where art supplied the deficiencies of nature, and where immense cisterns were cut out of the rock; and which exhibit in their ruins many monuments of ancient prosperity, and many remains easily convertible into present utility, should have all fled away, all met the same indiscriminate fate, and be all desolate without any to dwell therein, notwithstanding all these ancient assurances of their permanent durability, and their existing facilities and inducements for being the habitations of men, is a matter of just wonder in the present day, and had any other people been the possessors of Moab, the fact would either have been totally impossible or unaccountable."

LUKE, Доvкas, contracted from the Latin Lucanus, was the writer of the Gospel which bears his name, and also of the Acts of the Apostles. According to Eusebius, St. Luke was a native of Antioch, by profession a physician, and, for the most part, a companion of the Apostle Paul: the report that he was a painter was first spread by Nicephorus Callisti, a writer of the fourteenth century; it is now justly exploded, as being destitute of foundation, and countenanced by no ancient writers. From his attending St. Paul in his travels, and also from the testimony of some of the early Fathers, Basnage, Fabricius, Dr. Lardner, and Bishop Gleig, have been led to conclude that St. Luke was a Jew, and Origen, Epiphanius, and others, have supposed that he was one of the seventy disciples; but this appears to be contradicted by his own declaration, that he was not an eye-witness of Our Saviour's actions. Michaëlis is of opinion that he was a Gentile, on the authority of St. Paul's expressions in Colossians 4. 10,11,14. The most probable conjecture seems to be that of Bolten, adopted by Kuinöel, that St. Luke was descended from Gentile parents, and that, in his youth, he had embraced Judaism, from which he was converted to Christianity. The Hebraic-Greek style of writing observable in his productions, and especially the accurate knowledge of the Jewish religion, rites, ceremonies, and usages, everywhere discernible both in his Gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles, sufficiently evince that their author was a Jew; while his intimate knowledge of the Greek language displayed in the preface to his Gospel, which is composed in elegant Greek, and his Greek name Aovkas, evidently show that he was descended from Gentile parents. This conjecture is further supported by a passage in the Acts, and by another in the Epistle to the Colossians. In the former, (Acts 21. 27,) it is related that the Asiatic Jews stirred up the people because St. Paul had introduced Gentiles into the Temple; and in the following verse it is added that they had before seen with him, in the city, Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that St. Paul had brought into the Temple; no mention is here made of St. Luke, though he was with the Apostle. Compare Acts 21. 15,17, where St. Luke speaks of himself among the companions of St. Paul. Hence we infer that he was reckoned among the Jews, one of whom he might be accounted, if he had become a proselyte from Gentilism to the Jewish religion. In the Epistle to the Colossians (4. 11,14,) after St. Paul had written the salutations of Aristarchus, Marcus, and of Jesus, surnamed Justus, he adds, "who are of the circumcision. These only," he continues, "are my fellow-workers, (meaning those of the circumcision,) unto the kingdom Then in the fourteenth verse he adds, "Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you." As the Apostle, in this passage, opposes them to the Christians who had been converted from Judaism, it is evident that St. Luke was descended from Gentile parents.

791

The first time that this Evangelist is mentioned in the New Testament is in his own history of the Acts of the Apostles. We there find him (Acts 16. 10,11,) with St. Paul at Troas; thence he attended him to Jerusalem; continued with him in his troubles in Judæa; and sailed in the same ship with him, when he was sent a prisoner from Cesarea to Rome, where he stayed with him during his two years' confinement. As none of the ancient Fathers have mentioned his suffering martyrdom, it is conjectured that he died a natural death, but nothing certain is known as to either its time or place.

