FOOD.

taken from table and put into the fire, with an invoca- | tion of the idol. Now as meats are sanctified by the word of God and prayer, (1Tim. 4. 3,5,) so meats are polluted by the name of idols, and prayer to them. From the First Epistle to the Corinthians, ch. 8. 10, it appears that the Gentile, brethren were not always very willing to admit this truth, but were sometimes inclined to feast with their heathen neighbours, not only in private houses, but even in the temples of idols. It was necessary, therefore, to write unto them to abstain from those pollutions. This prohibition is inculcated and defended by St. Paul at great length, in the passage just mentioned of his Epistle to the Corinthians, which affords an excellent illustration of this clause in the decree, and of the manner in which Christians are bound to observe it. Some have considered that St. Paul departs from the strict letter of this injunction, because, in ch. 8, he argues merely from the effect of example; but his doctrine, when fully examined, will be found exactly the same with that of James. It still amounts to a prohibition; for although he allows all meats to be indifferent in themselves, he expressly condemns the practice of eating meats offered to idols, especially in ch. 10, where he shows it to be inconsistent with fellowship at the table of the Lord, with regard for the consciences of other men, and with the duty of a Christian, whether he eats or drinks, or whatsoever he does, to do all for the glory of God. Wherever meats, therefore, are polluted by idolatrous worship, Christians, when they know the fact, are to testify their abhorrence of idolatry by abstaining from such aliment.

Roberts remarks, "The heathen make large presents to the temples, of grain, fruit, milk, and other eatables, and therefore the priests send what they do not require to the market to be sold. The fruit called plantain (banana), may be known as having been offered to idols by having a small piece pinched off one end; and the other articles have generally some sign by which they may be known. It is, however, impossible at all times to ascertain the fact; and I doubt not that most Englishmen have at one time or other eaten things which have been offered to idols."

The same writer states that "most of the cooking utensils of the Hindoos are of earthenware. Should an unclean or dead animal or insect touch or fall into them, they must be broken. Nay, should a person of low caste get a look at the cooking-vessels of a Brahmin, or one of the Saiva sect, they will immediately be broken, and no small portion of abuse be poured upon the offending individual. Should an unfortunate dog, in his prowlings, find his way into the kitchen, and begin to lick the vessels, woe be to him, for he will not only have hard words, but hard blows, and then follows the breaking of the vessels. On this account, the Brahmins and others conceal their earthenware when not in use." (See Levit. 11. 33.) See BANQUET; COOKERY; DINNER;

EATING.

FOOL, FOLLY, FOOLISHNESS. In Scripture, wicked persons are often called fools, or foolish, because they act contrary to reason, trust to their own hearts, violate the laws of God, and prefer things vain, trifling, and temporal, to such as are important, divine, and eternal.

In Proverbs 26. 4,5, we meet with two precepts that seem to be diametrically opposite to each other: "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him;" and, "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." But if we attend carefully to the reason which the sacred writer subjoins to each precept, we shall be enabled to account satisfac

torily for the apparent repugnancy in the counsels of the Israelitish monarch; and it will be evident that they form, not inconsistent, but distinct rules of conduct, which are respectively to be observed according to the difference of circumstances.

A fool, in the sense of Scripture, means a wicked man, or one who acts contrary to the wisdom that is from above, and who is supposed to utter his foolishness in speech or writing. Doubtless there are different descriptions of these characters; and some may require to be answered, while others are best treated with silence. But the cases here seem to be one; both have respect to the same character, and both require to be answered. The whole difference lies in the manner in which the answer should be given.

say

In the first instance, the term, "according to his folly," means in a foolish manner, as is manifest from the reason given, "lest thou also be like unto him." But in the second instance, it means, in the manner in which his foolishness requires. This also is plain from the reason given, "lest he be wise in his own conceit." A foolish speech is not a rule for our imitation; nevertheless our answer must be so framed by it as to meet and repel it. Both these proverbs caution us against practices to which we are not a little addicted; the first, that of saying and doing to others as they say and do to us, rather than as we would they should and do; the last, that of suffering the cause of truth or justice to be run down, while we, from a love of ease, stand by as unconcerned spectators. The first of these proverbs is exemplified in the answer of Moses to the rebellious Israelites; the last in that of Job to his wife. It was a foolish speech which was addressed to the former:"Would to God that we had died when our brethren died before the Lord! And why have ye brought up the congregation of the Lord into this wilderness, that we and our cattle should die there?" Unhappily, this provoked Moses to speak unadvisedly with his lips; saying, "Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock?" This was answering folly in a foolish manner, which he should not have done; and by which the servant of God became too much like them whom he opposed. It was also a foolish saying of Job's wife, in the day of his distress, "Curse God and die." Job answered this speech, not in the manner of it, but in the manner which it required: "What, shall we receive good at the hand of God; and shall we not receive evil?” In all the answers of Our Saviour to the Scribes and Pharisees, we may perceive that He never lost his selfpossession for a single moment; and never answered in the manner of his opponents, so as to be like unto them; yet neither did He decline to repel their folly, and so to abase their self-conceit.

