EPISTLES, which occur under the same Hebrew word with books, namely,ספר, are mentioned the more rarely, the farther we go back into antiquity. An epistle is first mentioned, 2 Sam. xi, 14, &c. Afterward, there is more frequent mention of them; and sometimes an epistle is meant, when literally a messenger is spoken of, as in Ezra iv, 15–17. In the east, letters are commonly sent unsealed. In case, however, they are sent to persons of distinction, they are placed in a valuable purse, which is tied, closed over with wax or clay, and then stamped with a signet, Isaiah xxix, 11; Job xxxviii, 14. The most ancient epistles begin and end without either salutation or farewell; but under the Persian monarchy the salutation was very prolix. It is given in an abridged form in Ezra iv, 7–10; v, 7. The Apostles, in their epistles, used the salutation customary among the Greeks; but they omitted the usual farewell at the close, namely, χαίρειν, and adopted a benediction more conformable to the spirit of the Christian religion. St. Paul, when he dictated his letters, wrote the benediction at the close with his own hand, 2 Thess. iii, 17. He was more accustomed to dictate his letters than to write them himself.
The nameEpistlesis given, by way of eminence, to the letters written by the Apostles, or first preachers of Christianity, to particular churches or persons, on particular occasions or subjects. Of these the Apostle Paul wrote fourteen. St. James wrote one general epistle; St. Peter two; St. John three; and St. Jude one.
An epistle has its Hebrew name from its being rolled or folded together. The modern Arabs roll up their letters, and then flatten them to the breadth of an inch, and paste up the end of them, instead of sealing them. The Persians make up their letters in a roll about six inches long, and a bit of paper is fastened round it with gum, and sealed with an impression of ink, which resembles our printers’ ink, but is not so thick. Letters, as stated above, were generally sent to persons of distinction in a bag or purse; but to inferiors, or those who were held in contempt, they were sent open, that is, unenclosed. Lady M. W. Montagu says, thebassaof Belgrade’s answer to the English ambassador going to Constantinople was brought to him in a purse of scarlet satin. But, in the case of Nehemiah, an insult was designed to be offered to him by Sanballat, in refusing him the mark of respect usually paid to persons of his station, and treating him contemptuously, by sending the letter open, that is, without the customary appendages when presented to persons of respectability. “Futty Sihng,” says Mr. Forbes, “sent achopdarto me at Dhuboy, with a letter of invitation to the wedding, then celebrating at Brodera at a great expense, and of long continuance. The letter, as usual, from oriental princes, was written on silver paper, flowered with gold, with an additional sprinkling of saffron, enclosed under a cover of gold brocade. The letter was accompanied with a bag of crimson and goldkeem-caub, filled with sweet-scented seeds, as a mark of favour and good omen.”
EPOCH, a term in chronology signifying a fixed point of time, from which the succeeding years are numbered. Scaliger says it means “a stop,” because “in epochs stop and terminate the measures of times.” It now usually denotes a remarkable date; as, the epoch of the destruction of Troy, B. C. 1183, &c. The first epoch is the creation of the world, which, according to the Vulgate Bible, Archbishop Usher fixes in the year 710 of the Julian period, and 4004 years before Jesus Christ. The second is the deluge, which, according to the Hebrew text, happened in the year of the world 1656. Six other epochs are commonly reckoned in sacred history: the building of the tower of Babel, which was, according to Dr. Hales, B. C. 2554; the calling of Abraham, B. C. 2153; the departure of the Israelites out of Egypt, B. C. 1648; the dedication of the temple, B. C. 1027; the end of the Babylonish captivity, B. C. 536; and the birth of Jesus Christ, A. D. 1. In profane history are reckoned five epochs: the founding of the Assyrian empire, B. C. 1267; the era of Nabonassar, or death of Sardanapalus, B. C. 747; the reign of Cyrus at Babylon, B. C. 556; the reign of Alexander the Great over the Persians, B. C. 330; and the beginning of the reign of Augustus, in which our Saviour was born, B. C. 44.