LUKE, GOSPEL OF ST. The title of this Gospel in manuscripts and early editions is nearly the same as that of the Gospel by St. Mark. In the Syriac version it is called "The Holy Gospel, the preaching of Luke the Evangelist, which he spoke and published (or announced) in Greek, in Great Alexandria;" in the Arabic version it is, "The Gospel of St. Luke, the physician, one of the seventy, which he wrote in Greek, the Holy Spirit inspiring (him);" and in the Persian version, "The Gospel of Luke, which he wrote in the Egyptian-Greek tongue, at Alexandria." Lardner thinks that there are a few allusions to St. Luke's Gospel in some of the apostolical Fathers, especially in Hermes and Polycarp, and in Justin Martyr there are passages evidently taken from it; but the earliest author who actually mentions St. Luke's Gospel is Irenæus; and he cites so many peculiarities in it, all agreeing with the Gospel which we now have, that he alone is sufficient to prove its genuineness. We may, however, observe, that his testimony is supported by Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Chrysostom, and many others. Dr. Owen and Dr. Townson have compared many parallel passages of St. Mark's and St. Luke's Gospels; and Dr. Townson has concluded that St. Luke had seen St. Mark's Gospel, and Dr. Owen, that St. Mark had seen St. Luke's; but there does not appear to be a sufficient similarity of expression to justify either of these conclusions. There was among the ancients a difference of opinion concerning the priority of these two Gospels; and it must be acknowledged to be a very doubtful point.

There is also some doubt about the place where this Gospel was published; but it seems most probable that it was published in Greece, and for the use of Gentile converts. Dr. Townson observes that the Evangelist has inserted many explanations, particularly concerning the Scribes and Pharisees, which he most probably would not have done if he had been writing for those who were acquainted with the customs and sects of the Jews. The accounts to which he refers in his preface are now entirely lost, and the names of their authors are not known; for when the four authentic Gospels were published, and came into general use, all others were quickly disregarded and forgotten. St. Luke's Gospel is addressed to Theophilus; but there was a doubt, even in the time. of Epiphanius, whether a particular person, or any good Christian in general, be intended by that name. Theophilus was probably a real person, that opinion being more agreeable to the simplicity of the Sacred Writings. We have seen that St. Luke was for several years the companion of St. Paul; and many ancient writers consider this Gospel as having the sanction of St. Paul, in the same manner as St. Mark's had that of St. Peter; and certainly, upon an examination of the Evangelist's and the Apostle's account of the eucharist in their respective original works, there will be observed a great coincidence of expression. (Luke ch. 22; 1Cor. ch. 11.) With regard to the time when this Gospel was written,

there is some difference of opinion; Dr. Owen and others referring it to the year 53, while Jones, Michaëlis, Lardner, and other Biblical critics, assign it to the year 63 or 64, which date appears to be the true one, and corresponds with the internal characters of time exhibited in the Gospel itself; but it is not so easy to ascertain the place where it was written. Jerome says that Luke, the third Evangelist, published his Gospel in the countries of Achaia and Boeotia; Gregory Nazianzen also says that Luke wrote for the Greeks, or in Achaia. Grotius states that about the time when St. Paul left Rome, Luke departed to Achaia, where he wrote the books we now have. Dr. Cave was of opinion that they were written at Rome before the termination of St. Paul's captivity; but Mill, and Grabe, and Wetstein, affirm that this Gospel was published at Alexandria, in Egypt, in opposition to the pseudo-Gospel circulated among the Egyptians. Dr. Lardner has examined these various opinions at considerable length, and concludes that, upon the whole, there is no good reason for supposing that Luke wrote his Gospel at Alexandria, or that he preached at all in Egypt; on the contrary, it is more probable that when he left St. Paul he went into Greece, and there composed or finished and published his Gospel, and the Acts of the Apostles.

