invariably two horns, it seems to me improbable the Septuagint would call him μovókegws, especially as they must have seen an animal of this kind exposed at Alexandria in their time, when first mentioned in history, at an exhibition given to Ptolemy Philadelphus, at his accession to the crown, before the death of his father. The principal reason for translating the word reem unicorn, and not rhinoceros, is from a prejudice that he must have but one horn. But this is by no means so well founded, as to be admitted as the only argument for establishing the existence of an animal, which never has appeared after the search of so many ages. Scripture speaks of the horns of the unicorn, Deut. xxxiii. 17; Psalm xxii. 21; so that even from this circumstance the reem may be the rhinoceros, as the rhinoceros may be the unicorn." In the book of Job, xxxix. 9, 10, the reem is represented as an unmanageable animal, which, although possessed of sufficient strength to labour, sternly and pertinaciously refused to bend his neck to the yoke. Will the reem submit to serve thee? Will he, indeed, abide at thy crib? Canst thou make his harness bind the reem to the furrow? And commit thy labour unto him? Wilt thou trust him that he may bring home thy grain, The rhinoceros, in size, is only exceeded by the elephant; and in strength and power is inferior to no other creature. He is at least twelve feet in length, from the extremity of the snout to the insertion of the tail; six or seven feet in height, and the circumference of the body is nearly equal to its length. He is particularly distinguished from the elephant and all other animals, by the remarkable and offensive weapon he carries upon his nose. This is a very hard horn, solid throughout, directed forward, and has been seen four feet in length. Mr. Browne, in his Travels, says, that the Arabians call the rhinoceros abu-kurn, "father of the one horn." The rhinoceros is very hurtful, by the prodigious devastation which he makes in the fields. This circumstance peculiarly illustrates the passage from Job. Instead of trusting him to bring home the grain, the husbandman will endeavour to prevent his entry into the fields, and hinder his destructive ravages. In a note upon this passage, Mr. Good says, "The original reem, by all the older translators rendered rhinoceros, or unicorn, is by some modern writers supposed to be the bubalus, bison, or wild ox. There can be no doubt that rhinoceros is the proper term; for this animal is universally known in Arabia, by the name of reem, to the present day." The rhinoceros, though next in size, yet in docility and ingenuity greatly inferior, to the elephant, has never yet been tamed, so as to assist the labours of mankind, or to appear in the ranks of war. The rhinoceros is perfectly indocile and untractable, though neither ferocious nor carnivorous. He is among large animals what the hog is among smaller ones, brutal and insensible; fond of wallowing in the mire, and delighting in moist and marshy situations near the banks of rivers. He is, however, of a pacific disposition; and, as he feeds on vegetables, has few occasions for conflict. He neither disturbs the less, nor fears the greater, beasts of the forest, but lives amicably with all. He subsists principally on large succulent plants, prickly shrubs, and the branches of trees; and lives to the age of seventy or eighty years. UNITARIANS, a comprehensive term, including all who believe the Deity to subsist in one person only. The chief article in the religious system of the Unitarians is, that Christ was a mere man. But they consider him as the great instrument in the hands of God of reversing all the effects of the fall; as the object of all the prophecies from Moses to his own time; as the great bond of union to virtuous and good men, who, as Christians, make one body in a peculiar sense. The Socinian creed was reduced to what Dr. Priestley calls Humanitarianism, by denying the miraculous conception, the infallibility, and the impeccability of the Saviour; and, consequently, his right to any divine honours or religious worship. As to those texts which declare that Jesus Christ "knew no sin," &c., his followers explain them in the sense in which it is said of believers, "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin," 1 John iii. 9. Or, if this be not satisfactory, Dr. Priestley refers us to the "Theological Repository," "" in which," he says, “I think I have shown that the apostle Paul often reasons inconclusively; and, therefore, that he wrote as any other person of his turn of mind or thinking, and in his situation, would have written, withou any particular inspiration. Facts, such as think I have there alleged, are stubborn things, and all hypotheses must be accommodated to them." Nor is