ERA. The termera(notæra, as incorrectly written) is Spanish, signifying time, as in the phrase,de era en era, “from time to time.” It was first used in theEra Hispanica, instituted B. C. 38, in honour of Augustus, when Spain was allotted to him in the distribution of the provinces among the second triumvirate, Augustus, Anthony, and Lepidus. It now usually denotes an indefinite series of years, beginning from some known epoch; and so differs from a period which is a definite series: as the era of the foundation of Rome, the era of the Olympiads, the era of Nabonassar, &c. SeeEpoch.
ESAR-HADDON, son of Sennacherib, and his successor in the kingdom of Assyria: called Sargon, or Saragon, Isa. xx, 1. He reigned twenty-nine years. He made war with the Philistines, and took Azoth, by Tartan, his general: he attacked Egypt, Cush, and Edom, Isa. xx, xxxiv; designing, probably, to avenge the affront Sennacherib his father had received from Tirhakah, king of Cush, and the king of Egypt, who had been Hezekiah’s confederates. He sent priests to the Cuthæans, whom Salmaneser, king of Assyria, had planted in Samaria, instead of the Israelites: he took Jerusalem, and carried King Manasseh to Babylon, of which he had become master, perhaps, because there was no heir to Belesis, king of Bayblon. He is said to have reigned twenty-nine or thirty years at Nineveh, and thirteen years at Babylon; in all forty-two years. He died A. M. 3336.
ESAU, son of Isaac and Rebekah, born A. M. 2168, B. C. 1836. When the time of Rebekah’s delivery came, she had twins, Gen. xxv, 24–26: the first-born was hairy, thereforecalled Esau; that is, a man full grown or of perfect age; but some derive Esau from the Arabicgeschaorgencheva, which signifies a hair cloth. Esau delighted in hunting, and his father Isaac had a particular affection for him. On one occasion, Esau, returning from the fields greatly fatigued, desired Jacob to give him some red pottage, which he was then preparing. Jacob consented, provided Esau would sell him his birthright. Esau complied, and by oath resigned it to him, Gen. xxv, 29–34. Esau, when aged forty, married two Canaanitish women, Judith, daughter of Beeri, the Hittite; and Bashemath, daughter of Elon, Gen. xxvi, 34. These marriages were very displeasing to Isaac and Rebekah, because they intermingled the blood of Abraham with that of Canaanite aliens. Isaac being old, and his sight decayed, directed Esau to procure him delicate venison by hunting, that he might give him his chief blessing, Gen. xxvii. The artifice of his mother, however, counteracted his purpose; and she contrived to impose upon Isaac, and to obtain the father’s principal blessing for her son Jacob. Esau was indignant on account of this treachery and determined to kill Jacob as soon as their father should die. Rebekah again interposed, and sent Jacob away to her brother Laban, with whom he might be secure. During the period of separation, which lasted several years, Esau married a wife of the family of Ishmael; and, removing to Mount Seir, acquired great power and wealth. When Jacob returned, after long absence, to his father’s country, with a numerous family, and large flocks and herds, he dreaded his brother’s displeasure; but they had an amicable and affectionate interview. After their father’s death, they lived in peace and amity; but, as their possessions enlarged, and there was not sufficient room for them in the land in which they were strangers, Esau returned to Mount Seir, where his posterity multiplied under the denomination of Edomites. (SeeEdom.) The time of his death is not mentioned; but Bishop Cumberland thinks it probable that he died about the same time with his brother Jacob, at the age of about one hundred and forty-seven years, Gen. xxv-xxxvi.
2. On the most important part of this history, the selling of the birthright, we may observe, (1.) That although it was always the design of God that the blessing connected with primogeniture in the family of Abraham should be enjoyed by Jacob, and to exercise his sovereignty in changing the succession in which the promises of the Abrahamic covenant might descend; yet the conduct of Rebekah and Jacob was reprehensible in endeavouring to bring about the divine design by the unworthy means of contrivance and deceit; and they werepunishedpunishedfor their presumption by their sufferings. (2.) That the conduct of Esau in selling his birthright was both wanton and profane. It was wanton, because he, though faint, could be in no danger of not obtaining a supply of food in his father’s house; and was therefore wholly influenced by his appetite, excited by the delicacy of Jacob’s pottage. It was profane, because the blessings of the birthright were spiritual as well as civil. The church of God was to be established in the line of the first-born; and in that line the Messiah was to appear. These high privileges were despised by Esau, who is therefore made by St. Paul a type of all apostates from Christ, who, like him, profanely despise their birthright as the sons of God. SeeBirthright.