That St. Luke wrote his Gospel for the benefit of Gentile converts, is affirmed by the unanimous voice of Christian antiquity, and it may be also inferred from his dedicating it to one of his Gentile converts. This appears, indeed, to have been its peculiar design; for, writing to those who were far remote from the scene of action, and ignorant of Jewish affairs, it was requisite that he should descend to many particulars, and touch on various points which would have been unnecessary, had he written exclusively for Jews. On this account he begins his history with the birth of John the Baptist, as introductory to that of Our Saviour; and in the course of it he notices several particulars mentioned by St. Matthew. (2. 1-9.) Hence, also, he is particularly careful in specifying various circumstances of facts that were highly conducive to the information of strangers; but which it could not have been necessary to recite to the Jews, who could easily supply them from their own knowledge. On this account, likewise, he gives the genealogy of Christ, not as St. Matthew had done, by showing that Jesus was the son of David, from whom the Scriptures taught the Jews that the Messiah was to spring; but he traces Christ's lineage up to Adam, agreeably to the mode of tracing genealogies in use among the Gentiles, by ascending from the person whose lineage was given to the founder of his race; and thus shows that Jesus is the seed of the woman, who was promised for the redemption of the whole world. Further, as the Gentiles had but little knowledge of Jewish transactions, Luke has marked the æras when Christ was born, and when John began to announce the Gospel, by the reigns of the Roman emperors,-to which point St. Matthew and the other Evangelists have not attended. St. Luke has likewise introduced many things not noticed by the other Evangelists, which encouraged the Gentiles to hearken to the Gospel, and when their consciences were awakened by it, to turn to God in newness of life, with a pleasing prospect of pardon and acceptance. Of this description are the parables of the publican praying in the Temple, (ch. 18. 10,) and of the lost piece of silver, (ch. 15. 8-10,) and particularly the prophetic parable of the prodigal son, which, besides its spiritual and universal application, beautifully intimates that the Gentile, represented by the younger or the prodigal son, returning at length to his heavenly Father, would meet with the most merciful, gracious, and affec

sense.

tionate reception. Our Saviour's visit to Zaccheus the publican, (ch. 19. 5,) and the pardon of the penitent thief upon the cross, (ch. 23. 40-43,) are also lively illustrations of the mercy and goodness of God to penitent sinners. Lest, however, doubts should arise whether any but the lost sheep of the house of Israel were interested in these good tidings, other parables and facts are introduced, which cannot be taken in this limited Thus St. Luke relates a parable in praise of a merciful Samaritan, (ch. 10. 33;) he relates that another Samaritan was healed and commended for his faith and gratitude, (ch. 17. 19;) and when a village of this people proved rude and inhospitable, that the zeal of the two Apostles who wished to consume them by fire from heaven was reproved, (ch. 9. 52-56,) and they were told that "the Son of man came, not to destroy men's lives, but to save them." This Evangelist likewise inserts examples of kindness and mercy shown to the Gentiles. Thus Our Saviour, in the very first public discourse recorded in St. Luke's Gospel, takes notice that such favours were vouchsafed to the widow of Sarepta and Naaman the Syrian, both Gentiles, as were not conferred in like circumstances on any of the Israelites. (ch. 4. 25-27.) And the prayer upon the cross, (ch. 23. 34,) "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," is placed between the act of crucifying Our Lord and that of parting his raiment, both of which were performed by the Roman soldiers, to whom, therefore, this prayer must have respect, as much as to any of his persecutors.

This Gospel contains many things which are not found in the writings of the other Evangelists; among them are the following: the birth of John the Baptist; the Roman census in Judæa; the circumstances attending Christ's birth at Bethlehem; the vision granted to the shepherds; the early testimony of Simeon and Anna; Christ's conversation with the doctors in the Temple when he was twelve years old; the parables of the good Samaritan, of the prodigal son, of Dives and Lazarus, of the wicked judge, and of the publican and Pharisee; the miraculous cure of the woman who had been bowed down by illness eighteen years; the cleansing of the ten lepers; and the restoring to life the son of a widow at Nain; the account of Zaccheus, and of the penitent thief; and the particulars of the journey to Emmaus. It is worthy of remark, that most of these particulars were specified by Irenæus, in the second century, as peculiarly belonging to the Gospel of St. Luke; who has thus undesignedly shown to all succeeding ages, that it is, in everything material, the very same book which had ever been distinguished by the name of this Evangelist till his day, and remains so distinguished to our times.