this sentiment peculiar to Dr. Priestley. Mr. Belsham says, "The Unitarian doctrine is, that Jesus of Nazareth was a man constituted in all respects like other men, subject to the same infirmities. the same ignorance, prejudices, and frailties: descended from the family of David, the se of Joseph and Mary, though some indeed still adhere to the popular opinion of the miraculous conception; that he was born in low circumstances, having no peculiar advantages of education or learning, but that he was a man of exemplary character; and that, in conformity to ancient prophecy, be was chosen and appointed by God to intreduce a new moral dispensation into the world, the design of which was to abolish the Jewish economy, and to place believing gentiles upon an equal ground of privilege and favour with the posterity of Abraha in other words, he was authorized to reveal to all mankind, without distinction, the great doctrine of a future life, in which men shall be rewarded according to their works." Mr. Belsham goes on to state the Unitarian opinion to be, that Jesus was not conscious of his high character till after his baptism; that he afterwards spent some time in the wilderness, where he was invested with miraculous powers, and favoured with heavenly visions, like St. Paul, 2 Cor. xii., in which he supposed himself taken up into heaven, and in consequence of which he speaks of his descent from heaven; that he exercised his ministry on earth for the space of a year or more, and then suffered death upon the cross, not to exhibit the evil of sin, or in any sense to make atonement for it, but as a martyr to the truth, and as a necessary preliminary to his resurrection, which they consider as a pledge of the resurrection of mankind. Many also believe that Jesus maintained some personal and sensible connexion with the church during the apostolic age, and the continuance of miraculous powers in the church. They farther believe that he is appointed to revisit the earth, and to judge the world, a difficult task one would suppose, if" he be constituted," as said above," in all respects like other men, subject to the same ignorance, prejudices, frailties," &c. ! So this blasphemous system contains, in this respect, and in almost every other, its own refutation. See SOCINIANS. The creed which the celebrated council of Nice established, says Grier, in his "Epitome of General Councils," is that which Christians now profess; the errors and impieties which it condemned are those which, according to the refinements of Socinus, his followers of the present day have moulded into their antichristian system. Arius, a presbyter in the church of Alexandria, a man of consummate talent and address, but of a cold and speculative mind, impiously maintained that there had been a time when the Son of God was not; that he was capable of virtue and vice; and that he was a creature, and mutable as creatures are! It is true that Arius held a qualified pre-existence, when he said that God created the Son from nothing before he created the world; in other words, that the Son was the first of created beings; but such pre-existence does not imply co-existence or co-eternity with the Father. After this manner did he deny the divinity of the Son, and his co-eternity with the Father. Seduced by the pride of reasoning, no less than by his fondness for novelty, did he likewise reject the duoovoar, as it is called, or the tenet of the Son being of the same substance with the Father. The blasphemies of Arius consisted in the denial of Christ's being either co-eternal or consubstantial with God. After a lapse of twelve centuries, Socinus lowered him another step by declaring his inferiority to the Father; for that he, as well as all other things, was subject to the supreme Creator of the universe; and although he held his mere humanity, yet, inconsistently enough, he would offer him divine worship! Inconsistently it may be said, because the Socinian, on his own principles, thereby incurs the guilt of idolatry as much as the Roman Catholic who worships the Virgin Mary, a mere created being. The Unitarian, or Humanitarian, sinks the character of the Saviour still lower, by withholding all worship from him; and while he considers him as a mere man, and therefore as not possessing the attributes of the Deity, with an inconsistency as singular as that of Socinus, he acknowledges his divinity so as to call him God; as if the terms Deity and Divinity bore different significations, or as if the principle which constituted the essence of the Godhead were separable from the Godhead itself! It should be observed, that the lowest denomination of unbelievers in the descending scale, namely, the modern Unitarian, combines with his own peculiar errors and impieties all the errors and impieties