ESDRAELON,Plain of, in the tribe of Issachar, extends east and west from Scythopolis to Mount Carmel; called, likewise, the Great Plain, the Valley of Jezreel, the Plain of Esdrela. Dr. E. D. Clarke observes, it is by far the largest plain in the Holy Land; extending quite across the country from Mount Carmel and the Mediterranean Sea to the southern extremity of the Sea of Galilee; about thirty miles in length, and twenty in breadth. It is also a very fertile district, abounding in pasture; on which account it has been selected for the purposes of encampment by almost every army that has traversed the Holy Land. Here Barak, descending with his ten thousand men from Mount Tabor, which rises like a cone in the centre of the plain, defeated Sisera, with his “nine hundred chariots of iron, and all the people that were with him, gathered from Harosheth of the Gentiles unto the river of Kishon; and pursued after the chariots and after the host unto Harosheth of the Gentiles; and all the host of Sisera fell upon the edge of the sword; and there was not a man left,” Judges iv. Here Josiah, king of Judah, fell, fighting against Necho, king of Egypt, 2 Kings xxiii, 29. And here the Midianites and the Amalekites, who were “like grasshoppers for multitude, and their camels without number as the sand of the sea,” encamped, when they were defeated by Gideon, Judges vi. This plain has likewise been used for the same purpose by the armies of every conqueror or invader, from Nabuchodonosor, king of Assyria, to his imitator, Napoleon Buonaparte, who, in the spring of 1799, with a small body of French, defeated an army of several thousand Turks and Mamelukes. Jews, Gentiles, Saracens, Christians, crusaders, and antichristian Frenchmen, Egyptians, Persians, Druses, Turks, and Arabs, warriors out of every nation which is under heaven, have pitched their tents in the Plain of Esdraelon; and have beheld the various banners of their nations wet with the dews of Tabor and of Hermon. And it is to this day generally found to be the place of encampment of large parties of Arabs.
ESDRAS, the name of two apocryphal books which were always excluded the Jewish canon, and are too absurd to be admitted as canonical by the Papists themselves. They are supposed to have been originally written in Greek by some Hellenistical Jews; though some imagine that they were first written in Chaldee, and afterward translated into Greek. It is uncertain when they were composed, though it is generally agreed that the author wrote before Josephus.
ESHBAAL, or ISHBOSHETH, the fourthson of Saul. The Hebrews, to avoid pronouncing the wordbaal, “lord,” usedbosheth, “confusion.” Instead of Mephi-baal, they said Mephi-bosheth; and, instead of Esh-baal, they said Ish-bosheth, 2 Sam. ii, 8.
ESHCOL, one of Abraham’s allies, who dwelt with him in the valley of Mamre, and accompanied him in the pursuit of Chedorlaomer, and the other confederated kings, who pillaged Sodom and Gomorrah, and carried away Lot, Abraham’s nephew, Gen. xiv, 24. Also the valley or brook of Eshcol was that in which the Hebrew messengers, who went to spy the land of Canaan, cut a bunch of grapes so large that it was as much as two men could carry. It was situated in the south part of Judah, Num. xiii, 24; xxxii, 9.
ESSENES, or ESSENIANS, one of the three ancient sects of the Jews. They appear to have been an enthusiastic sect, never numerous, and but little known; directly opposite to the Pharisees with respect to their reliance upon tradition, and their scrupulous regard to the ceremonial law, but pretending, like them, to superior sanctity of manners. They existed in the time of our Saviour; and though they are not mentioned in the New Testament, they are supposed to be alluded to by St. Paul in his Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, and in his first Epistle to Timothy. From the account given of the doctrines and institutions of this sect by Philo and Josephus, we learn that they believed in the immortality of the soul; that they were absolute predestinarians; that they observed the seventh day with peculiar strictness; that they held the Scriptures in the highest reverence, but considered them as mystic writings, and expounded them allegorically; that they sent gifts to the temple, but offered no sacrifices; that they admitted no one into their society till after a probation of three years; that they lived in a state of perfect equality, except that they paid respect to the aged, and to their priests; that they considered all secular employment as unlawful, except that of agriculture; that they had all things in common, and were industrious, quiet, and free from every species of vice; that they held celibacy and solitude in high esteem; that they allowed no change of raiment till necessity required it; that they abstained from wine; that they were not permitted to eat but with their own sect; and that a certain portion of food was allotted to each person, of which they partook together, after solemn ablutions. The austere and retired life of the Essenes is supposed to have given rise to monkish superstition.
