Facts had shown its fallacy. The dead Jesus was not the triumphant conqueror. Common sense would say that it was now all over with Jesus and his cause. People who had been so grossly disappointed were little likely to practice a deceit on themselves in the very same thing. Yet this-as Strauss would have us believe-the disciples did. Knowing Jesus to be dead, they believed him to be alive. And this belief in him as a spiritual head they drew from those Scriptures which to them set the Messiah forth, whether suffering or triumphant, still as a temporal and earthly prince. The idea of a spiritual Messiah they had not when Jesus was with them, nor when he was laid in the tomb; but some way, we know not how, they got this new conception of the Scriptures, against which their nation has protested for nearly 2000 years, all of a sudden, without any earthly cause, and with only such suggestions as the cross and the tomb might originate. In a word, the disciples had to make the idea without any suitable elements of thought. This they could not do. In truth, Strauss cannot, with his theory, give the disciples this new interpretation of the Scriptures, nor in the minds of his followers raise Jesus from the tomb. And unless he can effect both these impossibilities, he has not a foot of ground on which to build the infant church. In something, some power, that church must have had an origin. The mythical theory has no conviction whatever to offer, out of which it could have sprung. In truth, according to that theory, the disciples made the conviction, rather than the conviction the disciples; in other words, disciples existed when there was nothing to learn, and believers began to preach before they had aught to receive or propagate. the best, their sole warrants were their own narrow, superstitious, and teeming fancies. Out of misinterpreted writings and bewildered imaginations they constructed those convictions, in the gratuitous assertion and support of which they left their homes, braved persecution, incurred obloquy, bore chains, scourging, hunger, thirst, and toil, and finally, suffered death. And yet, all the while that they were guilty of this insane conduct, they preached and gave to the world the purest and highest system of moral wisdom which it has yet received.

At

We need say no more to show the untenableness of the mythic theory in regard to the origin of what we revere and love as the glorious gospel of the blessed God.'

Nor is the theory more successful in explaining the origin of the evangelical narratives; for unless these are substantially historical, their reception at the period defined by Strauss is incredible. That period, it will be remembered, is about the third or fourth decade of the second century, say A.D. 140. At that time our gospels were generally re

ceived. Now, authority is of slow growth, especially in a period in which communication is slow. Many years must have elapsed before one gospel could have been even known in all the churches. After it was generally known, a longer time would be requisite for it to gain acceptance. The process would be both complicated and protracted when four gospels had to acquire authority in the Christian world at large, especially as other writings of a similar character, and bearing the same title, were current. Not easily nor soon could men's minds settle down into a firm conviction that these four alone were to be received, and received as of authority. At the very least, half a century must be allowed for the completion of this delicate and lengthened process. But if we deduct 50 years from 140, we have 90 left, and thus are fairly brought into the first century. Now, John is believed to have lived till A. D. 100; and so long as any one lived who had seen the Lord Jesus, there was a sufficient guarantee against the universal corruption of the books. But not to insist on this single fact. Our Lord's crucifixion may, with sufficient accuracy for our present purpose, be fixed at A. D. 30. If, then, we reckon as the term of human life threescore years and ten, we find that men of his own age would be alive in A. D. 70, and children of these would survive the century. Considering how much it was the habit with Jewish parents to communicate to their children their own religious knowledge and convictions, we cannot but believe that the second generation were well fitted to discriminate between history and myths, truth and fable, in the written narratives of the great Teacher's life. It is also inconceivable that, with the ability, they should not also have the will, to put away and explode 'cunninglydevised fables,' which brought them only ignominy, peril, torture, and earthly ruin. But of those who saw the Lord, some were younger than himself. At twenty, a Jew was judged competent for the ordinary duties of a citizen. It is, therefore, quite possible that many who had seen and heard Jesus in their youth lived on to near the termination of the century, being when they died some 80 or 90 years of age. These persons were contemporaries not only of Jesus, but of those who composed our gospels, which we have seen must have been in existence, at the latest, somewhere about A. D. 80 or 90, and their authors had in all probability spent years in the requisite inquiries, investigations, and labours. The gospels are thus brought into the apostolic age, and even carried back to the times of Jesus himself.