If the Apostle Paul had not informed us, (Col. 4. 14,) that St. Luke was by profession a physician, and consequently a man of letters, his writings would have sufficiently evinced that he had received a liberal education; for although his Gospel presents as many Hebraisms, perhaps, as any of the sacred writings, yet his language contains many more Grecisms than that of any other writer of the New Testament. The style of this Evangelist is pure, copious, and flowing, and bears a considerable resemblance to that of his great master, St. Paul. Many of his words and expressions are exactly parallel to those which are to be found in the best classic authors; and several eminent critics have long since pointed out the singular skill and propriety with which St. Luke has named and described the various diseases which he had occasion to notice. As an instance of his copiousness, Dr. Campbell has remarked, that each of the Evangelists has a number of words which are used by none of the

rest; but in St. Luke's Gospel, the number of such words as are used in none of the other Gospels, is greater than that of the peculiar words found in all the other three Gospels put together; and that the terms peculiar to St. Luke are for the most part long and compound words. There is also more of composition in his sentences than is found in the other three Gospels, and consequently less simplicity. Of this we have an example in the first sentence, which occupies not less than four verses. Further, St. Luke seems to approach nearer to the manner of other historians, in giving what may be called his own verdict in the narrative part of his work. Thus he calls the Pharisees papyupot, lovers of money, (ch. 16. 14;) and in distinguishing Judas Iscariot from the other Judas, he uses the phrase ós kaι Eуeveτo πрodoτns, “which also was the traitor." (ch. 6. 16.) Matthew (10. 4,) and Mark (3. 19,) express the same sentiment in milder language. Again, the attempt made by the Pharisees to extort from Our Lord what might prove matter of accusation against Him, is expressed by St. Luke in more animated language than is used by either of the rest. (ch. 11. 53.) "They began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things." And on another occasion, speaking of the same people, he says that "they were filled with madness." (ch. 6. 11.) Lastly, in the moral instructions given by Our Lord, and recorded by this Evangelist, especially in the parables, no one has surpassed him in uniting affecting sweetness of manner with genuine simplicity, particularly in the parables of the benevolent Samaritan and the penitent prodigal.

Professor Alexander, in his work on The Canon of Scripture, in noticing the objections of Michaëlis and other German critics to the canonical authority of the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke, remarks, "There is, indeed, something reprehensible, not to say impious, in that bold spirit of modern criticism, which has led many eminent Biblical scholars, especially in Germany, first to attack the authority of particular books of Scripture, and next to call in question the inspiration of the whole volume. To what extent this licentiousness of criticism has been carried, we need not say; for it is a matter of notoriety, that of late the most dangerous enemies of the Bible have been found occupying the places of its advocates; and the critical art, which was intended for the correction of the text, and the interpretation of the sacred books, has, in a most unnatural way, been turned against the Bible; and finally, the inspiration of all the sacred books has not only been questioned, but scornfully rejected, by professors of theology. And these men, while living on endowments which pious benevolence had consecrated for the support of religion, and openly connected with churches whose creeds contain orthodox opinions, have so far forgotten their high responsibilities, and neglected the claims which the Church had on them, as to exert all their ingenuity and learning to sap the foundation of that system which they were sworn to defend. They have had the shameless hardihood to send forth into the world books under their own names, which contain fully as much of the poison of infidelity, as was ever distilled from the pens of the most malignant Deists, whose writings have fallen as a curse upon the world. The only effectual security which we have against this new and most dangerous form of infidelity is found in the spirit of the age, which is so superficial and cursory in its reading, that however many elaborate critical works may be published in foreign languages, very few of them will be read even by theological students in this country."

The animadversions of Professor Alexander convey a

793

LUNATIC, σeλnviatoμai, to be moon-struck, lunatic. (Matt. 4. 24; 17. 15.) In Greek usage, this word signifies to be afflicted with epilepsy, the symptoms of which were supposed to become more aggravated with the increasing moon. In the New Testament this disease is ascribed to the influence of unclean spirits, demons, (Mark 9. 17;) and St. Jerome, in his commentary on Matthew 4. 24, is of opinion, that the lunatics in the Gospel were possessed persons, whom the people through mistake called lunatics, because they saw them most tormented during the change of the moon; the devil making them suffer most in these circumstances, in order that simple people might impute the cause of it to the moon, and from thence take occasion to blaspheme the Creator. Others maintain that all the difference between an epileptic and a lunatic was, that one was more disordered than the other.