The Therapeutæ were a distinct branch of the Essenes. Jahn has thus described the difference between them: The principal ground of difference between the Essenes or Essaëi, and Therapeutæ consisted in this; the former were Jews, who spoke the Aramean; the latter were Greek Jews, as the names themselves intimate, namely,אסיאand Θεραπευταὶ. The Essenes lived chiefly in Palestine; the Therapeutæ, in Egypt. The Therapeutæ were more rigid than the Essenes, since the latter, although they made it a practice to keep at a distance from large cities, lived, nevertheless, in towns and villages, and practised agriculture and the arts, with the exception of those arts which were made more directly subservient to the purposes of war. The Therapeutæ, on the contrary, fled from all inhabited places, dwelt in fields and deserts and gardens, and gave themselves up to contemplation. Both the Essenes and the Therapeutæ held their property in common, and those things which they stood in need of for the support and the comforts of life, were distributed to them from the common stock. The candidates for admission among the Essenes gave their property to the society; but those who were destined for a membership with the Therapeutæ, left theirs to their friends; and both, after a number of years of probation, made a profession which bound them to the exercise of the strictest uprightness. The Romanists pretend, as Dr. Prideaux observes, without any foundation, that the Essenes were Christian monks, formed into a society by St. Mark, who founded the first church at Alexandria. But it is evident, from the accounts of Josephus and Philo, that the Essenes were not Christians, but Jews.
Dr. Neander’s account of the Essenes is as follows:--A company of pious men, much experienced in the trials of the outward and of the inward life, had withdrawn themselves out of the strife of theological and political parties, at first apparently (according to Pliny the elder) to the western side of the Dead Sea; where they lived together in intimate connection, partly in the same sort of society as the monks of later days, and partly as mystical orders in all periods have done. From this society, other smaller ones afterward proceeded, and spread themselves over all Palestine. They were called Essenes, Ἐσσηνοὶ or Ἐσσαιοὶ. They employed themselves in the arts of peace, agriculture, pasture, handicraft works, and especially in the art of healing, while they took great delight in investigating the healing powers of nature. It is probable, also, that they imagined themselves under the guidance of a supernatural illumination in their search into nature, and their use of her powers. Their natural knowledge, and their art of healing, appear also to have had a religious, theosophic character, as they professed also to have peculiar prophetical gifts. The Essenes were, no doubt, distinguished from the mass of ordinary Jews by this, that they knew and loved something higher than the outward ceremonial and a dead faith, that they did really strive after holiness of heart, and inward communion with God. Their quiet, pious habits also rendered them remarkable, and by means of these they remained quiet amidst all the political changes, respected by all parties, even by the Heathens; and by their laborious habits and kindness, their obedience toward the higher powers, as ordained of God, their fidelity and love of truth, they were enabled to extend themselves in all directions. In their society every yea and nay had the force of an oath; for every oath, said they, pre-supposes a mutual distrust, whichought not to be the case among a society of honest men. Only in one case was an oath suffered among them, namely, as a pledge for those who after a three years’ noviciate were to be received into the number of the initiated. According to the portraiture of them, given by Philo, the Alexandrian, in his separate treatise concerning the “True Freedom of the Virtuous,” we should take the Essenes for men of an entirely practical religious turn, far removed from all theosophy and all idle speculation; and we should ascribe to them an inward religious habit of mind, free from all mixture of superstition and reliance on outward things. But the account of Philo does not at all accord with that of Josephus; and the more historical Josephus deserves in general more credit than Philo, who was too apt to indulge in philosophizing and idealism. Beside, Josephus had more opportunity of knowing this sect thoroughly, than Philo; for Philo lived in Egypt, and the Essenes did not extend beyond Palestine. Josephus had here passed the greater part of his life, and had certainly taken all necessary pains to inform himself accurately of the nature of the different sects, among which he was determined, as a youth of sixteen years of age, to make choice, although he can hardly have completely passed through a noviciate in the sect of the Essenes, because he made the round of all the three Jewish sects, in a period of from three to four years. Josephus, also, shows himself completely unprejudiced in this description; while Philo, on the contrary, wished to represent the Essenes to the