The men of whom we have just spoken, as Christians, believed in the facts before they believed in the record. The contents of the gospels, therefore, existed before the gospels themselves. Hence, considering the

first disciples as witness and judge, they gave the deposition, attested the record, and pronounced it true. In other words, the facts produced believers, believers produced testimony, and testimony produced the gospels. And the whole of this natural and satisfactory process took place within the life of some who had had personal intercourse with Jesus, or, at the furthest, with the children of the generation who were his contemporaries. The mythic theory requires us, on the contrary, to hold that these men first took the fanciful creations of their own minds for facts of which they had had personal experience; and then, having deluded themselves, recorded the delusion, for the misinformation of others who were foolish enough to receive the incongruous mass; while both deceivers and deceived had nothing to gain, but all to lose, and actually did lose their good name, their property, their lives. With such clouds of vapour as this, according to Strauss, was heathenism overturned and Christianity established.

These considerations are not diminished in value if we cast back a glance into the intellectual condition of the church. During the greater part of the last two-thirds of the first century, a severe controversy was carried on in the bosom of the church between two parties, the Jacobian or Petrine and the Pauline. A Judaical and a universal Christianity were at issue. The struggle, which was the chief source of Paul's troubles and the occasion of his imprisonments, if not his death, went on in every portion of the infant church. There can be no doubt that a sufficient degree of diversity on this fundamental point existed to prevent the general reception of gospels which, whether intentionally or unintentionally, were in substance falsified. Had a mythical gospel originated in Jerusalem, it would have found no acceptance at Antioch, still less at Corinth. The Greek elements in the church which favoured the liberal view of Christianity, would look with extreme jealousy on the predominance in any writing of Jewish influences, and, with all the argumentative dexterity of the Greek mind, be prompt to expose pretensions that arose out of Jewish sympathies and misconceptions. Indeed, while the theory of Strauss fails to explain how the Jews could succeed in duping themselves, it has not a word to offer in the way of showing by what process the Gentiles were converted to Christ, or how, when so converted, they continued in bondage to Jewish fancies, at the very time when, under the leadership of an apostle, they were manfully combating Jewish narrowness. Compositions which came out of such a strife with a recognition on the part of the two antagonists, must have had, and must still retain, valid claims to historical credibility.

the fruit of the cucurbitæ, such as the melon and pumpkin, which grow luxuriantly and are highly valued in hot climates. In Scripture (Jonah iv. 6, 10) we read of a gourd, kikayon, which God caused to spring up in a night, that it might be a shadow over Jonah's head; and 'God prepared a worm when the morning rose the next day, and it smote the gourd that it withered.' The disputes which have been maintained as to what plant this was might have been spared, had it been considered that, as being in its whole history preternatural, the gourd of Jonah is not to be looked for among the ordinary productions of nature. If, however, any one plant may be considered to have a preference, it is the ricinus communis, or palma christi. A different plant is meant in 2 Kings iv. 39, by wild gourds' (rather, 'wild cucumbers'), the produce of a wild vine.' Opinions differ, but the more probable makes the plant to be the cucumis colocynthis, which bore the name of wild vine from the shape of its leaves and climbing nature of its stem. It seems, however, strange that Elisha's servants should have gathered for eating a vegetable that they did not know (39), especially when it appears that the (probable) fruit of this vegetable (in the original paknoth) was employed as an ornament in the cedar carvings of Solomon's temple (1 Kings vi. 18).

་

GOZAN, a district or river lying in the north of Mesopotamia, whither captured Israelites were transported. In 2 Kings xvii. 6, xviii. 11, the places are named as 'Halah and Habor, by the river of Gozan' (Harah is added in 1 Chron. v. 26). The words may probably be rendered, Halah and Habor, the water or river of Gozan;' making Gozan a district, and Habor the river by which the district is watered. In Is. xxxvii. 12, Gozan is mentioned as a country, confirming the view we have given. This Gozan some find in the modern Kauschan, called by ancient geographers Gauzanitis; and the Habor has been considered another form of the name Chebar, or Chaboras (Ezek. i. 1, 3), the modern Ras el-Ain, a river which, rising in the north-eastern mountains and falling into the Euphrates at Circesium, waters a great extent of country, and divides Northern from Southern Mesopotamia.

man (Luke iv. 22; comp. Ephes iv. 29, and Col iv. 6). Hence that favour which lovely qualities conciliate (Luke i. 30; ii. 52. Acts iv. 33), and the display of favour to others, pardoning mercy, spontaneous goodness. Accordingly, grace' denotes the love of Christ to man (2 Cor. viii. 9); the unpurchased benignity of God (1 Pet. v. 10), particularly as exhibited in the redemption of the world by his Son (Ephes. ii. 8. Rom. iii. 24); the system of mercy and pardon which the grace of God established in Christ (Rom. vi. 15); the happy condition of those who enjoy its benefits (Gal. v. 4); the benefits themselves, or the gifts of the Holy Spirit working in the human soul (John i. 14, 16), grace for grace'-rather, 'grace upon grace,'' a succession of favours' (2 Cor. ix. 14. 1 Pet. iv. 10); and their consequence in everlasting salvation (1 Pet. i. 13; iii. 7). GRAPES. See VINE.

