By this term we are to understand, 1. God himself, Ps. xx. 1.--2. His titles peculiar to himself, Exod. iii. 13, 14.--3. His word, Ps. v. 11. Acts ix. 15.--4. His works, Ps. viii. 1.--5. His worship, Exod. xx. 24.--6. His perfections and excellencies, Exod. xxxiv. 6. John xvii. 26. The properties or qualities of this name are these: 1. A glorious name, Ps. lxxii. 17.--2. Transcendent and incomparable, Rev. xix. 16.--3. Powerful, Phil. ii. 10.--4. Holy and reverend, Ps. cxi. 9.--5. Awful to the wicked.--6. Perpetual, Is. lv. 13. Cruden's Concordance; Hannam's Anal. Comp. p. 20.
The birth of our Saviour was exactly as
predicted by the prophecies of the Old Testament, Isa. vii. 14. Jer. xxxi. 22.
He was born of a virgin of the House of David, and of the tribe of Judah,
Matthew, 1. Luke, i. 27. His coming into the world was after the manner of
other men, though his generation and conception were extraordinary. The place
of his birth was Bethlehem, Mic. v. 2. Matt. ii. 4, 6, where his parents were
wonderfully conducted by providence, Luke ii. 1, 7. The time of his birth was
foretold by the prophets to be before the sceptre or civil government departed
from Judah, Gen. xlix. 10. Mal. iii. 1. Hag. ii. 6, 7, 9. Dan. ix. 24; but the
exact year of his birth is not agreed on by chronologers, but it was about the
four thousandth year of the world; nor can the season of the year, the month,
and day in which he was born, be ascertained. The Egyptians placed it in
January; Wagenseil, in February; Bochart, in March, some, mentioned by Clement
of Alexandria, in April; others, in May; Epiphanius speaks of some who placed
it in June, and of others who supposed it to have been in July; Wagenseil, who
was not sure of February fixed it probably in August; Lightfoot, on the
fifteenth of September; Scaliger, Casaubon, and Calvisius, in October; others,
in November; and the Latin church in December. It does not, however, appear
probable that the vulgar account is right; the circumstance of the shepherds
watching their flocks by night, agrees not with the winter season. Dr. Gill
thinks it was more likely in autumn, in the month of September, at the feast of
tabernacles, to which there seems some reference in John, i. 14. The Scripture,
however, assures us that it was in the "fulness of time," Gal. iv. 4;
and, indeed the wisdom of God is evidently displayed as to the time when, as
well as the end for which Christ came.
It was in a time when the world stood in need of
such a Saviour, and was best prepared for receiving him. "About the time
of Christ's appearance," says Dr. Robertson, "there prevailed a general
opinion that the Almighty would send forth some eminent messenger to
communicate a more perfect discovery of his will to mankind. The dignity of
Christ, the virtues of his character, the glory of his kingdom, and the signs
of his coming, were described by the ancient prophets with the utmost
perspicuity.--Guided by the sure word of prophecy, the Jews of that age
concluded the period predetermined by God to be then completed, and that the
promised Messiah would suddenly appear, Luke, ii. 25 to 38. Nor were these
expectations peculiar to the Jews. By their dispersions among so many nations,
by their conversation with the learned men among the heathens and the
translation of their inspired writings into a language almost universal, the
principles of their religion were spread all over the East; and it became the
common belief that a Prince would arise at that time in Judea, who should
change the face of the world, and extend his empire from one end of the earth
to the other. Now, had Christ been manifest at a more early period, the world
would not have been prepared to meet him with the same fondness and zeal; had
his appearance been put off for any considerable time, men's expectations would
have begun to languish, and the warmth of desire, from a delay of gratification,
might have cooled and died away.
"The birth of Christ was also in the fulness
of time, if we consider the then political state of the world. The world, in
the most early ages, was divided into small independent states, differing from
each other in language, manners, laws, and religion. The shock of so many
opposite interests, the interfering of so many contrary views, occasioned the
most violent convulsions and disorders; perpetual discord subsisted between
these rival states, and hostility and bloodshed never ceased. Commerce had not
hitherto united mankind, and opened the communication of one nation with
another: voyages into remote countries were very rare; men moved in a narrow
circle, little acquainted with any thing beyond the limits of their own small
territory. At last the Roman ambition undertook the arduous enterprise of
conquering the world: They trod down the kingdoms, according to Daniel's
prophetic description, by their exceeding strength; they devoured the whole
earth, Dan. vii. 7, 23. However by enslaving the world, they civilized it, and
while they oppressed mankind, they united them together: the same laws were
every where established, and the same languages understood; men approached
nearer to one another in sentiments and manners, and the intercourse between
the most distant corners of the earth was rendered secure and agreeable.
Satiated with victory, the first emperors abandoned all thoughts of new
conquests; peace, an unknown blessing, was enjoyed through all that vast empire;
or if a slight war was waged on an outlying and barbarous frontier, far from
disturbing the tranquillity, it scarcely drew the attention of mankind. The
disciples of Christ, thus favoured by the union and peace of the Roman empire,
executed their commission with great advantage. The success and rapidity with
which they diffused the knowledge of his name over the world are astonishing.