The Orientals pay particular respect to lunatics. "The Arabs," says Poiret, "show a kind of reverence to lunatics, according to the principles of their religion. They look upon them as saints, as being endowed with peculiar privileges and favoured by Heaven. I met such a man in the duar [villages of the Bedouin Arabs] of Ali Bey. He was quite naked, and went into all the tents. It would be considered as a criminal action to send away such a man or to treat him ill. He could eat where he pleased, nothing was denied him. Ali Bey himself bore his freedoms and importunities with a degree of indulgence that astonished me." Lempriere says, that in Morocco insane persons form a peculiar class of saints. The Moors believe that such men are under the especial protection of God; they consequently find everywhere compassion and support, and to treat their excesses with rigour is thought to be as criminal as to lay hands on the person of the of this illemperor. The consequence judged humanity is, that worthless vagabonds feign lunacy and commit the greatest crimes, no one venturing to hinder then. A lunatic of this description is mentioned by him who, under the appearance of being immersed in his devotions, strangled with his rosary several persons who came too near him. Stephen Schultz relates a story of a Franciscan monk, who, being pursued by the populace in the streets of Alexandria, saved himself by feigning madness, dancing and playing strange antics, so that he not only escaped the shower of stones that threatened his life, but was treated with the greatest respect.

Edmann applies these observations to illustrate the words of the Apostle, (2Cor. 11. 19,) "For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise." St. Paul's adversaries in Corinth endeavoured to lessen the reputation he enjoyed, by extolling their own merits. He therefore found it necessary to compare his merits with those which these people assumed. Such self-praise he declares to be folly; but as it was extorted from him, he

it is the church which Justinian built, and dedicated to St. Peter, when he erected Lydda into a bishopric; and that it was repaired by Richard Cœur de Lion, and by him dedicated to St. George.

Rosenmiller thinks the opinion entertained of lunatics by the Orientals, serves to illustrate what is said of David, (1Sam. 21. 10-15,) when to escape the pursuit of Saul he fled to Achish, king of the Philistines, but was discovered; then he feigned himself mad, and thus saved his life. See PossESSION.

LUZ, (Gen. 28. 19,) was the original name 195 of the town afterwards called Bethel, situated between Sichem and Jerusalem. See BETHEL.

LYBIA. See LIBYA.

LYCAONIA, was a small province of Asia Minor, having Galatia on the north, Cappadocia on the east, Isauria on the west, and Cilicia on the south. Its chief cities were, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, which are mentioned in Acts ch. 14. The "speech of Lycaonia," is generally believed to have been a corrupt Greek intermixed with Syriac words; but Jablonski supposes it to have been derived from the Assyrian tongue.

LYCIA, was a province in the south-western part of Asia Minor. It had the whole of its southern, and

about one half of its eastern and western shores washed by the sea, was partly bounded on the east by Pamphylia, and on the west by Caria, while on the north it had the small country of Milyas, (a part of Phrygia.) It was a very fertile province, and in its prosperous times contained twenty-three cities and several other towns, the chief of which were, Myra, Patara, (these only mentioned in Scripture,) Olympus, Telmissus, and Phaselis. Its metropolis was Myra, which was visited by St. Paul when going as a prisoner to Rome. (Acts 27.5.) See MYRA.

The Lycians were a colony from the island of Crete, and were famed for equity in more ancient times; but about B.C. 60, many of them who lived on the sea coast were pirates. (Macc. 15. 23.

LYDDA. The ancient Lod, mentioned in Nehemiah 7. 37, was called by the Greeks Lydda, Audda, (Acts 9. 32,) and in later times Diospolis. It

was situated about fifteen miles to the south-east of

Joppa, and is celebrated in the Acts of the Apostles for the miraculous cure of Eneas by the Apostle Peter. Josephus describes it as being in his time a town scarcely inferior to a city in its extent. It is noticed among the Talmudical writers as having been the birthplace or residence of some of their famous Rabbins; for after the destruction of Jerusalem, it became a noted seat of Jewish learning, being one of the places in which the Jews set up a school. "In the time of the Christians," says Sandys, "it was the seat of a suffragan; now hardly a village. There was, however, still standing a Christian | church, which was said to have been built during the Crusades by a king of England, in honour of St. George of Cappadocia, who was supposed to have been martyred and buried at Lydda." This fine church is now in ruins; and Pococke, deeming its original architecture to