more cultivated Greeks as models of practical wisdom, and, therefore, he allowed himself to represent much, not as it really was, but as it suited his purpose. We must conclude that the Essenes did also busy themselves with theosophy, and pretended to impart to those of their order disclosures relating to the supernatural world of spirits, because those who were about to be initiated, were obliged to swear that they would never make known to any one the names of the angels then to be communicated to them. The manner in which they kept secret the ancient books of their sect is also a proof of this. And, indeed, Philo himself makes it probable, when he says, that they employed themselves with a φιλοσοφία διά συμβολῶν, a philosophy which was supported by an allegorical interpretation of Scripture, for this kind of allegorizing interpretation was usually the accompaniment of a certain speculative system. According to Philo, they rejected the sacrifice of victims, because they considered, that to consecrate and offer up themselves wholly to God, was the only true sacrifice, the only sacrifice worthy of God. But according to Josephus they certainly considered sacrifice as something peculiarly holy, but they thought that from its peculiar holiness it must have been desecrated by the profane Jews in the temple of Jerusalem, and that it could be worthily celebrated only in their holy community, just as mystic sects of this nature are constantly accustomed to make theobjectiveacts of religion dependent on thesubjectivecondition of those who perform or take part in them. In the troublesome and superstitious observance of the rest of the Sabbath, according to the letter, and not according to the spirit, they went even farther than the other Jews, only with this difference, that they were in good earnest in the matter, while the Pharisees by their casuistry relaxed their rules, or drew them tighter, just as it suited their purpose. The Essenes, not only strenuously abhorred, like the other Jews, contact with the uncircumcised, but, having divided themselves into four classes, the Essenes of a higher grade were averse from contact with those of a lower, as if they were rendered unclean by it, and when any thing of this kind did happen, they purified themselves after it. Like many other Jews, they attributed great value, in general, to lustration by bathing in cold water. To their ascetic notions, the constant and healthy practice in the east of anointing with oil seemed unholy, and if it befel any one of them, he was obliged to purify himself. It was also a great abomination to them to eat any food except such as had been prepared by persons of their own sect. They would die rather than eat of any other. This is a sufficient proof that although the Essenes might possess a certain inward religious life, and a certain practical piety, yet that these qualities with them, as well as with many other mystical sects, as for example, those of the middle ages, were connected with a theosophy, which desired to know things hidden from human reason, ἐμβατευειν εἰς ἁ τις μη ἑωρακεν, and therefore lost itself in idle imaginations and dreams, and were also mixed up with an outward asceticism, a proud spirit of separation from the rest of mankind, and superstitious observances and demeanours totally at variance with the true spirit of inward religion.
ESTHER. The book of Esther is so called, because it contains the history of Esther a Jewish captive, who by her remarkable accomplishments gained the affection of King Ahasuerus, and by marriage with him was raised to the throne of Persia; and it relates the origin and ceremonies of the feast of Purim, instituted in commemoration of the great deliverance, which she, by her interest, procured for the Jews, whose general destruction had been concerted by the offended pride of Haman. There is great diversity of opinion concerning the author of this book; it has been ascribed to Ezra, to Mordecai, to Joachim, and to the joint labours of the great synagogue; and it is impossible to decide which of these opinions is the most probable. We are told, that the facts here recorded happened in the reign of Ahasuerus king of Persia, “who reigned from India even unto Ethiopia, over a hundred and twenty-seven provinces,” Esther i, 1; and this extent of dominion plainly proves that he was one of the successors of Cyrus. That point is indeed allowed by all; but learned men differ concerning the person meant by Ahasuerus, whose name does not occur in profane history; and consequently they are not agreed concerning the precise period to which we are to assignthis history. Archbishop Usher supposed, that by Ahasuerus was meant Darius Hystaspes, and Joseph Scaliger contended that Xerxes was meant; but Dean Prideaux has very satisfactorily shown, that by Ahasuerus we are to understand Artaxerxes Longimanus. Josephus also considered Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes as the same person; and we may observe, that Ahasuerus is always translated Artaxerxes in the Septuagint version; and he is called by that name in the apocryphal part of the book of Esther. SeeEcbatana, andAhasuerus.