of both Arius and Socinus, together with an absolute denial of the Holy Ghost being a divine Person. Having touched on the shades of difference which exist between the followers of Arius and Socinus, a more minute detail of the division and subdivision of the classes into which they may be ranged may not be unacceptable to the reader: Arians and Semi-Arians constituted the original distinction; that of a subsequent day was high and low Arians. The high Arians entertain the highest views of the mediatorial influence of Christ, and believe in the entire scriptures; the low Arians run into the opposite extreme; yet neither high nor low Arians consider Christ to be truly God. The old Socinians admitted the miraculous conception, and the worship of the Son; the modern Socinians do not; a circumstance that identifies the modern Socinian with the Unitarian. Some high Arians, such as Dr. Samuel Clarke, &c., thought that Christ might be worshipped; others of them affect to have no distinct notion of what the Holy Ghost meant, and to believe that worship is not to be addressed to Christ, but through Christ! These variations in the Unitarian creed have been deduced from the evidence of Unitarians themselves, given before the Commissioners of Education Inquiry in Ireland in 1826, as detailed in their Report to Parliament; a circumstance that renders them the more valuable, as it imparts to them a living, speaking authority. It must, however, be observed, that, motley as they are, they all terminate in one point, the rejection of Christ's divinity; and that, diversified as the distinctions appear to be, they all will be ultimately found to be without a shadow of difference. In short, Arians, Socinians, Unitarians, &c., not only agree with each other in their antichristian scheme; but can scarcely be said to differ from the infidel Musselmans, who are taught by their Koran to regard Christ as a great Prophet, and the forerunner of their own. With Deism doubtless Unitarianism has an intimate alliance. For Deists reject all the doctrines of the Christian revelation, while Unitarians reject all its peculiar doctrines: 1. The Trinity of Persons in the Godhead. 2. The divinity of Christ. 3. The personality of the Holy Spirit. 4. The miraculous birth of Christ. 5. The atonement of Christ. 6. The sanctification of the Spirit. 7. The existence of angels and spirits; 8. And, therefore, of the devil and his angels. "In what, then," says the learned Dr. Burgess, bishop of Salisbury, after this enumeration of the peculiar doctrines of Christianity, "does Unitarianism differ from Deism? Deists deny the essential doctrines of Christianity by rejecting the whole of the Christian revelation; Unitarians reject the Christian revelation by denying all its peculiar and essential doctrines." UNIVERSALISTS. Those who believe that Christ so died for all, that, before he shall have delivered up his mediatorial kingdom, all fallen creatures shall be brought to a participation of the benefits of his death, in their restoration to holiness and happiness. They are called also Universal Restorationists, and their doctrine, the doctrine of universal restoration. Some of its friends have maintained it, also, under the name of universal salvation; but perhaps the former name is that by which it should be distinguished; for the Universalists do not hold any universal exemption from future punishment, but merely the recovery of all those that shall have been exposed to it. They have likewise a just claim to this title on other grounds; for their doctrine, which includes the restoration, or "restitution of all the intelligent offspring of God," or of all "lapsed intelligences," seems to embrace even the fallen angels. They admit the reality and equity of future punishment; but they contend that it will be corrective in its nature, and limited in its duration. They teach the doctrine of election, but not in the exclusive Calvinistic sense of it. They suppose that God has chosen some for the good of all; and that his final purpose towards all is intimated by his calling his elect the first-born and the first-fruits of his creatures, which, say they, implies other branches of his family, and a future ingathering of the harvest of mankind. They teach, also, that the righteous shall have part in the first resurrection, shall be blessed and happy, and be made priests and kings to God and to Christ in the millennial kingdom, and that over them the second death shall have no power; that the wicked will receive a punishment apportioned to their crimes; that punishment itself is a mediatorial work, and founded upon mercy, and, consequently, that it is a means of humbling, subduing, and finally reconciling the sinner to God. They add, that the words rendered " eternal," everlasting," "for