In Matthew 5. 22, Our Lord seems to have used the term "fool" in a sense somewhat peculiar: "Whosoever shall say to his brother, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." But the whole verse shows the meaning to be, that when any one of his professed disciples indulges a temper and disposition of mind opposite to charity, or that peculiar love which the brethren of Christ are bound by his law to have towards each other, (John 13. 34,) not only evincing anger against one another without a cause, but also treating him with contemptuous language, he shall be in danger of eternal destruction.

484

in Persia, for the king and other great personages to have several men run on foot before and beside them as they ride on horseback, is more ancient than the foundation of the Jewish monarchy. These attendants are termed shatirs. Sir John Chardin mentions a candidate for the place of shatir to the king, who accomplished about one hundred and twenty miles in fourteen hours, by unintermitted running, and who was rather censured for not having done it in twelve hours. Chardin himself followed him on horseback in his seventh course, when the heat of the day had compelled him somewhat to relax his расе, and the traveller could only follow him by keeping his horse on the gallop.

Another traveller states, "It is astonishing to observe the extreme ease with which these men appear to attend their master's horse in all its paces, even the most rapid; and as a general rule, it is understood that an accomplished footman ought to remain untired as long, or longer than the horse ridden by his master." It was formerly a practice in our own country to have running footmen, who preceded the carriages of the nobility and gentry.

In Jeremiah, ch. 12, the prophet complains of the prosperity of the wicked, and laments his own trials, when God answers him by the proverbial expression, "If thou hast run with the footmen, and they have wearied thee, then how canst thou contend with the horses," implying that other and greater trials were in store for him, which it behoved him to bear without repining.

FOOTSTEPS. "Hold up my goings in thy paths, that my footsteps slip not." (Psalm 17. 5.) "They have now compassed us in our steps." (v. 11.) Upon these passages, Roberts observes, A man who has people watching him to find out a cause for accusation to the king, or great men, says, 'Yes, they are around my legs and my feet; their eyes are always open; they are ever watching my steps,' that is, they are looking for the impress, or footsteps in the earth. For this purpose the eyes of the enemies of David were bowing down to the earth.'"

FOOTSTOOL, W kebesh. (2Chron. 9. 18.) We find, on the paintings in the tombs of Egypt, frequent representations of their kings sitting on a throne or chair of state, with a footstool; and where sitting is referred to in the Scriptures, it is frequently spoken of as a posture of more than ordinary state, and means sitting on a throne, for which a footstool was necessary, both in order that the person might ascend to it, and for supporting the legs when he was placed in it. Chairs," says Sir John Chardin, are never used in Persia but at the coronation of their kings, when the monarch is seated in a chair of gold, set with jewels, three feet high. The chairs which are used by the people in the East are always so high as to require a footstool; and this proves the propriety of Scripture style, which always joins the footstool to the throne. (Psalm 110. 1.)" The common manner of sitting in Eastern countries, is upon the ground or floor, with the legs crossed. Persons of distinc

66

tion have the floors of their chambers covered with carpets for this purpose; and round the chamber broad couches, raised a little above the floor, spread with

mattresses handsomely covered.

FORD, ay maabar, a ford for crossing a river. (Gen. 32. 22,23; Judges 3. 28.)

The river Jabbok, mentioned in the first passage, rises

in the mountains south-east of Gilead, and, after a course of about fifty miles, nearly due east and west, enters the Jordan about forty miles south of the sea of Tiberias.

The Jabbok is a deep and rapid stream, flowing over a rocky bed. Buckingham states that, when he crossed the river, it was ten yards wide, and that the stream, being deeper than the Jordan, and quite as rapid, was forded with difficulty. The second passage refers to the river Jordan, which has several fordable places; and these are, of course, more numerous in summer than in the winter or spring, when the stream is swollen with rains or melted snows; the river is now seldom forded except on horseback. The few places otherwise fordable were well known to the ancient inhabitants, who on this and other occasions guarded them to prevent the passage across the river.

FOREHEAD, MARK ON THE, tav, a mark or sign. In the ninth chapter of Ezekiel we read of an angel being commissioned to set a mark upon the foreheads of certain wicked men whom another angel was to destroy; the Arabic reads, a mark in the form of a cross. Gesenius says, "It was branded on the necks or flanks of horses and camels; hence probably the name of the letter tav, or thau, which, in the ancient Phoenician alphabet, and on Jewish coins, had the form of a +, and from which the Greeks and Latins have borrowed their T." The term probably does not apply to the proper alphabetical character, but simply to a mark or cross made by a person ignorant of writing. The ancient customs, which still subsist in various parts of the world, appear to illustrate the various passages of Scripture, which refer to this subject. Bond-servants, or slaves, were not only marked upon the forehead as a punishment for offences, or for attempts to escape from servi tude, but to distinguish them as the property of their masters. The mark usually consisted of the name, or some peculiar character belonging to the master. Votaries of the gods among the heathen were marked with signs intended to denote that they were the devoted servants and worshippers of the god whose symbols they bore. Sometimes they bore the name of the god, but frequently his particular symbol, as the thunderbolt of Jove, the trident of Neptune, the ivy of Bacchus, and so on; or else they were marked with a mystical number, described. Thus the sun, which was signified by the whereby the name of the god was understood to be number DCVIII. is said to have been represented by the two numeral characters XH. In Revelations 13. 16,17, these different methods are more distinctly enumerated: "He causeth all . . . to receive a mark in their right hands, or in their foreheads; and no man might buy or sell save he that had the mark or name of the beast, or

different

the number of his name." As tokens of devotedness to the worship of particular idols, such marks are often mentioned by ancient writers as common among nations. Lucian, for example, says that the worshippers of the Syrian goddess distinguished themselves by particular marks either upon their hands or necks, and Philo and others allude to it as a very general custom. That the Christians soon adopted a modification of this custom, by impressing the figure of the cross, or the from Procopius and others. They were, in ancient monogram of Jesus Christ, upon their arms, we learn times, formed either by the impress of a hot iron, or by colouring powder, or composition, and were indelible. the punctures of needles, afterwards rubbed over with a

Mr. Maurice, in his History of Hindostan, remarks, "An indispensable ceremony takes place before a Hindoo can enter the great Pagoda, which can only be performed by the hand of a Brahmin; and that is the impressing of their foreheads with the tiluk, or mark of different colours, as they may belong either to the sect of Veeshnu or Seeva. If the temple be that of Veeshnu, their fore

486

When Our Lord in his commission to the seventy, whom he despatched into the towns and villages of Judæa to publish the Gospel, strictly ordered them to salute no man by the way, (Luke 10. 4,) He designed by this prohibition, that they should employ the utmost expedition; that they should suffer nothing to retard or impede them in their progress from one place to another; and should not lavish those precious moments, which ought to be devoted to the sacred and arduous duties of their office, in observing the irksome and unmeaning modes of ceremonious intercourse. Not that Our Lord intended that his disciples should studiously violate all common civility and decency, and purposely offend against the rules of courteousness and decorum, since He commanded them upon their entrance into any house to salute it, (Matt. 10. 12,) and observe the customary form of civility in wishing it peace. (Luke 10.5.) This injunction to salute no one on the road, means only that they should urge their course with speed, and not suffer their attention to be diverted from the duties of their commission. There is a passage in the Old Testament parallel to this, and which beautifully illustrates it. Elisha, despatching his servant Gehazi to recover the son of the Shunamite, strictly enjoins him to make all the expedition possible, which is thus expressed: "Gird up thy loins, and take my staff in thine hand, and go thy way. If thou meet any man, salute him not, and if any salute thee, answer him not again." (2Kings 4. 29.)

In all countries these modes of address and politeness, though the terms are expressive of the profoundest respect and homage, through constant use and frequency of repetition, soon degenerate into mere verbal forms and words of course, in which the heart has no share. To these empty insignificant forms, which men mechanically repeat at meeting or taking leave of each other, there is a beautiful allusion in the following expression of Our Lord, in that consolatory discourse which he delivered to his apostles when He saw them dejected and disconsolate, on his plainly assuring them that He should soon leave them and go to the Father: "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give unto you; not as the world giveth, give I unto you;" (John 14. 27;) that is, "Since I must be shortly taken from you, I now bid you adieu, sincerely wishing you every happiness; not as the world giveth, give I unto you; not in the unmeaning ceremonious manner the world repeats this salutation, for my wishes of peace and happiness to you are sincere, and my blessing and benediction will confer upon you substantial felicity.". This sheds light and lustre upon one of the finest and most beautiful pieces of imagery which the genius and judgment of a writer ever created. In the eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the author informs us with what warm anticipating hopes of the Messiah's future kingdom, those great and good men who adorned the annals of former ages were animated. These all, says he, died in faith; they closed their eyes upon the world, but they closed them in the transporting assurance that God would accomplish his promises. They had the firmest persuasion that the Messiah would bless the world. By faith they anticipated these happy times, and placed themselves, in idea, in the midst of all their fancied blessedness. They hailed this most auspicious period; saluted it as one salutes a friend whose person he recognises at a distance. These all died in faith; died in the firm persuasion that God would accom

|

plish these magnificent promises, though they themselves had not enjoyed them, but had only seen them afar off": God had only blessed them with a remote prospect. They were, therefore, persuaded of them; they had the strongest conviction of their reality; they embraced them -with transport saluted them (аσπаσаμεvoi, the word always used in salutations,) at a distance, confessing that they were but strangers and pilgrims upon earth, but were all travelling towards a city which had foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

Respect was shown to persons on meeting by the salutation of "Peace be with you!" and laying the right hand upon the bosom; but if the person addressed was of the highest rank, they bowed to the earth. (Gen. 33. 3.) Masters saluted their labourers with, "The Lord be with you!" to which they answered, "The Lord bless thee." Sometimes the hem of the person's garment was kissed, and even the dust on which he had to tread. (Zech. 8. 23; Luke 8. 44; Acts 10. 26.) Near relations and intimate acquaintances kissed each other's hands, head, neck, beard, (which on such occasions only could be touched without affront,) or shoulders. (Gen. 33. 4; 45. 14; 2Sam. 20. 9; Luke 15. 20; Acts 20. 37.) Thus in India, when people meet after long absence, they fall on each other's shoulder, and kiss or smell the part. The modern Arabs salute their chiefs by kissing either cheek alternately. Whenever the common people approached their prince, or any person of superior rank, it was customary for them to prostrate themselves before him. In particular, this homage was universally paid to the monarchs of Persia, by those who were admitted into their presence; a homage in which some of the Greek commanders, possessed of a liberal and manly spirit, peremptorily refused to gratify them. In imitation of these proud sovereigns, Alexander the Great exacted a similar prostration. This mode of address appears also to have obtained among the Jews. When honoured with admittance to their sovereign, or introduced to persons of high rank, they fell down at their feet, and continued in this servile posture till they were raised. Many instances of this custom occur in the New Testament. The wise men who came from the East, when they saw the child Jesus with his mother Mary, fell down and worshipped him. Many of those who approached Our Saviour fell down at his feet. Cornelius, at his first interview with St. Peter, when he met him, fell down before him and worshipped him, and remained in this submissive attitude until Peter took him up, saying, Stand up: I also am a man." We also read that Esther fell down at the feet of Ahasuerus.

From the earliest times it has been the custom in the East to send presents one to another. No one waits upon an Eastern prince, or any person of distinction, without a present. This is a token of respect which is never dispensed with. However mean the gift, the intention of the giver is accepted. Plutarch informs us that a peasant, happening to fall in the way of Artaxerxes, the Persian monarch, in one of his excursions, having nothing to present to his sovereign according to the Oriental custom, he immediately ran to an adjacent stream, filled both his hands, and offered it to his prince. The monarch, says the philosopher, smiled, and graciously received it, highly pleased with the good disposition this act manifested. Most modern travellers allude to the custom of waiting upon great men with presents, unaccompanied with which, should a stranger presume to enter their houses, it would be resented as a breach of politeness and respect.

When any person visited another, he stood at the gate, (as is still usual in India,) and knocked or called aloud, until the person on whom he called admitted him.