ETERNITY is an attribute of God. (SeeGod.) The self-existent being, says the learned Dr. Clarke, must of necessity be eternal. The ideas of eternity and self-existence are so closely connected, that because something must of necessity be eternal, independently and without any outward cause of its being, therefore it must necessarily be self-existent; and because it is impossible but something must be self-existent, therefore it is necessary that it must likewise be eternal. To be self-existent, is to exist by an absolute necessity in the nature of the thing itself. Now this necessity being absolute, and not depending upon any thing external, must be always unalterably the same; nothing being alterable but what is capable of being affected by somewhat without itself. That being therefore which has no other cause of its existence but the absolute necessity of its own nature, must of necessity have existed from everlasting, without beginning; and must of necessity exist to everlasting, without end.
On the eternal duration of the divine Being, many have held a metaphysical refinement. “The eternal existence of God,” it is said, “is not to be considered as successive; the ideas we gain from time are not to be allowed in our conceptions of his duration. As he fills all space with his immensity, he fills all duration with his eternity; and with him eternity isnunc stans, a permanentnow, incapable of the relations of past, present, and future.” Such, certainly, is not the view given us of this mysterious subject in the Scriptures; and if it should be said that they speak popularly, and are accommodated to the infirmity of the reason of the body of mankind, we may reply, that philosophy has not, with all its boasting of superior light, carried our views on this attribute of the divine nature at all beyond revelation; and, in attempting it, has only obscured the conceptions of its admirers. “Filling duration with his eternity,” is a phrase without any meaning: for how can any man conceive a permanent instant, which coëxists with a perpetually flowing duration? One might as well apprehend a mathematical point coëxtended with a line, a surface, and all dimensions. As this notion has, however, been made the basis of some theological opinions, it may be proper to examine it.
2. Whether we get our idea of time from the motion of bodies without us, or from the consciousness of the succession of our own ideas, or both, is not important to this inquiry. Time, in our conceptions, is divisible. The artificial divisions are years, months, days, minutes, seconds, &c. We can conceive of yet smaller portions of duration; and, whether we have given to them artificial names or not, we can conceive no otherwise of duration, than continuance of being, estimated as to degree, by this artificial admeasurement, and therefore as substantially answering to it. It is not denied but that duration is something distinct from these its artificial measures; yet of this every man’s consciousness will assure him, that we can form no idea of duration except in this successive manner. But we are told that the eternity of God is a fixed eternalnow, from which all ideas of succession, of past and future, are to be excluded; and we are called upon to conceive of eternal duration without reference to past or future, and to the exclusion of the idea of thatflowunder which we conceive of time. The proper abstract idea of duration is, however, simple continuance of being, without any reference to the exact degree or extent of it, because in no other way can it be equally applicable to all the substances of which it is the attribute. It may be finite or infinite, momentary or eternal; but that depends upon the substance of which it is the quality, and not upon its own nature. Our own observation and experience teach us how to apply it to ourselves. As to us, duration is dependent and finite; as to God, it is infinite; but in both cases the originality or dependence, the finiteness or infinity of it, arises, not out of the nature of duration itself, but out of other qualities of the subjects respectively.
3. Duration, then, as applied to God, is no more than an extension of the idea as applied to ourselves; and to exhort us to conceive of it as something essentially different, is to require us to conceive what is inconceivable. It is to demand of us to think without ideas. Duration is continuance of existence; continuance of existence is capable of being longer or shorter; and hence necessarily arises the idea of the succession of the minutest points of duration into which we can conceive it divided. Beyond this the mind cannot go, it forms the idea of duration no other way: and if what we calldurationbe any thing different from this in God, it is not duration, properly so called, according to human ideas; it is something else, for which there is no name among men, because there is no idea, and therefore it is impossible to reason about it. As long as meta-physicians use the term, they must take the idea: if they spurn the idea, they have no right to the term, and ought at once to confess that they can go no farther. Dr. Cudworth defines infinity of duration to be nothing else but perfection, as including in it necessary existence and immutability. This, it is true, is as much a definition of the moon, as of infinity of duration; but it is valuable, as it shows that, in the view of this great man, though an advocate of thenunc stans, “the standing now,” of eternity, we must abandon the termduration, if we give up the only idea under which it can be conceived.