GRASSHOPPER, (T.), a species of insect which belongs to a section of the orthoptera, denominated by Latreille, Saltatoria, 'jumpers,' on account of their power of leaping, for which their structure fits them. In the Linnæan system they belong to the family Gryllus, which contains many species, from the common grasshopper to the devouring locust of the East. In all stages, from the larvæ to the perfect insect, locusts are herbivorous, and do great injury to vegetation. Without greatly straining the imagination, they may be considered as resembling horses on a small scale (Joel ii. 4. Apoc. ix. 7). Springing forth, especially in dry seasons, from eggs laid in the earth (comp. Amos. vii. 1), they come with the wind (comp. Exod. x. 13) from Arabia into Syria and Palestine, in thick cloud-like swarms (comp. Judg. vi. 5. Joel i. 6. Jer. xlvi. 23), which at a distance throw a yellow colour on the heavens, but when they draw near cause darkness (Joel ii. 10), and make a fearful rush (ii. 5. Rev. ix. 9). They cannot be hindered from alighting where they please, though even soldiers have been employed against them (8). Often they lie on each other yards deep, concealing the ground from the eye, and in a short time devour with their sharp teeth (Joel i. 6) every thing green (4), especially leaves and grapes, barking trees (7), and eating, this kind one part, the other another part, of the vegetable productions (4). When they have converted a garden into a desolate wilderness (ii. 3), they depart, leaving behind them their eggs and ordure, which prove frightfully offensive (ii. 20). They observe when on the wing a fixed order, flying in different columns, only by day; in the evening they alight, but fly away in the morning (Nah. iii. 17), mostly towards the north, in a straight course, from which nothing can turn them aside, for they climb walls and enter houses (Joel ii. 7, seq.), consuming even the wood-work, as

we learn from Pliny. Their destruction is occasioned by a bird, or by the sea, on which, being soon worn out with flying, they pitch as if on dry ground. They are then cast on the shore, where they rot and infect the air (Joel ii. 20). Several kinds the Hebrews were permitted to eat (Lev. xi. 22), though they do not appear to have become a favourite article of food (Matt. iii. 4). Other oriental nations of old ate grasshoppers and locusts, as do moderns in the East, where some sorts are regularly brought into Arabian markets. They were boiled or roasted, and eaten with butter and salt. They have the taste of crabs. See CANAAN, p. 258. Though so formidable in a body, they are individually small, and are in consequence used as a type of weakness and insignificance (Is. xl. 22).

THE LOCUST, FROM THEBES. 'The locust is fierce, and strong, and grim, And an armed man is afraid of him: He comes like a winged shape of dread, With his shielded back and his armed head, And his double wings for hasty flight, And a keen, unwearying appetite; He comes with famine and fear along, An army a million million strong; Like Eden the land before they find, But they leave it a desolate waste behind." Joel speaks (i. 4, seq.) of a dreadful visitation of these destructive creatures, employ. ing names for them which it is now difficult to discriminate. The fourth verse is thus rendered by Henderson (Minor Prophets): 'That which the gnawing locust hath left, The swarming locust hath devoured; And that which the swarming locust hath left, The licking locust hath devoured; And that which the licking locust hath left, The consuming locust hath devoured.'

In Eccl. xii. 5, the grasshopper is mentioned as being a very light object, yet, light as it is, proving a burden to the weak and broken-down old man.

Tischendorf (Reise, 1846) thus speaks:'Locusts lay in numerous little swarms upon the bushes of the desert, and fluttered before our eyes, if we approached, like light clouds. Those which I saw in the Arabian desert, near the Red Sea, were probably of that species which Shaw and Morier have described. They were of a shining yellow as to the legs and body (which was about three inches in length), and they had brownspeckled wings. But I met, in Palestine and Syria, with a species which was a little smaller, and of a grey and light red colour. When they flew, they diffused with their under wings a reddish glimmer. They did not allow themselves to be easily caught; they