Nations were now accessible which formerly had been unknown. Under this
situation, into which the providence of God had brought the world, the joyful
sound in a few years reached those remote corners of the earth into which it
could not otherwise have penetrated for many ages. Thus the Roman ambition and
bravery paved the way, and prepared the world for the reception of the
Christian doctrine."
If we consider the state of the world with regard
to morals, it evidently appears that the coming of Christ was at the most
appropriate time. "The Romans," continues our author, "by
subduing the world, lost their own liberty. Many vices, engendered or nourished
by prosperity, delivered them over to the vilest race of tyrants that ever
afflicted or disgraced human nature. The colours are not too strong which the
apostle employs in drawing the character of that age. See Eph. iv. 17, 19. In
this time of universal corruption did the wisdom of God manifest the Christian
revelation to the world. What the wisdom of men could do for the encouragement
of virtue in a corrupt world had been tried during several ages, and all human
devices were found by experience to be of very small avail; so that no juncture
could be more proper for publishing a religion, which, independent of human
laws and institutions, explains the principles of morals with admirable
perspicuity, and enforces the practice of them by most persuasive
arguments."
The wisdom of God will still farther appear in
the time of Christ's coming, if we consider the world with regard to its
religious state. "The Jews seem to have been deeply tinctured with
superstition. Delighted with the ceremonial prescriptions of the law, they
utterly neglected the moral. While the Pharisees undermined religion, on the
one hand, by their vain traditions and wretched interpretations of the law, the
Sadducees denied the immortality of the soul, and overturned the doctrine of
future rewards and punishments; so that between them the knowledge and power of
true religion were entirely destroyed. But the deplorable situation of the
heathen world called still more loudly for an immediate interposal of the
divine hand. The characters of their heathen deities were infamous, and their
religious worship consisted frequently in the vilest and most shameful rites.
According to the apostle's observation, they were in all things too
superstitious. Stately temples, expensive sacrifices, pompous ceremonies,
magnificent festivals, with all the other circumstances of show and splendour,
were the objects which false religion presented to its votaries; but just
notions of God, obedience to his moral laws, purity of heart, and sanctity of
life, were not once mentioned as ingredients in religious service. Rome adopted
the gods of almost every nation whom she had conquered, and opened her temples
to the grossest superstitions of the most barbarous people. Her foolish heart
being darkened, she changed the glory of the incorruptible God in to an image
made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and
creeping things, Rom. i. 21, 23. No period, therefore, can be mentioned when
instructions would have been more seasonable and necessary;" and no wonder
that those who were looking for salvation should joyfully exclaim,
"Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he hath visited and redeemed his
people."
The nativity of Christ is celebrated among us on
the twenty-fifth day of December, and divine service is performed in the
church, and in many places of worship among dissenters; but, alas! the day, we
fear, is more generally profaned than improved. Instead of being a season of
real devotion, it is a season of great diversion. The luxury, extravagance,
intemperance, obscene pleasures, and drunkeness that abound, are striking
proofs of the immoralities of the age. "It is matter of just
complaint," says a divine, "that such irregular and extravagant
things are at this time commonly done by many who call themselves Christians;
as if, because the Son of God was at this time made man, it were fit for men to
make themselves beasts." Manne's Dissertation on the Birth of Christ;
Lardner's Cred. p. i. vol. ii. p. 796, 963; Gill's Body of Divinity on
Incarnation; Bishop Law's Theory of Religion; Dr. Robertson's admirable Sermon
on the Situation of the World at Christ's appearance; Edwards's Redemption,
313, 316; Robinson's Claude, vol. i. p. 176, 317; John Edwards's Survey of all
the Dispensations and Methods of Religion chap. 13. vol. i.
The essential properties of a thing, or that by which it is distinguished from all others. It is used also, for the system of the world, and the Creator of it; the aggregate powers of the human body, and common sense, Rom. i. 26, 27. 1 Cor. xi. 14. The word is also used in reference to a variety of other objects which we shall here enumerate. 1. The divine nature is not any external form or shape, but his glory, excellency, and perfections, peculiar to himself.--2. Human nature signifies the state, properties, and peculiarities of man.--3. Good nature is a disposition to please, and is compounded of kindness, forbearance, forgiveness, and self-denial.--4. The law of nature is the will of God relating to human actions, grounded in the moral differences of things. Some understand it in a more comprehensive sense, as signifying those stated orders by which all the parts of the material world are governed in their several motions and operations.--5. The light of nature does not consist merely in those ideas which heathens have actually attained, but those which are presented to men by the works of creation, and which, by the exertion of reason, they may obtain, if they be desirous of retaining God in their mind. See RELIGION.--6. By the dictates of nature, with regard to right and wrong, we understand those things which appear to the mind to be natural, fit, or reasonable.--7. The state of nature is that in which men have not by mutual engagements, implicit or express, entered communities.--8. Depraved nature is that corrupt state in which all mankind are born, and which inclines them to evil.
Christians converted from Judaism, whose chief
error consisted in defending the necessity or expediency of the works of the
law, and who obstinately adhered to the practice of the Jewish ceremonies. The
name of Nazarenes, at first, had nothing odious in it, and it was often given
to the first Christians. The fathers frequently mention the Gospel of the
Nazarenes, which differs nothing from that of St. Matthew, which was either in
Hebrew or Syriac, for the use of the first converts, but was afterwards
corrupted by the Ebionites. These Nazarenes preserved their first Gospel in its
primitive purity. Some of them were still in being in the time of St. Jerome,
who does not reproach them with any errors. They were very zealous observers of
the law of Moses, but held the traditions of the Pharisees in very great
contempt.
The word Nazarene was given to Jesus Christ and
his disciples; and is commonly taken in a sense of derision and contempt in
such authors as have written against Christianity.
Those under the ancient law who made a vow of
observing as Samson and John the Baptist. The Nazarites engaged by a vow to
abstain from wine and all intoxicating liquors; to let their hair grow without
cutting or shaving; not to enter into any house that was polluted by having a
dead corpse in it; nor to be present at any funeral. And if by chance any one
should have died in their presence, they began again the whole ceremony of
their consecration and Nazariteship--This ceremony generally lasted eight days,
sometimes a month, and sometimes their whole lives. When the time of their
Nazariteship was accomplished, the priest brought the person to the door of the
temple, who there offered to the Lord a he-lamb for a burnt-offering, a
she-lamb for an expiatory sacrifice, and a ram for a peace offering. They
offered likewise loaves and cakes with wine necessary for the libations. After
all this was sacrificed and offered to the Lord, the priest or some other
person, shaved the head of the Nazarite at the door of the tabernacles, and
burnt his hair, throwing it upon the fire of the altar. Then the priest put
into the hand of the Nazarite the shoulder of the ram, roasted, with a loaf and
a cake, which the Nazarite returning into the hands of the priest, he offered
them to the Lord, lifting them up in the presence of the Nazarite. And from
this Nazariteship being now accomplished. Numb. vi. Amos ii. 11,12.
Those that made a vow of Nazariteship out of
Palestine, and could not come to the temple when their vow was expired,
contented themselves with observing the abstinence required by the law, and
after that, cutting their hair in the place where they were: as to the
offerings and sacrifices prescribed by Moses, which were to be offered at the
temple by themselves, or by others for them, they deferred this till they could
have a convenient opportunity. Hence it was that St. Paul, being at Corinth,
and having made a vow of a Nazarite, had his hair cut off at Cenchrea, and put
off fulfilling the rest of his vow til he should arrive at Jerusalem, Acts
xviii. 18. When a person found that he was not in a condition to make a vow of
Nazariteship, or had not leisure to perform the ceremonies belonging to it, he
contented himself by contributing to the expense of the sacrifice and offerings
of those that had made and fulfilled this vow; and by this means he became a
partaker in the merit of such Nazariteship. When St. Paul came to Jerusalem, in
the year of Christ 53, the apostle St. James the Less, with the other brethren,
said to him (Acts xxi. 23, 24,) that to quiet the minds of the converted Jews,
who had been informed that he every where preached up the entire abolition of
the law of Moses, he ought to join himself to four of the faithful who had a
vow of Nazariteship upon them, and contribute to the charge of the ceremony at
the shaving of their heads; by which the new converts would perceive that he
continued to keep the law, and that what they had heard of him was not true.
An appellation which may be given to all who maintain that moral agents act from necessity. See next article, and MATERIALISTS.
Whatever is done by a cause or power that is irresistible, in which sense it is opposed to freedom. Man is a necessary agent, if all his actions be so determined by the causes preceding each action, that not one past action could possibly not have come to pass, or have been otherwise than it hath been, nor one future action can possibly not come to pass, or be otherwise than it shall be. On the other hand, it is asserted, that he is a free agent, if he be able at any time, under the causes and circumstances he then is, to do different things; or, in other words, if he be not unavoidably determined in every point of time by the circumstances he is in, and the causes he is under, to do any one thing he does, and not possibly to do any other thing. Whether man is a necessary or a free agent, is a question which has been debated by writers of the first eminence, Hobbes, Collins, Hume, Leibuitz, Kaims, Hartley, Priestley, Edwards, Crombie, Toplady, and Belsham, have written on the side of necessity; while Clarke, King, Law, Reid, Butler, Price, Bryant, Wollaston, Horsley, Beattie, Gregory, and Butterworth, have written against it. To state all their arguments in this place, would take up too much room; suffice it to say, that the Anti-necessarians suppose that the doctrine of necessity charges God as the author of sin; that it takes away the freedom of the will, renders man unaccountable, makes sin to be no evil, or morality or virtue to be no good; precludes the use of means, and is of the most gloomy tendency. The Necessarians deny these to be legitimate consequences, and observe that the Deity acts no more immorally in decreeing vicious actions, than in permitting all those irregularities which he could so easily have prevented. The difficulty is the same on each hypothesis. All necessity, say they, doth not take away freedom. The actions of a man may be at one and the same time free and necessary too. It was infallibly certain that Judas would betray Christ, yet he did it voluntarily. Jesus Christ necessarily became man, and died, yet he acted freely. A good man doth naturally and necessarily love his children, yet voluntarily. It is part of the happiness of the blessed to love God unchangeably, yet freely, for it would not be their happiness if done by compulsion. Nor does it, says the Necessarian, render man unaccountable, since the Divine Being does no injuries to his rational faculties; and man, as his creature, is answerable to him; besides he has a right to do what he will with his own. That necessity doth not render actions less morally good, is evident; for if necessary virtue be neither moral nor praise-worthy, it will follow that God himself is not a moral being, because he is a necessary one; and the obedience of Christ cannot be good because it was necessary. Farther, say they, necessity does not preclude the use of means; for means are no less appointed than the end. It was ordained that Christ should be delivered up to death; but he could not have been betrayed without a betrayer, nor crucified without crucifiers. That it is not a gloomy doctrine, they allege, because nothing can be more consolatory than to believe that all things are under the direction of an all-wise Being; that his kingdom ruleth over all, and that he doth all things well. So far from its being inimical to happiness, they suppose there can be no solid true happiness without the belief of it; that happiness without the belief of it; that it inspires gratitude, excites confidence, teaches resignation, produces humility, and draws the soul to God. It is also observed, that to deny necessity is to deny the foreknowledge of God, and to wrest the sceptre from the hand of the Creator, and to place that capricious and undefinable principle.--The self-determining power of man, upon the throne of the universe. Beside, say they, the Scripture places the doctrine beyond all doubt, Job xxiii. 13, 14. Job xxxiv. 29. Prov. xvi. 4. Is. xlv. 7. Acts xiii. 48. Eph. i. 11. 1 Thess. iii. 3. Matt. x. 29, 30. Matt. xviii. 7. Luke xxiv. 26. John vi. 37. See the works of the above-mentioned writers on the subject; and articles MATERIALISTS, and PRE-DESTINATION.
Formed of dread, and discourse, or enumeration; a book anciently kept in churches and monasteries, wherein were registered the benefactors of the same, the time of their deaths, and the days of their commemoration; as also the deaths of the priors, abbots, religious canons, &c. This was otherwise called calendar and obituary.
The art of revealing future events, by conversing with the dead. See DIVINATION.
So called from the Greek new, and law;
signifying a new law, the condition whereof is imperfect, though sincere and
persevering obedience.
Neonomianism seems to be an essential part of the
Arminian system. "The new covenant of grace which, through the medium of
Christ's death, the Father made with men, consists according to this system,
not in our being justified by faith, as it apprehends the righteousness of
Christ, but in this, that God, abrogating the exaction of perfect legal obedience,
reputes or accepts of faith itself, and the imperfect obedience of faith,
instead of the perfect obedience of the law, and graciously accounts them
worthy of the reward of eternal life."--This opinion was examined at the
synod of Dort, and has been canvassed between the Calvinists and Arminians on
various occasions.
Towards the close of the seventeenth century a
controversy was agitated amongst the English dissenters, in which the one side,
who were partial to the writings of Dr. Crisp, were charged with Antinomianism,
and the other, who favoured Mr. Baxter, were accused of Neonomianism. Dr.
Daniel Williams, who was a principle writer on what was called the Neonomian
side, after many things had been said, gives the following as a summary of his
faith in reference to those subjects.--"1. God has eternally elected a
certain definite number of men whom he will infallibly save by Christ in that
way prescribed by the Gospel.--2. These very elect are not personally justified
until they receive Christ, and yield up themselves to him, but they remain
condemned whilst unconverted to Christ.--3. By the ministry of the Gospel there
is a serious offer of pardon and glory, upon the terms of the Gospel, to all
that hear it; and God thereby requires them to comply with the said terms.--4.
Ministers ought to use these and other Gospel benefits as motives, assuring men
that if they believe they shall be justified; if they turn to God, they shall
live; if they repent, their sins shall be blotted out; and whilst they neglect
these duties, they cannot have a personal interest in these respective
benefits.--5. It is by the power of the Spirit of Christ freely exerted, and
not by the power of free-will, that the Gospel becomes effectual for the
conversion of any soul to the obedience of faith.--6. When a man believes, yet
is not that very faith, and much less any other work, the matter of that
righteousness for which a sinner is justified, i. e. entitled to pardon,
acceptance and eternal glory, as righteous before God; and it is the imputed
righteousness of Christ alone, for which the Gospel gives the believer a right
to these and all saving blessings, who in this respect is justified by Christ's
righteousness alone. By both this and the fifth head it appears that all boasting
is excluded, and we are saved by free grace.--7. Faith alone receives the Lord
Jesus and his righteousness, and the subject of this faith is a convinced
penitent soul; hence we are justified by faith alone, and yet the impenitent
are not forgiven.--8. God has freely promised that all whom he predestinated to
salvation shall not only savingly believe, but that he by his power shall
preserve them from a total or a final apostacy.--9. Yet the believer, whilst he
lives in this world, is to pass the time of his sojourning here with fear,
because his warfare is not accomplished, and that it is true, that if he draw
back, God will have no pleasure in him. Which with the like cautions God
blessed as means to the saints perseverance, and these by ministers should be
so urged.--10. The law of innocence, or moral law, is so in force still, as
that every precept thereof constitutes duty, even to the believer; every breach
thereof is a sin deserving of death: this law binds death by its curse on every
unbeliever, and the righteousness for or by which we are justified before God,
in a righteousness (at least) adequate to that law which is Christ's alone
righteousness; and this so imputed to the believer as that God deals judicially
with him according thereto.--11. Yet such is the grace of the Gospel, that it
promiseth in and by Christ a freedom from the curse, forgiveness of sin, and
eternal life, to every sincere believer: which promise God with certainly
perform, notwithstanding the threatening of the law."
Dr. Williams maintains the conditionality of the
covenant of grace; but admits, with Dr. Owen, who also uses the term condition,
that "Christ undertook that those who were to be taken into this covenant
should receive grace enabling them to comply with the terms of it, fulfil its
conditions, and yield the obedience which God required therein."
On this subject Dr. Williams further says,
"The question is not whether the first (viz. regenerating) grace, by which
we are enabled to perform the condition, be absolutely given. This I affirm,
though that be dispensed ordinarily in a due use of means, and in a way
discountenancing idleness, and fit encouragement given to the use of
means."
The following objection, among others, was made
by several ministers in 1692 against Dr. Williams's Gospel Truth Stated,
&c. "To supply the room of the moral law, vacated by him, he turns the
Gospel into a new Law, in keeping of which we shall be justified for the sake
of Christ's righteousness, making qualifications and acts of ours a disposing
subordinate righteousness, whereby we become capable of being justified by
Christ's righteousness."
To this among other things he answers. "The
difference is not, 1. Whether the gospel be a new law in the Socinian, Popish,
or Arminian sense. This I deny. Nor, 2. Is faith, or any other grace or act of
ours, any atonement for sin, satisfaction to justice, meriting qualification,
or any part of that righteousness for which we are justified at God our
Creator's bar. This I deny in places innumerable. Nor, 3. Whether the gospel be
a law more new than is implied in the first promise to fallen Adam, proposed to
Cain, and obeyed by Abel, to the differencing him from his unbelieving brother.
This I deny. 4. Nor whether the Gospel be a law that allows sin, when it
accepts such graces as true, though short of perfection, to be the conditions
of our personal interest in the benefits purchased by Christ. This I deny. 5.
Nor whether the Gospel be a law, the promises whereof entitle the performers of
its conditions to the benefits as of debt. This I deny.
"The difference is, 1. Is the Gospel a law
in this sense; viz. God in christ thereby commandeth sinners to repent of sin,
and receive Christ by a true operative faith, promising that thereupon they
shall be united to him, justified by his righteousness, pardoned, and adopted;
and that, persevering in faith and true holiness, they shall be finally saved;
also threatening that if any shall die impenitent, unbelieving, ungodly,
rejecters of his grace, they shall perish without relief, and endure sorer
punishments than if these offers had not been made to them?--2. Hath the Gospel
a sanction, i. e. doth Christ therein enforce his commands of faith, repentance
and perseverance, by the aforesaid promised and threatenings, as motives of our
obedience? Both of these I affirm, and they deny; saying the Gospel in the
largest sense is an absolute promise without precepts and conditions, and the
Gospel threat is a bull.--3. Do the gospel promises of benefits to certain
graces, and its threats that those benefits shall be withheld and the contrary
evils inflicted for the neglect of such graces, render those graces the
condition of our personal title to those benefits?--This they deny, and I
affirm," &c.
It does not appear to have been a question in
this controversy, whether God in his word commands sinners to repent and
believe in Christ, nor whether he promises life to believers, and threatens
death to unbelievers; but whether he promises life to believers, and threatens
death to unbelievers; but whether it be the Gospel under the form of a new law
that thus commands or threatens, or the moral law on its behalf, and whether
its promises to believing render such believing a condition of the things
promised. In another controversy, however, which arose about forty years
afterwards among the same description of people, it became a question whether
God did by his word (call it law or Gospel) command unregenerate sinners to
repent and believe in Christ, or to do any thing which is spiritually good. Of
those who took the affirmative side of this question, one party attempted to
maintain it on the ground of the Gospel being a new law, consisting of
commands, promises, and threatenings, the terms or conditions of which were
repentance, faith, and sincere obedience. But those who first engaged in the
controversy, though they allowed the encouragement to repent and believe to
arise merely from the grace of the Gospel, yet considered the formal obligation
to do so as arising merely from the moral law, which, requiring supreme love to
God, requires acquiscence in any revelation which he shall at any time make
known. Witsius's Irenicum; Edwards on the Will, p. 220; William's gospel Truth;
Edwards's Crispianism Unmasked; Chauncey's Neonomianism Unmasked; Adams's View
of Religions.
The followers of Nestorius, the bishop of
Constantinople, who lived in the fifth century. They believed that in Christ
there were not only two natures, but two persons; of which the one was divine,
even the eternal word; and the other, which was human, was the man Jesus: that
these two persons had only one aspect: that the union between the Son of God
and the son of man was formed in the moment of the virgin's conception, and was
never to be dissolved: that it was not, however, an union of nature or of
person, but only of will and affection. (Nestorius, however, it is said, denied
the last position:) that Christ was therefore to be carefully distinguished
from God, who dwelt in him as in his temple; and that Mary was to be called the
mother of Christ, and not the mother of God.
One of the chief promoters of the Nestorian cause
was Barsumas, created bishop of Nisibis, A. D. 435. Such was his zeal and
success, that the Nestorians who still remain in Chaldea, Persia, Assyria, and
the adjacent countries, consider him alone as their parent and founder. By him
Pherozes, the Persian monarch, was persuaded to expel those Christians who
adopted the opinions of the Greeks, and to admit the Nestorians in their place,
putting them in possession of the principal seat of ecclesiastical authority in
Persia, the see of Selucia, which the patriarch of the Nestorians had always
filled even down to our time. Barsumas also erected a school at Nisibis, from
which proceeded those Nestorian doctors who in the fifth and sixth centuries
spread abroad their tenets through Egypt, Syria, Arabia, India, Tartary, and
China.
In the tenth century, the Nestorians in Chaldea,
whence they are sometimes called Chaldeans, extended their spiritual conquests
beyond Mount Imaus, and introduced the Christian religion into Tartary properly
so called, and especially into that country called Karit, bordering on the
northern part of China. The prince of that country, whom the Nestorians
converted to the Christian faith, assumed, according to the vulgar tradition,
the name of John after his baptism, to which he added the surname of Presbyter,
from a principle of modesty; whence, it is said, his successors were each of
them called Prester John until the time of Gengis Khan. But Mosheim observes,
that the famous Prester John did not begin to reign in that part of Asia before
the conclusion of the eleventh century. The Nestorians formed so considerable a
body of Christians, that the missionaries of Rome were industrious in their
endeavours to reduce them under the papal yoke. Innocent IV. in 1246, and
Nicholas IV. in 1278, used their utmost efforts for this purpose, but without
success. Till the time of pope Julius III. the Nestorians acknowledged but one
patriarch, who resided first at Bagdad, and afterwards at Mousul; but a
division arising among them, in 1551 the patriarchate became divided, at least
for a time, and a new patriarch was consecrated by that pope, whose successors
fixed their residence in the city of Ormus, in the mountainous parts of Persia,
where they still continue, distinguished by the name of Simeon; and so far down
as the seventeenth century, these patriarchs persevered in their communion with
the church of Rome, but seem at present to have withdrawn themselves from it.
The great Nestorian pontiffs, who form the opposite party, and look with a
hostile eye on this little patriarch, have, since the year 1559, been distinguished
by the general denomination of Elias, and reside constantly in the city of
Mousul. Their spiritual dominion is very extensive, takes in a great part of
Asia, and comprehends also within its circuit the Arabian Nestorians, and also
the Christians of St. Thomas, who dwell along the coast of Malabar. It is
observed, to the lasting honour of the Nestorians, that of all the Christian
societies established in the East, they have been the most careful and
successful in avoiding a multitude of superstitious opinions and practices that
have infected the Greek and Latin churches. About the middle of the seventeenth
century, the Romish missionaries gained over to their communion a small number
of Nestorians, whom they formed into a congregation or church; the patriarchs
or bishops of which reside in the city of Amida, or Diarbeker, and all assume
the denomination of Joseph. Nevertheless, the Nestorians in general persevere
to our own times in their refusal to enter into the communion of the Romish
church, notwithstanding the earnest entreaties and alluring offers that have
been made by the pope's legate to conquer their inflexible constancy.
See SWEDENBORGIANS.
Or AMMONIANS, so called from Ammonius Saccas,
who taught with the highest applause in the Alexandrian school, about the
conclusion of the second century. This learned man attempted a general
reconciliation of all sects, whether philosophical or religious. He maintained
that the great principles of all philosophical and religious truth were to be
found equally in all sects, and that they differed from each other only in
their method of expressing them, in some opinions of little or no importance;
and that by a proper interpretation of their respective sentiments they might
easily be united in one body.
Ammonius supposed that true philosophy derived
its origin and its consistence from the eastern nations, that it was taught to
the Egyptians by Hermes, that it was brought from them to the Greeks, and
preserved in its original purity by Plato, who was the best interpreter of
Hermes and the other oriental sages. He maintained that all the different
religions which prevailed in the world were in their original integrity,
conformable to this ancient philosophy: but it unfortunately happened that the
symbols and fictions under which, according to the ancient manner, the ancients
delivered their precepts and doctrines, were in process of time erroneously
understood, both by priests and people, in a literal sense; that in consequence
of this, the invisible beings and demons whom the Supreme Deity had placed in
the different parts of the universe as the ministers of his providence, were by
the suggestions of superstition converted into gods, and worshipped with a
multiplicity of vain ceremonies. He therefore insisted that all the religions
of all nations should be restored to their primitive standard: viz. The ancient
philosophy of the east: and he asserted that his project was agreeable to the
intentions of Jesus Christ, whom he acknowledged to be a most excellent man,
the friend of God; and affirmed that his sole view in descending on earth, was
to set bounds to the reigning superstition, to remove the errors which had
crept into the religion of all nations, but not to abolish the ancient theology
from which they were derived.
Taking these principles for granted, Ammonius
associated the sentiments of the Egyptians with the doctrines of Plato; and to
finish this conciliatory scheme, he so interpreted the doctrines of the other
philosophical and religious sects, by art, invention, and allegory, that they
seemed to bear some semblance to the Egyptian and Platonic systems.
With regard to moral discipline, Ammonius
permitted the people to live according to the law of their country, and the
dictates of nature; but a more sublime rule was laid down for the wise. They
were to raise above all terrestrial things, by the towering efforts of holy
contemplation, those souls whose origin was celestial and divine. They were
ordered to extenuate by hunger, thirst, and other mortifications, the sluggish
body, which restrains the liberty of the immortal spirit, that in this life
they might enjoy communion with the Supreme Being, and ascend after death,
active and unencumbered, to the universal Parent, to live in his presence for
ever.
See INSPIRATION, and SCRIPTURE.
See CREED.
Heretics who assumed this name from Nicholas of Antioch; who, being a Gentile by birth, first embraced Judaism and than Christianity; when his zeal and devotion recommended him to the church of Jerusalem, by whom he was chosen one of the first deacons. Many of the primitive writers believed that Nicholas was rather the occasion than the author of the infamous practices of those who assumed his name, who were expressly condemned by the Spirit of God himself, Rev. ii. 6. And, indeed, their opinions and actions were highly extravagant and criminal. They allowed a community of wives, and made no distinction between ordinary meats and those offered to idols. According to Eusebius, they subsisted but a short time; but Tertullian says, that they only changed their name, and that their heresies passed into the sect of the Cainites.
Christian heretics in the third century, followers of Noetius, a philosopher of Ephesus, who pretended that he was another Moses sent by God, and that his brother was a new Aaron. His heresy consisted in affirming that there was but one person in the Godhead; and that the Word and the Holy Spirit were but external denominations given to God in consequence of different operations; that, as Creator, he is called Father; as incarnate, Son; and as descending on the apostles, Holy Ghost.
Those who refuse to join the established church.
Nonconformists in England may be considered of three sorts. 1. Such as absent
themselves from divine worship in the established church through total
irreligion, and attend the service of no other persuasion.--2. Such as absent
themselves on the plea of conscience; as Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists,
&c.--3. Internal Nonconformists, or unprincipled clergymen, who applaud and
propagate doctrines quite inconsistent with several of those articles they
promised on oath to defend. The word is generally used in reference to those
ministers who were ejected from their livings by the act of Uniformity, in
1662. The number of these was about two thousand. However some affect to treat
these men with indifference, and suppose that their consciences were more tender
than they need be, it must be remembered, that they were men of as extensive
learning, great abilities, and pious conduct as ever appeared. Mr. Locke, if
his opinion have any weight, calls them "worthy, learned, pious, orthodox
divines, who did not throw themselves out of service, but were forcibly
ejected." Mr. Bogue thus draws their character: "As to their public
ministration," he says, "they were orthodox, experimental, serious,
affectionate, regular, faithful, able, and popular preachers. As to their moral
qualities, they were devout and holy; faithful to Christ and the souls of men;
wise and prudent; of great liberality and kindness; and strenuous advocates for
liberty, civil and religious. As to their intellectual qualities, they were
learned, eminent, and laborious." These men were driven from their houses,
from the society of their friends, and exposed to the greatest difficulties.
Their burdens were greatly increased by the Conventical act, whereby they were
prohibited from meeting for any exercise of religion (above five in number) in
any other manner than allowed by the liturgy or practice of the Church of
England. For the first offence the penalty was three months imprisonment, or
pay five pounds; for the second offence, six months imprisonment, or ten
pounds; and for the third offence, to be banished to some of the American
plantations for seven years, or pay one hundred pounds; and in case they
returned, to suffer death without benefit of clergy. By virtue of this act, the
gaols were quickly filled with dissenting Protestants, and the trade of an
informer was very gainful. So great was the severity of these times, says
Neale, that they were afraid to pray in their families, if above four of their
acquaintance, who came only to visit them, were present: some families scrupled
asking a blessing on their meat if five strangers were at table.
But this was not all (to say nothing of the Test
act:) in 1665, an act was brought into the House to banish them from their
friends, commonly called the Oxford Five Mile Act, by which all dissenting
ministers, on the penalty of forty pounds, who would not take an oath (that it
was not lawful, upon any pretence whatever, to take arms against the king,
&c) were prohibited from coming within five miles of any city, town
corporate, or borough, or any place where they had exercised their ministry,
and from teaching any school. Some few took the oath; others could not,
consequently suffered the penalty.
In 1673, "the mouths of the high church
pulpiteers, were encouraged to open as loud as possible. One, in his sermon
before the House of Commons, told them, that the Nonconformists ought not to be
tolerated, but to be cured by vengeance. He urged them to set fire to the
faggot, and to teach them by scourges or scorpions, and open their eyes with
gall."
Such were the dreadful consequences of this
intolerant spirit, that it is supposed near eight thousand died in prison in
the reign of Charles II. It is said, that Mr. Jeremiah White had carefully
collected a list of those who had suffered between Charles II. and the
revolution, which amounted to sixty thousand. The same persecutions were
carried on in Scotland; and there, as well as in England, many, to avoid
persecution, fled from their country.
But, notwithstanding all these dreadful and
furious attacks upon the Dissenters, they were not extirpated. Their very
persecution was in their favour. The infamous characters of their informers and
persecutors; their piety, zeal, and fortitude, no doubt, had influence on
considerate minds; and, indeed, they had additions from the established church,
which "several clergymen in this reign deserted as a persecuting church,
and took their lot among them. In addition to this, king James suddenly altered
his measures, granted a universal toleration, and preferred Dissenters to
places of trust and profit, though it was evidently with a view to restore
popery.
King William coming to the throne, the famous
Toleration Act passed, by which they were exempted from suffering the penalties
above-mentioned, and permission given them to worship God, according to the
dictates of their own consciences. In the latter end of Queen Anne's reign they
began to be a little alarmed. An act of parliament passed, called the
Occasional Conformity Bill, which prevented any person in office under the
government entering into a meeting-house. Another, called the Schism Bill, had
actually obtained the royal assent, which suffered no Dissenters to educate
their own children, but required them to be put into the hands of Conformists;
and which forbade all tutors and schoolmasters being present at any
conventicle, or dissenting place of worship; but the very day this iniquitous
act was to have taken place, the Queen died (August 1, 1714.)
But his majesty king George I. being fully
satisfied that these hardships were brought upon the Dissenters for their
steady adherence to the Protestant succession in his illustrious house against
a tory and jacobite ministry, who were paving the way for a popish pretender,
procured the repeal of them in the fifth year of his reign; though a clause was
left that forbade the mayor or other magistrate to go into any meeting for
religious worship with the ensigns of his office. See Bogue's Charge at Mr.
Knight's Ordination; Neale's History of the Puritans; De Laune's Plea for the
Nonconformists; Palmer's Nonconformists; Mem. Martin's Letters on
Nonconformity; Robinson's Lectures; Cornish's History of Nonconformity; Dr.
Calamy's Life of Baxter; Pierce's Vindication of the Dissenters; Bogue and
Bennet's History of the Dissenters.
Those who refused to take the oaths to government, and who were in consequence under certain incapacities, and liable to certain severe penalties. It can scarcely be said that there are any Nonjurors now in the kingdom; and it is well known that all penalties have been removed both from Papists and Protestants, formerly of that denomination, as well in Scotland as in England.--The members of the Episcopal church of Scotland have long been denominated Nonjurors; but perhaps they are now called so improperly, as the ground of their difference from the establishment is more on account of ecclesiastical than political principles.
The act of not residing on an ecclesiastical benefice. Nothing can reflect greater disgrace on a clergyman if a parish, than to receive the emolument without ever visiting his parishioners, and being unconcerned for the welfare of their souls; yet this has been a reigning evil in our land, and proves that there are too many who care little about the flock, so that they may but live at ease. Let such remember what an awful account they will have to give of talents misapplied, time wasted, souls neglected, and a sacred office abused.
Novatiani, a sect of ancient heretics that arose
towards the close of the third century; so called from Novatian, a priest of
Rome. They were also called Cathari, from pure, q.d. Puritans.
Novatian first separated from the communion of
pope Cornelius, on pretence of his being too easy in admitting to repentance
those who had fallen off in times of persecution. He indulged his inclination
to severity so far, as to deny that such as had fallen into gross sins,
especially those who had apostatized from the faith under the persecution set
on foot by Decius, were to be again received into the bosom of the church;
grounding his opinion on that of St. Paul: "It is impossible for those who
were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, &c. if they
shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance," Heb. vi. 4 to 6.
The Novatians did not deny but a person falling
into any sin, how grievous soever, might obtain pardon by repentance; for they
themselves recommended repentance in the strongest terms; but their doctrine
was, that the church had it not in its power to receive sinners into its
communion, as having no way of remitting sins but by baptism: which once
received could not be repeated.
In process of time the Novatians softened and
moderated the rigour of their master's doctrine, and only refused absolution to
very great sinners.
The two leaders, Novatian and Novatus, were
prescribed, and declared heretics, not for excluding penitents from communion,
but for denying that the church had the power of remitting sins.
A year of probation appointed for the trial of religious, whether or no they have a vocation, and the necessary qualities for living up to the rule, the observation whereof they are to bind themselves to by vow. The novitiate lasts a year at least; in some houses more. It is esteemed the bed of the civil death of a novice, who expires to the world by profession.
A woman, in several Christian countries, who
devotes herself, in a cloister or nunnery, to a religious life. See article
MONK.
There were women in the ancient Christian church,
who made public profession of virginity before the monastic life was known in
the world, as appears from the writings of Cyprian and Tertullian. These, for
distinction's sake, are sometimes called ecclesiastical virgins, and were
commonly enrolled in the canon or matricula of the church. They differed from
the monastic virgins chiefly in this, that they lived privately in their
father's houses, whereas the others lived in communities: but their profession
of virginity was not so strict as to make it criminal for them to marry
afterwards, if they thought fit. As to the consecration of virgins, it had some
things peculiar in it: it was usually performed publicly in the church by the
bishop. The virgin made a public profession of her resolution, and then the
bishop put upon her the accustomed habit of sacred virgins. One part of this
habit was a veil, called the sacrum valamen; another was a kind of mitre or
coronet worn upon the head. At present, when a woman is to be made a nun, the
habit, veil, and ring of the candidate are carried to the altar; and she
herself, accompanied by her nearest relations, is conducted to the bishop, who,
after mass and an anthem (the subject of which is "that she ought to have
her lamp lighted, because the bridegroom is coming to meet her")
pronounces the benediction: then she rises up, and the bishop consecrates the
new habit, sprinkling it with holy water. When the candidate has put on her
religious habit, she presents herself before the bishop, and sings on her knees
Ancilla Christi sum, &c. then she receives the veil, and afterwards the
ring, by which she is married to Christ; and, lastly, the crown of virginity.
When she is crowned, an anathema is denounced against all who shall attempt to
make her break her vows. In some few instances, perhaps, it may have happened
that nunneries, monasteries, &c. may have been useful as well to morality
and religion as to literature; in the gross, however, they have been highly prejudicial;
and however well they might be supposed to do when viewed in theory, in fact
they are unnatural and impious. It was surely far from the intention of
Providence to seclude youth and beauty in a cloister, or to deny them the
innocent enjoyment of their years and sex. See MONASTERY.