riority over the rest of his brethren, hence Jacob's address to Reuben, Gen. Ixix. 3; and Isaac's reply to Esau, Gen. xx. 37.

Therefore Christ is the first-born, as being prince and lord over his brethren. See Heb. ii. 10, 11. He is the head of the whole creation, and especially of the new creation, the Church.

To the first-born was assigned the office of priesthood, Exod. xxiv. 5, for whom the Levites were afterwards accepted. Num. iii. 45.

And of Jesus it is said, "He is a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek." Ps. cx. 3; Heb. iii. 1; Heb. v. 5, 6. And by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Heb. x. 14. And he could not have been a true priest, if he had not, through the Eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God, and with his own blood entered into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

The first-born were holy and consecrated to God. Exod. xiii. 1. "Sanctify unto me all the first-born, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast, it is mine." It is afterwards said, verse 13, “All the first-born of man among thy children thou shalt redeem." To this there is allusion in 1 Peter i. 18, where Christians are said to be redeemed, "not with silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ.”

Christ also was consecrated to the service of God, as the first-born, when he was inaugurated by baptism. Matt. iii. 17.

The first-born also sanctified their brethren, and as it were preserved them in life. Rightly, therefore,

FIRST-BORN......FISHES......FLESH.

181

the Apostle affirms, Heb. ii. 11. Both he that sanctifieth, and they that are sanctified, are all of one, wherefore he is not ashamed to call them brethren.

The first-born had a double share of the inheritance, as being the prop and ornament of the family. Deut. xxi. 17. And Christ is constituted heir of all things. See Heb. i. 2; Luke xxii. 29; Ps. ii. 8; Eph. i. 3; Ps. lxviii. 19; Rom. viii. 17.

See this doctrine beautifully stated by Paul in Col. i. 12-22.

FISHES. A sea being considered as a kingdom or empire, the living creatures in it, must be the typical fishes, or men.

But if a sea be considered in respect only of the waters, of which it is a collection, then the waters will signify the common people; and the fishes, or the creatures in the sea, living, as having a power to act, will denote their rulers. And in this sense are the fishes mentioned in Ezek. xxix. 4, 5, explained by the Targum of the "Princes of Pharaoh." Newcome

thinks there is here an allusion to the heavy loss which Apries and his Egyptian army sustained in the expedition against the Cyreneans, towards whom they must have marched over the desert. Herod. 2. § 161. Apries himself did not fall in the battle, but was taken prisoner by Amasis, and strangled by the Egyptians. Herod. 2 $ 169 ; Jer. lxiv. 30.

See Matt. iv. 19; Jer. xvi. 16; Hab. i. 14; Matt. xiii. 47.

FLESH, signifies the riches, goods, and possessions of any person or subject, conquered, oppressed, or slain, as the case is.

Thus, in Ps. lxxiv. 14, the meat or flesh there men

tioned, is the riches and spoils of Pharaoh and the Egyptians.

See also Isa. xvii. 4; Micah, iii. 2, 3; Zech. xi. 916; in all which places flesh is explained by the Targum, of riches and substance.

And thus, in Dan. vii. 5, to "devour much flesh," is to conquer and spoil many enemies of their lands and possessions.

All the Oueirocritics concur in the same exposition of this symbol. In ch. 283, they say, "That if any one dreams that he finds or eats the flesh of dragons, he shall obtain riches proportionable from a great king;” which is like that of the Israelites eating the flesh of the leviathan or dragon-the king of Egypt in the wilderness. Ps. lxxiv. 13, 14.

And again, in ch. 285, "To dream of eating the flesh of a scorpion, denotes the being possessed of the estate of such an enemy, as answers to the signification of the symbol."

And the Indian, in ch. 87, says compendiously, "Flesh is universally interpreted of riches."

To the same purpose speaks also Artemidorus, who, in lib. 3, c. 23, says, “That it is not good for a rich man to dream that he eats his own flesh, for it signifies the utter wasting of his riches or substance."

So also in lib. 1, c. 72, to "dream of eating the flesh of any wild beast, denotes the being greatly enriched by the substance of enemies."

FLY. The name Beelzebub given in the New Testament to the prince of demons, signifies "Lord of Flies ;" and the fly was his hieroglyphic, as Jerome remarks, because he never ceases to infest the human

́race, and to try all methods by which he may annoy

and injure them.

See under Bee.

FOREHEAD, signifies the public profession or appearance before men.

So the Indian Interpreter, ch. 56, says, "The forehead and nose denote comeliness and riches before men." And Artemidorus says, that the forehead signifies liberty of speech.

Of old, servants were stigmatized in their forehead with their master's mark. Martial, lib. 2, ep. 29, lib. 3, ep. 21, lib. 8, ep. 75; Seneca de Ira, l. 3, c. 3; Plutarch in Nicia.

This was forbid the Jews, in Lev. xix. 28; only the high-priest on his forehead bore a plate or crown of gold, on which the name of God was written, to shew that the priest was his servant, and that all his service was consecrated to God only.

Hence, to "receive a mark in one's forehead," signifies to make an open profession of belonging to that person or party, whose mark is said to be received.

Rev. xiii. 16, to receive a mark in the right hand, or in their foreheads.

Some think there is here an allusion to the manner in which Ptolemy Philopater persecuted the Jews. See Prideaux' Connect. part 2. l. 2.

Sometimes the stigmata or marks put on the forehead, were the symbol of disgrace and punishment, as Diogenes Laertius says of the father of Bion, lib. 4, "That he received a brand on his forehead, as a mark of the anger of his master."

That captives, and others whom the ancients reduced to subjection, were thus marked; Plutarch tells

us, in Pericl., "That the Athenians marked an owl on their captives."

Idolaters, by that ceremony, used to consecrate themselves to their false deities. The marks used on these occasions were various. Sometimes they contained the name of the god, sometimes his particular ensign, as the thunderbolt of Jupiter, the trident of Neptune, the ivy of Bacchus, &c.; or, lastly, they marked themselves with some mystical number whereby the god's name was described. Thus the Sun, who was signified by the number 608, is said to have been represented by these two numeral letters XH.

These three ways of stigmatizing are all expressed in Rev. xiii. 16, 17, " And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads; and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name."

See Potter's Antiq. of Greece, v. 1, p. 75.

Soldiers also wore the names of their leaders or generals impressed upon their bodies, as we learn from Vegetius de Re milit. lib. 2. c. 5. And in this sense some explain Paul's remark in Gal. vi. 17, “I bear in my body the marks (siypara) of the Lord Jesus," meaning the scars he received from stripes, chains, &c. in the service of the Gospel.

See also Isa. xliv. 5, thus rendered by the Septuagint, " And another shall write upon his hand, I belong to God." See Lowth's note on the passage, where he observes, "The Christians seem to have imitated this practice, by what Procopius says on this place of Isaiah: Because many marked their