Mr. Robinson says, “ Lydda is now a heap of ruins; the most remarkable of which are the remains of a very handsome church, said to have been built, but more properly repaired, by Richard, surnamed Cœur de Lion, in honour of St. George, whose birth-place it was, and who is reported to have suffered martyrdom here. The latter legend is not quite so satisfactory as the former; nevertheless, a place has been fixed upon to commemorate the event. Here I was desired to kneel down, whilst a Greek papas, reciting a prayer, invoked the intercession on my head of the saint, whose name I bear. He is held in great veneration throughout the East. I hardly ever entered a Greek church without noticing a picture representing his achievement with the dragon; and that no mistake might be made, the inscription 'Aytos Tewpycos, is written in the corner. He is likewise held in great respect by the Turks. The latter have an oratory at the western end of the church, the roof of which has fallen in, but the arch of the altar at the eastern extremity remains. It is a curious fact, and noticed by many travellers, that in all the ruined churches, and they are to be met with at every step, the altar is generally found to be more or less preserved. The pious Christians of the East infer from this (and find consolation in the reflection) that some day or other they are to throw off the yoke of Islamism, and that their temples are to be restored to the unshackled worship of God. Even the persecuted Jew looks forward to his promised deliverance; and the Turk also thinks that Islamism has seen its halcyon days, and finds few to differ with him in his anticipation of a change of fortune.”

I. LYDIA, Avdia, once a celebrated kingdom of Asia Minor, peopled by the descendants of Lud, the son of Shem, (Gen. 10. 22,) (see LUD,) was a Roman province in the days of the Apostles. It was then limited on the north by Mysia, on the west by the Ægean Sea, on the east by Phrygia, and on the south by Caria; but in the more flourishing times of their last kings, Alyattes and Croesus, the Lydian territories were far more extensive. The principal cities of Lydia were Sardis, Philadelphia, Thyatira, and Ephesus. The Lydians had kings of three different races, who are supposed to have governed them for about six or seven hundred years; but after the country had been overrun by the Gomerians or Cimmerians, about A.M. 3368, it was conquered by Cyrus: since which time it has been in sucSaracens, and is now held by the Turks. cession subject to the Persians, Greeks, Romans, and After the overthrow of their monarchy, the Lydians became generally very idle and profligate; the Gospel, however, was very early planted, and a Christian church has ever since existed.

II. LYDIA, a woman of Thyatira, who traded in purple cloths, for which that place was celebrated. She was a Jewish proselyte, of a sincere and pious character, and prompt in acknowledging and professing the truth. She was converted to the Christian faith in consequence of the preaching of St. Paul. (Acts 16. 14,40.) Coquerel and others suppose that Lydia, in this place, is merely a patronymic appellation, that is, that it merely signifies a Lydian woman; most probably from the circumstance of Thyatira being situated on the confines of Lydia.

LYDIANS

LYDIANS, TS Ludim. (Gen. 10. 13; Jerem. | 46. 9.) In the latter passage the word rendered in our version "Lydians," in the original is Ludim. There were, it appears, two Luds, one the son of Shem, the other the son of Mizraim; and these Lydians (who must not be confounded with the Lydians of Asia Minor,) were probably the descendants of the latter. From their being included among the African allies of the Egyptians, they were probably settled in Africa, near to Egypt; but it is not possible to point out the particular part of that continent which they occupied, although from their being uniformly mentioned with the Libyans (Phut), and from the fact that they served with them as hired soldiers of Tyre, (Ezek. 30. 5,) which may be conjectured, implies that there was a maritime communication between them and the Tyrians, we may conclude that they were settled somewhere in the neighbourhood of the African coast, near or among the Libyans. They were celebrated archers, and assisted Pharaoh Necho against the Chaldæans.