ever," and "for ever and ever," in the scriptures, are frequently used to express the duration of things that have ended of must end; and if it is contended that these words are sometimes used to express proper eternity, they answer, that then the subject with which the words are connected must determine the sense of them; and as there is nothing in the nature of future punishment which can be offered as a reason why it should be endless, they infer that the above words ought always to be taken in a limited sense when connected with the infliction of misery. Those who deny the eternity of future punishments have not formed themselves into any separate body or distinct society; but are to be found in most Christian coun tries, and among several denominations. Their doctrines form part of the creed of some Arians, as of Mr. Whiston; of many Deists, as of Mr. Hobbes, Mr. Tindal, &c.; and of most Socinians. Nor need we be surprised that libertines and atheists hold it, and that they strive to bring others over to their opinion. "The tyranny of priests," said Dupont the atheist, in the national con vention, December, 1792, "extends their opinion to another life, of which they have no other idea than that of eternal punishment; a doctrine which some men have hitherto had the good nature to believe. But these prejudices must now fall: we must de stroy them, or they will destroy us." The Mennonites in Holland have long held the doctrine of the Universalists; the people called Dunkers, or Tunkers, in America, descended from the German Baptists, hold it; and also the Shakers. Excellent refutations of this specious system have been published by the Rev. S. Jerram, and the Rev. Daniel Isaac. The Arminians are sometimes called “Universalists," on account of their holding the tenet of general redemption; in opposition to the Calvinists, who, from their specifically restricting the saving grace of God to certain fore-ordained individuals, receive the dens mination of "Particularists." By the epithet "Hypothetical Universalists," are designated on the continent those who have adopted the theological system of Amyraut and Cameron, but who are better known in this country as "Baxterians." See AMYRALDISM, BAITERIANISM, and CAMERONISTS. UPPER-ROOM. The principal rooms anciently in Judea were those above, as they are to this day at Aleppo; the ground four being chiefly made use of for their horses and servants. "The house in which I am at present living," says Jowett, “gives what seems to be a correct idea of the scene of Eutychus's falling from the upper loft while St. Paul was preaching, Acts xx. 6—12. According to our idea of houses, the scene is very far from intelligible; and, besides this, the circumstance of preaching generally leaves on the mind of cursory readers the notion of a church. To describe this house, which is not many miles distant from the was favourable, or in the contrary case dim. Others suppose, that the Urim and Thummim were something enclosed between the folding of the breastplate; this some will have to be the tetragrammaton, or the word and after him Dr. Spencer, maintain them to be two little images shut up in the doubling of the breastplate, which gave the oracular answer from thence by an articulate voice. Accordingly, they derive them from the Egyptians, who consulted their lares, and had an oracle, or teraphim, which they called Truth. This opinion, however, has been sufficiently confuted by the learned Dr. Pococke, and by Witsius. The more common opinion among Christians concerning the oracle by Urim and Thummim, and which Dr. Prideaux espouses, is, that when the High Priest appeared before the veil, clothed with his ephod and breastplate, to ask counsel of God, the answer was given with an audible voice from the mercy-seat, within the veil; but, it has been observed, that this account will by no means agree with the history of David's consulting the oracle by Abiathar, 1 Sam. xxiii. 9, 11; xxx. 7, 8; because the ark, on which was the mercy-seat, was then at Kirjathjearim; whereas David was in the one case at Ziklag, and in the other in the forest of Hareth. Braunius and Hottinger have adopted another opinion they suppose, that, when Moses is commanded to put in the breastplate the Urim and Thummim, signifying lights and perfections in the plural number, it was meant that he should make choice of the most perfect set of stones, and have them so polished as to give the brightest lustre; and, on this hypothesis, the use of the Urim and Thummim, or of these exquisitely polished jewels, was only to be a symbol of the divine presence, and of the light and perfection of the prophetic inspiration; and, as such, constantly to be worn by the High Priest in the exercise of his sacred function, especially in consulting