PROOF-PROPAGANDA. seems tam, tunc; Ger. dann; Eng. so, as, then, thus. the accusative; and, in fact, in certain connections, used, although grammarians have hitherto refused to sanction the usage. Such expressions as, 'It is these forms, together with me, are habitually so confined to the uneducated; in familiar conversame;' 'better than him, than them,' &c., are not tion, the most cultivated use them habitually, and in preference to what are considered to be the correct forms, which are felt somehow to be stiff and pedantic. This usage has the analogy of the French in its favour (e. g., c'est moi), and some English philologists have begun to defend it on principle. See Alford, The Queen's English. personal pronouns. The English language departs various substitutes take the place of the usual From politeness and other rhetorical motives, little from the normal usage, except in you for thou, keeper, instead of 'What do you wish to see?' says: What does the gentleman (or lady) wish to see?' and in the regal and editorial we. A French shopAll modern languages use such substitutions as, Your Majesty, your Excellency, wishes;' but the It (ella, she) wishes.' The Germans use regularly | they (sie) for you, and one never hears you except Italian, in speaking further of the Excellenza, says: from the pulpit. In Hebrew, politeness took the form of saying: Thy servant said,' for 'I said' Similarly, the Chinese use: 'little man, subject, thief, blockhead,' for 'I;' and an American backwoodsman speaks of himself as 'this 'oss,' or 'this here child.' PROOF. See EVIDENCE. The pronouns of the first and second person are invariable in respect of gender, and are never used as adjectives; the pronouns of the third person not only take the form of adjectives in respect of gender, but are often-especially in the older languages-joined to nouns, in which case they are rather demonstrative (or relative) adjectives than pronouns; as Lat. ille homo, Eng. that book. It is difficult to trace any etymological relations between the singular and the plural in the first and second pronouns-e. g., between Lat. tu and vos, or Eng. thou and you; but this is not to be wondered at criptions are proved before being issued for service. PROOF OF FIRE-ARMS. Guns of all deswhen we reflect that we' is not equal to 'I' and Muskets are tested by being fired with heavier I,' but to 'I' and 'he,' or 'I' and 'thou;' and bullets and larger charges of powder than they will that 'you' is as much thou' and 'he' as 'thou' in the ordinary way be required to carry. Cannon and thou.' The plurals must therefore have been are subjected to a series of tests. First, they are compounded of several elements, which, by coales-gauged to ascertain that the dimensions are correct, cence and abrasion, have become irrecognisable. The declension of the English personal pronouns is nally, and 033 in the diameter of the bore, but the the utmost variation permitted being 3 inch exterto be found in any elementary grammar. That of position of the bore may deviate 25 inch from the the third person is made up of fragments of several Anglo-Saxon words. was thus declined: line of the piece's axis. The Anglo-Saxon pronoun twice with heavy charges-the bore being subseThe next trial is by firing quently minutely examined, to detect flaws or crevices in the metal. A cavity exceeding in depth 2 inch, if behind the first reinforce ring, or 25 if before that ring, condemns the piece. After the proof by firing, water is forced at a great pressure into the bore, in order that it may permeate any honeycombs or flaws: the next day, the bore is examined by means of a mirror, which casts a strong light into tinue for some time to weep or run from the holes, it. Flaws are then easily detected; for while the rest of the bore is thoroughly dry, water will conand will stand over them in drops. This operation completes the proof. When a gun bursts in proof, the remainder of the guns of the same sort then in proof are subjected to another round. Sing. Nom. he (he), heó (she), hit (it) Gen. his hire his Acc. hine hi hit Dat. him hire him Plur. Nom. Acc. hi Gen. hira (heora) The cases marked in italics are still used in modern English, only that him and her do duty in the accusative as well as dative. His, as the genitive of the neuter, has been supplanted in recent times by the secondary genitive its, a word which does not occur once in the English version of the Bible. She does not represent the Anglo-Saxon heo, but seó, the feminine of the article. The modern plurals they, their, them, have no direct etymological connection with the singular he (she, it); they are taken from the demonstrative or article that (that, the), which has, in the plural, nominative and accusative thá, genitive thára, dative tham. Them, like him, was thus originally a dative case. memory of the demonstrative origin of them that Is it a lingering keeps alive the vulgar error of 'them things?' Such being the arbitrary, or rather chance way in which the English pronominal system has been built up out of the wrecks of the Anglo-Saxon, there is no good reason why them, him, her, should not have been used in the nominative as well as in 794 are tested to bursting, as specimens of the power Regarding the Propagation of the Faith), the name use of PROPHECY. of the prophetic office. This is apparent from the use of the word even in our English Bibles and our older theological