LYING, may be considered as speaking falsehoods wilfully, with an intent to deceive. A lie is an affirmation or denial by words, or any other signs to which a certain determinate meaning is affixed, of something contrary to our real thoughts and intentions. Paley says, "A lie is a breach of promise; for whoever seriously addresses his discourse to another tacitly promises to speak the truth, because he knows that the truth is expected."

of mankind.

The evil and injustice of lying appear: (1.) From its being a violation of God's sacred law. (Levit. 19. 11; Phil. 4. 8; Coloss. 3. 9.) (2.) The faculty of speech was bestowed as an instrument of knowledge, not of deceit; to communicate our thoughts, not to hide them; it is therefore a breach of the natural and universal right (3.) It has a tendency to dissolve all society, and to indispose the mind to religious impressions. (4.) The punishment with which it has been sometimes visited is tremendous, as in the case of Ananias and Sapphira. (Acts 5. 1-11.) (5.) It involves the loss of credit, the hatred of those whom we have deceived, and an eternal separation from God in the world to come. (Rev. 21. 8; 22. 15.)

LYING SPIRIT,

ruach shakar. (1 Kings 22. 22; 2Chron. 18. 21.) Ahab, when preparing for the expedition to Ramoth Gilead in which he perished, was promised success by his false prophets, who were denounced by Micaiah, the son of Imlah, as prompted by a "lying spirit." The term is also applied in a similar sense in Jeremiah 5. 31: "The prophets prophesy falsely." Dr. Adam Clarke remarks on the speech of Imlah, in the first passage: "This is no more than that God has permitted the spirit of lying to influence the whole of thy prophets; and He now by my mouth apprises thee of this, that thou mayest not go and fall at Ramoth Gilead.' Never was a man more circumstantially and fairly warned; he had counsels from the God of truth, and counsels from the spirit of falsity; he obstinately forsook the former and followed the latter. He was shown by the parable how everything was going on; and that all was under the control and direction of God; and that still it was possible for him to make that God his friend whom, by his continual transgressions, he had made his enemy; but he would not: his blood was, therefore, upon his own head." Josephus relates an idle Rabbinical tale in reference to this matter, which is as unworthy of repetition as it is of credit.

The Jerusalem Targum, on the passage in 2Chronicles

18. 20, in reference to the lying spirit, gives the following strange gloss: "Then the spirit of Naboth of Jezreel came out from the abode of the righteous, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will deceive him. And the Lord said, By what means? To which he answered, I will be a spirit of false prophecy in the mouth of his prophets. And the Lord said, Thou mayest then. But although the power of deceiving them is given unto thee, nevertheless it will not be lawful for thee to sit among the righteous; for whosoever shall speak falsely cannot have a mansion among the righteous. Therefore, go forth from me, and do as thou hast said."

Dr. Boothroyd remarks on 1 Kings 22. 19-23, "This is not a real representation of anything done in the heavenly world, as if God was at a loss for expedients, or had any hand in the sins of his creatures; but it is a parabolical or visionary representation, to let them know there was a higher King, that his providence was concerned about the affairs of this world, and that He has various ways of bringing about his purposes. The expression 'Jehovah hath put a lying spirit,' only means He hath suffered Ahab's prophets to be guilty of prophesying lies in his name.""

6

LYRE. Though this word does not occur in our version, there can be little doubt that the lyre was well known amongst the Hebrews from the earliest times. There are two kinds of stringed instruments mentioned in the Scriptures; the first is the kinnoor, Greek Kivupa, rendered in our version "harp," (more properly "lyre,") which Josephus describes as an instrument of ten strings, sometimes played with a plectrum, at others with the hand. The name of the other stringed instrument is nebel, which Josephus says was a twelvestringed instrument, played with the hands; and Jerome observes that it had the form of an inverted delta, v.

Of these and other instruments which are mentioned in the Scriptures, we know but little that is certain, and they are often confounded with each other by different Rabbinical commentators. Some of them imagine that the kinnoor had twenty-four strings, while others assign it thirty-two; others identify it with the Eolian harp; by some it is mistaken for the psaltery, by others for the Greek chelys. Suidas, however, and those who consider it to have been the same as the Greek kinura, are probably the most correct.