were strong and nimble. Just lately, for the first time, has Egypt again had to suffer from a plague of locusts. Mohamed Ali offered a small sum for every basket which was brought filled with these animals, and this proved an excellent remedy for the evil. The visits of the locusts have also an agreeable point of view, for they are eaten with a relish by many orientalists-for example, by the Arabs and the Persians. There are many ways of preparing them. They are used fresh as well as salted, or (as is most usual) roasted. When roasted, they are sometimes seasoned with salt and spices, sometimes mixed with rice and dates. Their flavour is described in different ways. It seems most to resemble that of the lobster. Notwithstanding, the peasants cannot be blamed for meeting with noise and cries a caravan of these hostile guests, coming on the wings of the east wind (which Moses mentions in his account of the Egyptian plague of locusts), by which means they sometimes prevent their settling on their gardens, fields, and plains. They also consider it a crime to catch the beautiful golden yellow bird Samarmar, which eats locusts with a still greater relish than the Arab. But the Lord now, as in Pharaoh's time, sends the surest and strongest destroyers of these animals in his winds, which drive the troublesome swarms into the sea; the south and south-east winds particularly, into the Mediterranean. And in swimming, the locusts are no heroes.'

GRAVE and GRAVECLOTHES. BURIAL.

See

GRAVE-GRAVEN IMAGE, stand for Hebrew terms meaning to cut from, hew (Exod. xxxiv. 1), carve, or work with the chisel into shape, and specifically into the human shape, as representative of the Deity. Such impious labour the Israelites must often have seen in Egypt, where carved gods were numerous, and the monuments still exhibit sculptors at work.

But Canaan (Deut. vii. 5) and Babylon (Jer. li. 47), as well as Egypt, worshipped graven images, a practice which was rigidly interdicted to the Israelites (Exod. xx. 4. Lev. xxvi. 1. Deut. xxvii. 15).

GREECE, Græcia, Hellas, whence Hellenes, the name by which the Greeks denominated themselves, is in Hebrew (Gen. x. 2) called Javan, which may probably be recognised in Ion and Ionia (Is. lxvi. 19. Ezek. xxvii. 13, 19. Daniel x. 20; xi. 2. Zech. ix. 13). In Elisha, a son of Javan, has been recognised the representative of the southern part of Greece, particularly the Peloponnesus. The borders of Greece varied at different periods. In the time of Christ, Greece comprised, I. Hellas, or Middle Greece, that is, the countries of Megaris, Attica, Boeotia, Phocis, Locris, Doris, Ætolia, and Acar

Greeks, the inhabitants of Greece, who were at an early period brought by commerce into connection with Phoenicia and the islands lying off the coast of Palestine, which had, in consequence, a Greek as well as a Phoenician population. Hence the Greeks, especially those of Asia Minor, the Ionians (Javan), soon became known to the Hebrews. In consequence of the victories of Alexander, persons of Greek origin were diffused through Western Asia, into which they introduced their language, customs, and religion. These, as belonging to a conquering people, gained predominance, causing the names Greeks and Grecian to be applied to the Greek settlers in Asia; so that the 'kingdom of the Greeks,' in 1 Macc. i. 10 (comp. Joel iii. 6), means the dynasty of the Seleucidæ (see ANTIOCHUS); and in the New Testament, when religious things are spoken of, the epithet Greek does not differ much from that of heathen (Acts xi. 20; xix. 10), and forms the ordinary antithesis to Jews, so that the two sometimes signify men in general (Rom. i. 16. 1 Cor. i. 22, 23; xii. 13, in the original, not 'Gentiles,' but 'Greeks.' Gal. iv. 28). This contrast had a more restricted meaning, for Greek was a name applied to one who, being by birth a Greek, had become a Jew in religion; also to Jews, and Christians converted from Judaism, who lived in Greek cities, and had more or less contracted Greek manners. This variation in its import makes the exposition of the epithet in some cases difficult. 'Greek' and 'Grecian' in the New Testament must be distinguished. The first represents the word Hellen, the ordinary term for Greek, and so rendered in John xii. 20. Acts xvi. 1; but 'Gentiles' in John vii. 35, that is, proselytes to Judaism living in the Greek cities of the Roman empire, who were numerous (Joseph. J. W., vii. 3, 2; Against Apion, i. 7). The devout Greeks' of Acts xvii. 4, were Greeks converted to Judaism, and so styled 'worshippers' (of God). In 1 Cor. i. 22, the name Greeks' has a reference to the intellectual culture for which Greece was famous. Hence the antithesis' Greeks and Barbarians'-an antithesis which is expounded by the ensuing words, wise and unwise' (Rom. i. 14). The other word, 'Grecian,' stands for Hellenistes, which is from a Greek term meaning to imitate what is Greek, to grecise. It is accordingly, in the New Tes

tament, used of foreign Jews and proselytes from the Gentiles who spoke the Greek tongue, as opposed to Jews using the Hebrew or Aramaic (Acts vi. 1; ix. 29, also in the ordinary Greek Testaments, in xi. 20, where Griesbach reads Hellenas, 'Greeks').