literature. The sons of Asaph, for example, it is said (1 Chron. xxv. 3) 'prophesied with a harp, to give thanks and to praise the Lord,' in the sense of merely singing or uttering God's praise under the dictate of the divine Spirit. It is said also of Philip the Evangelist (Acts xxi. 9) that he had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy,' in the sense merely or mainly of declaring the gospel. In like manner, Bacon speaks in his day of an exercise commonly called prophesying,' which consisted in the exposition of a portion of Scripture by successive ministers at a meeting appointed for the purpose; and the well-known title of one of Jeremy Taylor's books, The Liberty of Prophesying-i. e., the liberty of preaching-recalls the same use of the word. Prophecy among the Jews was a distinct office or function constituted under the divine sanction. The prophets were an order instituted, or at least reformed and more thoroughly organised by Samuel. There were prophets, indeed, before; Abraham is called a prophet (Gen. xx. 7), and Moses also (Deut. xviii. 15; xxxiv. 10); Aaron is the 'prophet of Moses' (Ex. vii. 1), and Miriam is a prophetess' (Ex. xv. 20); but it was Samuel who first established the office as a systematic part of the Jewish religion. For this purpose, he gathered together companies of young men of promising spiritual attainments, who were trained under his uperintendence for various religious duties-the position of the theocratic law, and the conduct of the theocratic worship, especially of its elaborate musal departments (1 Sam. x. 5; 1 Chron. xxv. 6). Thee of the psaltery and tabret, pipe, harp, and cymba was the peculiar business of the prophets. The youg men were set apart to make proficiency in these instruments; they were placed under an elderly head or president, who received the name of fater, and they were called his sons. They were al under the hands of their father for song in the house of the Lord, with cymbals, psalteries, and harps, for the service of the house of God' (1 Chron. xxv. 6). The prophetic institutions have been caled by modern divines 'Schools of the Prophets;' buthis name does not occur in Scripture, nor even our authorised version. 'Sons of the Prophets the only collective name applied to the separate Companies into which they were formed by Samuel. These companies were located in special spots: in Ramah, the birthplace and residence of Samuel; in Bethel, Gilgal, Jericho, and ultimately Jerusalem. They lived in huts made of the branches of trees, wore a simple, characteristic dress; had their meals together, and were found in numbers sometimes o. 50, sometimes even of 400. For a prophet not have been trained in one of these institutions, was deemed, as Dean Stanley says (Jewish Church, vol. i. p. 429), 'an exceptional case.' Some, like Isaiah in Jerusalem, or Elisha in Samaria, lived in great towns, à houses of their own. The higher prophets had ferior prophets or servants attendant upon them, whose duty it was to pour water upon their hands, end secure provisions for them (2 Kings, iii. 11; v. 22). Thus, Moses had Joshua and others; Elijah had Elisha; Elisha had Gehazi. Many of them were married, and had families; for example, Moses, Samuel, Deborah, David, Hosea, Isaiah, Ezekiel. The wife was sometimes, as in the case of Isaiah, called the prophetess.' The prophets, according to this description, were a peculiar order of teachers among the Jews; prophecy, a distinctive part of the divine economy, by which God trained and educated the chosen people.' Beginning in a definite, though still unorganised form, with Moses (for it is only incidentally that Abraham is called a prophet'), it assumes a regular organisation in the hands of Samuel, just when the earlier form of the theocratic government was passing away, and the monarchy was established. It grew up alongside the older institution of the Levitical priesthood without any professed or formal opposition to the latter, but playing a part distinct, and often practically opposed to it. The priests ministered at the altars of sacrifice, and discharged all the official rites of purification enjoined by the Jewish law. They were only secondarily teachers of the people. The prophets, again, while joining in the rites of the tabernacle and temple, were primarily and mainly teachers. Their function was moral, and not ritual; they upheld the ethical, spiritual, and eternal side of religion, apt to be obscured under the hardening tendencies and ambitious officialism of an influential priesthood. They were the great preachers of a righteous government of the world, and of future retribution amidst the confusions and evils of their time; and prophecy was the everrenewing and reforming element in the constantly corrupting and decaying policy of Judaism. More particularly, the prophets were both the national historians and poets of the Jewish people, the narrators of its past deliverance, the heralds of its coming glories. The books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, are included among the prophetical books of the Old Testament in the Jewish canon; while the acts of David by Gad and Nathan, of Solomon and Jeroboam by Nathan and Iddo, along with other historical and biographical pieces, have unhappily perished. It is needless to point to the splendid collection of the later prophetic books, beginning with Joel, as containing, along with much direct historical matter also, the most exalted specimens of poetry to be found in any language. un But that which by many has been supposed to be the distinctive character of prophecy, and the special function of the prophets, remains to be! noticed. According to the general view of thee! logians in modern times, prophecy is peculiarly predictive, and the essential characteristic of the prophet is supposed to be the power of foretelling future events. This view is not warranted, we have seen, either by the etymology of the word, or a comprehensive survey of the facts; but it is, nevertheless, undeniable that the Hebrew prophets directed their attention especially to the future, and made predictions concerning the fortunes of 1 their own and other countries, which were questionably fulfilled.' There can be no reasonable doubt, for example, writes one of the most liberal of modern theologians, 'that Amos foretold the captivity and return of Israel, and Micah the fall of Samaria, and Ezekiel the fall of Jerusalem, and Isaiah the fall of Tyre, and Jeremiah the limits of the captivity. It was the distinguishing mark of the Jewish people,' adds the same writer, that their golden age was not in the past, but in the future; that their greatest hero (as they deemed him to be) was not their founder, but their founder's latest descendant. Their traditions, their fancies, their glories, gathered round the head, not of a chief, or warrior, or sage that had been, but of s king, a deliverer, a prophet, who was to come. this singular expectation, the prophets were, if pot the chief authors, at least the chief exponents* The reality of a succession of Messianic predictions. is admitted by even very advanced theologians; and the more usual opinion, it is well known, regards * Dean Stanley, Jewish Church, vol. i. p. 466. PROPOLIS-PROPORTION. Huber found bees PRO'POLIS, a substance used by bees in the construction of their combs, to give to the fabric a strength which it could not have if made of wax chinks of the hive. It is a resinous unctuous subalone. See ВEE. It is also used for closing up stance of a reddish-brown colour, a somewhat bitter taste, and an agreeable aromatic odour, and is collected from the buds of trees. eagerly to appropriate the viscous exudation which little in chemical composition according to the tree abounds on poplar buds. P. probably differs a it is obtained from, but it consists chiefly of resin. adheres to them so strongly that the assistance of It is brought to the hive on the legs of bees, and other bees is necessary for its removal. is from the Greek pro, before, and polis, a city; because the most exposed parts of a bee-hive exhibit Foreign this substance in greatest abundance. bodies introduced into a bee-hive, and which the bees are unable to remove, are covered with propolis. these predictions from the time of Moses to the Poesi Hebræorum; Davison, Discourses on Protime of Malachi as admitting of no question, from phecy; Butler, Analogy of Religion; Horne, the supposed clearness, fulness, and particularity Introduction to Holy Scripture; Eichhorn, Die with which they announce a deliverer, and describe Hebräischen Propheten; Ewald, Die Propheten des his functions. That salvation should come through Alten Bundes; Hengstenberg, Christology of the the family of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Old Testament; Fairbairn, Prophecy; Davidson, David; that at the time of the final absorption Introduction to the Old Testament; Stanley, of Jewish power, Shiloh (the tranquilliser) should Lectures on the Jewish Church. gather the nations under his rule; that there should be a great prophet typified by Moses, a king descended from David, a priest for ever typified by Melchizedek; that there should be born into the world a child, to be called Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace; that there should be a righteous servant of God on whom the Lord should lay the iniquity of us all; that Messiah, the Prince, should be cut off, but not for Himself; that an everlasting kingdom should be given by the Ancient of Days to one like the Son of Man. It seems impossible to harmonise so many apparent contradictions. Nevertheless, it is an undoubted fact, that at the time seemingly pointed out by one or more of these predictions, there was born into the world a child of the house of David, and therefore of the family of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Judah, who claimed to be the object of these and other predictions; who is acknowledged as Prophet, Priest, and King, as Mighty God, and yet as God's righteous servant, who bears the iniquity of all; who was cut off, and whose death is acknowledged not to have been for His own, but for others' good; who has instituted a spiritual kingdom on earth, which kingdom is of a nature to continue for ever, and in whose doings and sufferings on earth a number of specific predictions were fulfilled. Then we may say that we have here a series of prophecies which are so applicable to the person and earthly life of Jesus Christ, as to be thereby shewn to have been designed to apply to Him; and if they were designed to apply to Him, prophetical prediction is proved.'-Smith's Dictionary of Bible, art. Prophecy. The name PROPORTION, in Arithmetic and Geometry, is a particular species of relation subsisting between groups of numbers or quantities. Notwithstanding that the idea of proportion is found to exist in perfection in the mind of every one, yet a good definition of it is a matter of extreme difficulty: The two definitions which, on the whole, are found to be least objectionable are that of Euclid, and the ordinary arithmetical definition. The latter states proportion to be the equality of ratios,' and throws us back on the definition of the term Ratio (q. v.); which may most simply be considered as the relation of two numbers to each other, shewn by a division of the one by the other. Thus, the ratio of 12 to 3, expressed by or 4, denotes that 12 contains 3 four times; and the ratio of 8 to 2 being also 4, we have from our definition a statement that the four numbers, 12, 3, 8, and 2, are in proportion, or, as it is commonly expressed, 12 bears to 3 the 12 3' the same way, it is shewn that 3:8::13:36; for same ratio that 8 does to 2, or 12:3: 8:2. In 3 = Such is the common view of prophecy. It has, indeed, been maintained by certain writers that literal prediction has no place in prophecy; that Isaiah did not foretell the Babylonian Captivity, or the fall of Tyre, nor Jeremiah the Seventy Years' Captivity, nor Nahum the ruin of Nineveh; and that the Messianic prophecies were merely ardent hopes and poetical descriptions' of a glorious future, into which the prophetic mind naturally projected itself. Such delineations were in essence nothing but forebodings-efforts of the spiritual eye to bring up before itself the distinct form of the future: expresses the ratio of the first to the second, and to make such presentiments into historical 8 declarations, is to mistake their character.'-David- 13 27 3 It will be gathered from the two son's Introduction, vol. iv. But this is not the 36 72 8 ordinary theory of prophecy, either among Jews or arithmetical proportions here given, and from any Christians. Both alike recognise the reality of the others that an be formed, that the product of predictive element, however differently they may the first and last terms (the extremes) is equal to interpret and apply the prediction. They contend the produs of the second and third terms (the not only for a special spiritual elevation in the means);' and upon this property of proportional prophet-an intenser degree of the same divine numbers directly depends the arithmetical rule intuition which God gives to all who worship Him called 'proportion,' &c. The object of this rule is in love and reverence-but for a gift of light vouch- to fad a fourth proportional to three given numsafed to him different from any ordinary endow- ber-i. e., a number to which the third bears the ment. Prophecy is not merely the effluence of the sme ratio that the first does to the second, and divine Spirit enriching and exalting all the natural the number is at once found by multiplying faculties, but it is the direct communication of God together the second and third terms, and dividing Himself, to the prophet unveiling the future for the product by the first. Proportion is illusthe guidance of His church, and the glory of Kis trated arithmetically by such problems as, 'If four yards cost six shillings, what will ten cost?' Here, 15 being the fourth proportional to 4, 6, and 10, fifteen shillings is the answer. The distinction of proportion into direct and inverse is not only quite unnecessary, but highly mischievous, as it tends to name. The further study of the subject may be pursued by readers in numerous volumes, amongst which the following may be recommended: John Smith, Select Discourses on Prophecy; Lowth, De Sucra i PROPHECY. of the prophetic office. This is apparent from the use of the word even in our English Bibles and our older theological literature. The sons of Asaph, for example, it is said (1 Chron. xxv. 3) 'prophesied with a harp, to give thanks and to praise the Lord,' in the sense of merely singing or uttering God's praise under the dictate of the divine Spirit. It is said also of Philip the Evangelist (Acts xxi. 9) that he had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy,' in the sense merely or mainly of declaring the gospel. In like manner, Bacon speaks in his day of an exercise commonly called prophesying,' which consisted in the exposition of a portion of Scripture by successive ministers at a meeting appointed for the purpose; and the well-known title of one of Jeremy Taylor's books, The Liberty of Prophesying-i. e., the liberty of preaching-recalls the same use of the word. Prophecy among the Jews was a distinct office or function constituted under the divine sanction. The prophets were an order instituted, or at least reformed and more thoroughly organised by Samuel. There were prophets, indeed, before; Abraham is called a prophet (Gen. xx. 7), and Moses also (Deut. xviii. 15; xxxiv. 10); Aaron is the 'prophet of Moses' (Ex. vii. 1), and Miriam is 'a prophetess' (Ex. xv. 20); but it was Samuel who first established the office as a systematic part of the Jewish religion. For this purpose, he gathered together companies of young men of promising spiritual attainments, who were trained under his uperintendence for various religious duties-the position of the theocratic law, and the conduct of the theocratic worship, especially of its elaborate mus al departments (1 Sam. x. 5; 1 Chron. xxv. 6). Thee of the psaltery and tabret, pipe, harp, and cymba was the peculiar business of the prophets. The young men were set apart to make proficiency in these instruments; they were placed under an elderly head or president, who received the name of fater, and they were called his sons. They were al under the hands of their father for song in the huse of the Lord, with cymbals, psalteries, and harps, for the service of the house of God' (1 Chron. xxv. 6). The prophetic institutions have been caled by modern divines 'Schools of the Prophets;' bu this name does not occur in Scripture, nor even n our authorised version. 