the oracle. Troad, and perhaps, from the unchanging character of oriental customs, nearly resembles the houses then built, will fully illustrate the narrative. On entering my host's door, we find the first floor entirely used as a store: it is filled with large barrels of oil, the pro-, Jehovah. Christophorus de Castro, duce of the rich country for many miles round this space, so far from being habitable, is sometimes so dirty with the dripping of the oil, that it is difficult to pick out a clean footing from the door to the first step of the staircase. On ascending, we find the first floor, consisting of an humble suite of rooms, not very high; these are occupied by the family for their daily use. It is on the next story that all their expense is lavished: here my courteous host has appointed my lodging: beautiful curtains and mats, and cushions to the divan, display the respect with which they mean to receive their guest. Here, likewise, their splendour, being at the top of the house, is enjoyed by the poor Greeks with more retirement, and less chance of molestation from the intrusion of Turks: here, when the professors of the college waited upon me to pay their respects, they were received in ceremony, and sat at the window. The room is both higher and also larger that those below; it has two projecting windows; and the whole floor is so much extended in front beyond the lower part of the building, that the projecting windows considerably overhang the street. In such an upper room, secluded, spacious, and commodious, St. Paul was invited to preach his parting discourse. The divan, or raised seat, with mats or cushions, encircles the interior of each projecting window; and I have remarked that when the company is numerous, they sometimes place large cushions behind the company seated on the divan; so that a second tier of company, with their feet upon the seat of the divan, are sitting behind, higher than the front row. Eutychus, thus sitting, would be on a level with the open window; and, being overcome with sleep, he would easily fall out from the third loft of the house into the strect, and be almost certain, from such a height, to lose his life. Thither St. Paul went down, and comforted the alarmed company by bringing up Eutychus alive. It is noted that there were many lights in the upper chamber.' The very great plenty of oil in this neighbourhood would enable them to afford many lamps; the heat of these and so much company would cause the drowsiness of Eutychus, at that late hour, and be the occasion, likewise, of the windows being open." URIM AND THUMMIM. The High Priests of the Jews, we are told, consulted God in the most important affairs of their commonwealth, and received answers by the Urim and Thummim. What these were, is disputed among the critics. Josephus, and some others, imagine the answer was returned by the stones of the breastplate appearing with an unusual lustre when it Michaëlis observes: That in making distributions of property, and in cases of disputes relative to meum and tuum, recourse was had to the lot, in default of any other means of decision, will naturally be supposed. The whole land was partitioned by lot; and that, in aftertimes, the lot continued to be used, even in courts of justice, we see from Prov. xvi. 33; xviii. 18; where we are expressly taught to remember, that it is Providence which maketh the choice, and that therefore we ought to be satisfied with the decision of the lot, as the will of God. It was for judicial purposes, in a particular manner, that the sacred lot called Urim and Thummim was employed; and on this account, the costly embroidered pouch, in which the priest carried this sacred lot on his breast, was called the judicial ornament. "But was this sacred lot used likewise in criminal trials?" Yes, says Michaëlis, only to dis cover the guilty, to convict them; for in the only two instances of its use in such cases which occur in the whole Bible, namely, in Joshua vii. 14-18, 1 Sam. xiv. 37-45, we find the confessions of the two delinquents, Achan and Jonathan, annexed. It appears also to have been used only in the case of an oath being transgressed which the whole people had taken, or the leader of the host in their name, but not in the case of other crimes; for an unknown murder, for example, was not to be discovered by recourse to the sacred lot. The inner sanctuary, within the vail of the tabernacle, observes Dr. Hales, or most holy place, was called the oracle, 1 Kings vi. 16, because there the Lord communed with Moses, face to face, and gave him instructions in cases of legal difficulty or sudden emergency, Exod. xxv. 22; Num. vii. 89; ix. 8; Exod. xxxiii. 