GREETING and saluting have their import conveyed by the meaning of the Hebrew terms used to signify the acts intended. These terms are, I. shahal, to ask, that is peace (1 Sam. xxv. 5), to seek good-will from one whom you meet; II. shahlohm, to wish peace to one in whose presence you come (Gen. xliii. 23); III. bahrach, to bless or wish good to (1 Sam. xiii. 10). These utterances of kindness were accompanied by gestures, such as inclining the head or upper part of the body, or even falling prostrate at the feet of another, in which the greater the depression of the person, the greater was the homage and reverence intended to be paid. With the slow and formal movements of orientals, greeting may occupy some time and be incompatible with despatch, on which account our Lord bad his missionaries 'to salute no man by the way' (Luke x. 4; comp. 2 Kings iv. 29). Greetings have always been very frequent in the East, constituting a part of that extreme politeness of manner which is one of its characteristics. Perkins (319) thus speaks of salutations in Persia: As I was at work in our garden, the boys belonging to our seminary passed along and saluted me in their common patriarchal style, Allaha-kuvet-yavil- May God give you strength.' When two persons meet, they mutually salute each other by one saying, 'Peace be with you,' and the other, 'With you also be peace.' When one enters the house of the other he says the same, 'Peace be with you,' and the other replies, "Your coming is welcome.' When a guest leaves a house he says, 'May God grant yon increase; may your days be prosperous;' and the other replies, 'May God be with you.' And these salutations are repeated as often as persons meet or enter each other's apartments, if it be every half-hour of the day.'

GRISLED, from grisly,' speckled with black and white, stands in four passages (Gen. xxxi. 10, 12. Zech. vi. 3, 6) for a Hebrew term meaning spotted or varicoloured.

GROVES, or thickly-growing trees, were, in consequence of their natural stillness and 'dim religious light,' the earliest temples used by man. Abraham planted a grove, ehshel, in Beersheba, and called there on the name of Jehovah (Gen. xxi. 33; comp. 1 Sam. xxxi. 13. 1 Kings xiv. 23). The word here used is different from another, ahsherah, of more frequent occurrence and rendered 'grove,' which properly is a surname of the Syrian divinity Ashteroth, or Astarte (see the article), whose image was set up and worshipped (2 Kings xxi. 7), together with

Baalim, the correspondent male idol (Judg. iii. 7), on elevated places (1 Kings xiv. 23), with an attendant retinue of priests (xviii. 19).

Groves of oak are sometimes very large. Thomson, missionary in Syria, came, on the western banks of the Hasbauy, to a long oval hill covered with a dense forest of mountain oak, whose deep green refreshed the eye with its bright and happy contrast to the barren and burnt district around. The traveller skirted the base of this oak-bill for about twenty minutes, and then entered an olive grove which extended for about three miles to the south.

GOVERNOR (T. from the Latin guberno, I act as pilot') stands for several Hebrew words of kindred meaning, denoting generally persons who bear rule over others. It is the name given to a class of officers in the Babylonian (Dan. iii. 2, 3) or Persian em. pire (Ezra v. 3), who do not appear to have in all cases been persons of much consequence; for in the countries west of the Euphrates there were several of them (Neh. ii. 7), and the Jews, who occupied but a small territory, had one to themselves, of Hebrew blood (v. 14, vi. 7).

In the New Testament, which contemplates Judea as a Roman province, the reader is to understand by' governor,' Roman officers, to whom was assigned the government of separate parts and districts of the Roman empire. A distinction must be made between two sets of Roman officers. We take as instances, Cyrenius in Luke ii. 2, and Pontius Pilate (Matt. xxvii. 2). The first was the superior officer, being president of Syria; the second was governor solely of Judea. Cyrenius governed the province of Syria, Pilate a part of that province. As might be expected on the part of foreigners unversed in the distinctions of Roman law, and chiefly sensible that they were under the rule of a distant nation, the writers of the New Testament speak of both under the same name—a word signifying a military leader or commander. This in the actual case was a correct term, and one likely to be used by the subjected Jews. We have, then, in these facts a confirmation of the historic reality of the evangelical narratives.

It is with the inferior officer that the readers of the New Testament are chiefly concerned. His proper appellation was procurator. The power which he held, though dependent on that of his superior officer, the governor of the province, yet, as being in essence military and supported by force of arms, was very considerable, involving life and death, and great questions of right, li berty, and property.

We subjoin from 'Greswell's Dissertations on the Harmony of the Gospels,' these two lists: