sam. xx. 9). From the respect in which the beard was held, and the fact that slaves were not allowed to wear a beard, which was the sign of civil freedom, the degree of insult may be estimated that Hanun king of Ammon showed to David when he sent back the messengers of the Hebrew monarch with one half of their beards shaved off. Feeling themselves disgraced, these men did not venture into David's presence; but the king sent to them this message, Tarry at Jericho until your beards be grown, and then return' (2 Sam. x. 1, seq.). This insult led to a war. In a similar manner, it is related that the Tartars, whose beards form a part of their religion, carried on against the Persians, whom they declared infidels, for differing from them in regard to this ambiguous ornament of man, a long, bloody, and destructive war. As the beard was held in so much respect among the Hebrews, the priests, who were to have every human qua. lity in perfection, wore their beards, and were especially interdicted from marring the corners of their beards by shaving them off (Lev. xix. 27; xxi. 5). This prohibition, from the connection in which it stands, seems to have been occasioned also by a wish on the part of the legislator to discountenance idolatrous usages. The Persians at present usually clip the beard with shears, for a few years, until it acquires a heavy body. When they allow it to grow long, they are very particular in relation to the colour, and, if need be, paint it black every week or oftener, as Persian ladies paint their eyebrows. They follow this practice until age so wrinkles their faces, that even a black beard can no longer conceal its inroads; when suddenly they are equally partial to white beards, these being regarded as such invariable emblems of dignity and wisdom, that, in Persian and Turkish, the term white beard is a title which is applied to venerated personages, often to magistrates, and carries with it great weight and authority, somewhat equivalent to sage in English; and, in the Nestorian language, the same term corresponds with elder or presbyter, in the New Testament. The cuts, which are here given, serve to show oriental features and head-dress, as well as the manner of wearing the beard, now prevalent in the East. In the upper |