'Sons of the Prophets' the only collective name applied to the separate companies into which they were formed by Samuel. These companies were located in special spots: in Ramah, the birthplace and residence of Samuel; in Bethel, Gilgal, Jericho, and ultimately Jerusalem. They lived in huts made of the branches of trees, wore a simple, characteristic dress; had their meals together, and were found in numbers sometimes o. 50, sometimes even of 400. For a prophet not have been trained in one of these institutions, wa deemed, as Dean Stanley says (Jewish Church, vol. i. p. 429), 'an exceptional case.' Some, like Isaiah in Jerusalem, or Elisha in Samaria, lived in great towns, houses of their own. The higher prophets had ferior prophets or servants attendant upon them, whose duty it was to pour water upon their hands, nd secure provisions for them (2 Kings, iii. 11; v. 22). Thus, Moses had Joshua and others; Elijah had Elisha; Elisha had Gehazi. Many of them were married, and had families; for example, Moses, Samuel, Deborah, David, Hosea, Isaiah, Ezekiel. The wife was sometimes, as in the case of Isaiah, called the prophetess.' The prophets, according to this description, were a peculiar order of teachers among the Jews; prophecy, a distinctive part of the divine economy, by which God trained and educated the chosen people.' Beginning in a definite, though still unorganised form, with Moses (for it is only incidentally that Abraham is called a prophet 1, it assumes a regular organisation in the hands of Samuel, just when the earlier form of the theocratic government was passing away, and the monarchy was established. It grew up alongside the older institution of the Levitical priesthood without any professed or formal opposition to the latter, but playing a part distinct, and often practically opposed to it. The priests ministered at the altars of sacrifice, and discharged all the official rites of purification enjoined by the Jewish law. They were only secondarily teachers of the people. The prophets, again, while joining in the rites of the tabernacle and temple, were primarily and mainly teachers. Their function was moral, and not ritual; they upheld the ethical, spiritual, and eternal side of religion, apt to be obscured under the hardening tendencies and ambitious officialism of an influential priesthood. They were the great preachers of a righteous government of the world and of future retribution amidst the confusions and evils of their time; and prophecy was the ever renewing and reforming element in the constantly corrupting and decaying policy of Judaism. More particularly, the prophets were both the national historians and poets of the Jewish people, the narrators of its past deliverance, the heralds of i coming glories. The books of Joshua, Judges Samuel, and Kings, are included among the pro phetical books of the Old Testament in the Jewish canon; while the acts of David by Gad and Nathan of Solomon and Jeroboam by Nathan and Idda along with other historical and biographical pieces have unhappily perished. It is needless to point t the splendid collection of the later prophetic books, beginning with Joel, as containing, along with mach direct historical matter also, the most exalted specimens of poetry to be found in any language 6 But that which by many has been supposed be the distinctive character of prophecy, and the special function of the prophets, remains to te noticed. According to the general view of the logians in modern times, prophecy is peculiarly predictive, and the essential characteristic of the prophet is supposed to be the power of foretelling future events. This view is not warranted, we have seen, either by the etymology of the word, comprehensive survey of the facts; but it is, nevertheless, undeniable that the Hebrew proph directed their attention especially to the future and made predictions concerning the fortunes d their own and other countries, which were u questionably fulfilled.' 'There can be no reaso able doubt, for example,' writes one of the m liberal of modern theologians, that Amos foretold the captivity and return of Israel, and Micah the fall of Samaria, and Ezekiel the fall of Jerusalem and Isaiah the fall of Tyre, and Jeremiah the lin of the captivity. It was the distinguishing ma of the Jewish people,' adds the same writer, that their golden age was not in the past, but in t future; that their greatest hero (as they deemed him to be) was not their founder, but their founde latest descendant. Their traditions, their fances their glories, gathered round the head, not of chief, or warrior, or sage that had been, but of ing, a deliverer, a prophet, who was to come, t this singular expectation, the prophets were, if the chief authors, at least the chief exponents The reality of a succession of Messianic predictis is admitted by even very advanced theologians; a the more usual opinion, it is well known, regards * Dean Stanley, Jewish Church, vol. i. p. 466. וי |