11; a high privilege granted to none of his successors. After the death of Moses a different mode was appointed for consulting the oracle by the High Priest, who put on the breastplate of judgment,' a principal part of the pontifical dress, on which were inscribed the words Urim and Thummim, emblematical of divine illumination; as the inscription on his mitre, "Holiness to the Lord," was of sanctification, Exod. xxviii. 30-37; Lev. viii. 8. Thus prepared, he presented himself before the Lord to ask counsel on public matters, not in the inner sanctuary, which he presumed not to enter, except on the great day of national atonement, but without the vail, with his face towards the ark of the covenant, inside; and behind him, at some distance, without the sanctuary, stood Joshua, the judge, or person who wanted the response, which seems to have been given with an audible voice from within the vail, Num. xxvii. 21, as in the case of Joshua, vii. 6-15; of the Israelites during the civil war with Benjamin, Judges xx. 27, 28; on the appointment of Saul to be king, when he hid himself, 1 Sam. x. 22—24; of David, 1 Sam. xxii. 10; xxiii. 2—12; xxx. 8; 2 Sam. v. 23, 24; of Saul, 1 Sam. xxviii. 6. This mode of consultation subsisted under the tabernacle erected by Moses in the wilderness, and until the building of Solomon's temple; after which we find no instances of it. The oracles of the Lord were thenceforth delivered by the prophets; as by Ahijah to Jeroboam, 1 Kings xi. 29; by Shemaiah to Rehoboam, 1 Kings xii. 22; by Elijah to Ahab, 1 Kings xvii. I; xxi. 17 -29; by Michaiah to Ahab and Jehoshaphat, 1 Kings xxii. 7; by Elisha to Jehoshaphat and Jehoram, 2 Kings iii. 11-14; by Isaiah to Hezekiah, 2 Kings xix. 6-34; xx. 1-11; by Huldah to Josiah, 2 Kings xxii. 13-20; by Jeremiah to Zedekiah, Jer. xxxii. 3-5, &c. After the Babylonish captivity, and the last of the prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the oracle ceased; but its revival was foretold by Ezra, ii. 63, and accomplished by Christ, who was himself the oracle, under the old and new covenants, Gen. xv. 1; John i. 1. See BREASTPLATE. USURY, profit or gain from lending money or goods. Moses enacted a law to the effect that interest should not be taken from a poor person, neither for borrowed money, nor for articles of consumption, for instance, grain, which was borrowed with the expectation of being returned, Exod. xxii. 25; Lev. xxv. 35-37. A difficulty arose in determining who was to be considered a poor person in a case of this kind; and the law was accordingly altered in Deut. xxiii. 20, 21, and extended in its operation to all the Hebrews, whether they had more or less property; so that interest could be lawfully taken only of foreigners. As the system of the Jews went to secure every man's paternal inheritance to his own family, they could not exact it from their brethren, but only from strangers. As the law of nature does not forbid the receipt of moderate interest in the shape of rent, for the use of lands or houses, neither does it prohibit it for the loan of money or goods. When one man trades with the capital of another, and obtains a profit from it, he is bound in justice to return a part of it to his benefactor, who, in the hands of God, has been a second cause of "giving him power to get wealth." But should divine Providence not favour the endeavours of some who have borrowed money, the duty of the lenders is to deal gently with them, and to be content with sharing in their losses, as they have been sharers in their gains. The Hebrews were therefore exhorted to lend money, &c., as a deed of mercy and brotherly kindness, Deut xv. 7-11; xxiv. 13. And hence it happens that we find encomiums everywhere bestowed upon those who were willing to lend without insisting upon interest for the use of the thing lent, Psalm xv. 5; xxxvii. 21, 26; cri 5; Prov. xix. 17; Ezek. xviii. 8. This regelation in regard to taking interest was very well suited to the condition of a state that had been recently founded, and which had but very little mercantile dealings; and its principle, though not capable of being generally introduced into communities that are much engaged in commerce, may still be exercised towards those who stand towards us in the relation of brethren. UZ, LAND OF, the country of Job. As there were three persons of this name, namely, the son of Aram, the son of Nahot, and the grandson of Seir the Horite, commentators are divided in their opinion as to the situation of the country meant by the land of Uz. Bochart, Spanheim, Calmet. Wells, and others, place it in Arabia Deserta Michaëlis places it in the valley of Damascus, which city was, in fact, built by Uz, the grandson of Shem. Archbishop Mag Bishop Lowth, Dr. Hales, Dr. Good, and others, with more reason, fix the scene of the history of Job in Idumea. This is als the opinion of Mr. Horne, who refers for a |