4. It follows from this, therefore, that eitherwe must apply the termdurationto the divine Being in the same sense in which we apply it to creatures, with the extension of the idea to a duration which has no bounds and limits; or blot it out of our creeds, as a word to which our minds, with all the aid they may derive from the labours of metaphysicians, can attach no meaning. The only objection to successive duration as applied to God, which has any plausibility, is, that it seems to imply change; but this wholly arises from confounding two very distinct things; succession in the duration, and change in the substance. Dr. Cudworth appears to have fallen into this error. He speaks of the duration of an imperfect nature, as sliding from the present to the future, expecting something of itself which is not yet in being; and of a perfect nature being essentially immutable, having a permanent and unchanging duration, never losing any thing of itself once present, nor yet running forward to meet something of itself which is not yet in being. Now, though this is a good description of a perfect and immutable nature, it is no description at all of an eternally-enduring nature. Duration implies no loss in the substance of any being, nor addition to it. A perfect nature never loses any thing of itself, nor expects more of itself than is possessed; but this does not arise from the attribute of its duration, however that attribute may be conceived of, but from its perfection and consequent immutability. These attributes do not flow from the duration, but the continuance of the duration from them. The argument is clearly good for nothing, unless it could be proved that successive duration necessarily implies a change in the nature; but that is contradicted by the experience of finite beings,--their natures are not at all determined by their duration, but their duration by their natures; and they exist for a moment, or for ages, according to the nature which their Maker has impressed upon them. If it be said that, at least, successive duration imports that a being loses past duration, and expects the arrival of future existence, we reply, that this is no imperfection at all. Even finite creatures do not feel it to be an imperfection to have existed, and to look for continued and interminable being. It is true, with the past we lose knowledge and pleasure; and expecting in all future periods increase of knowledge and happiness, we are reminded by that of our present imperfection; but this imperfection does not arise from our successive and flowing duration, and we never refer it to that. It is not the past which takes away our knowledge and pleasure; nor future duration, simply considered, which will confer the increase of both. Our imperfections arise out of the essential nature of our being, not out of the manner in which our being is continued. It is not the flow of our duration, but the flow of our nature, which produces these effects. On the contrary, we think that the idea of our successive duration, that is of continuance, is an advantage, and not a defect. Let all ideas of continuance be banished from the mind, let there be to us anunc semper stans, during the whole of our being, and we appear to gain nothing,--our pleasures surely are not diminished by the idea of successive duration being added to present enjoyment: that they have been, and still remain, and will continue, on the contrary, greatly heightens them. Without the idea of a flowing duration, we could have no such measure of the continuance of our pleasures; and this we should consider an abatement of our happiness. What is so obvious an excellency in the spirit of man, and in angelic natures, can never be thought an imperfection in God, when joined with a nature essentially perfect and immutable.
5. But it may be said, that “eternal duration, considered as successive, is only an artificial manner of measuring and conceiving of duration; and is no more eternal duration itself than minutes and moments, the artificial measures of time, are time itself.” Were this granted, the question would still be, whether there is any thing in duration considered generally, or in time considered specially, which corresponds to these artificial methods of measuring and conceiving of them. The ocean is measured by leagues; and the extension of the ocean, and the measure of it, are distinct; they, nevertheless, answer to each other. Leagues are the nominal divisions of an extended surface; but there is a real extension, which answers to theartificialartificialconception and admeasurement of it. In like manner, days, and hours, and moments, are the measures of time: but there is either something in time which answers to these measures; or not only the measure, but the thing itself, is artificial--an imaginary creation. If any man will contend, that the period of duration which we calltimeis nothing, no farther dispute can be held with him; and he may be left to deny also the existence of matter, and to enjoy his philosophic revel in an ideal world. We apply the same argument to duration generally, whether finite or infinite. Minutes and moments, or smaller portions, for which we have no name, may be artificial things, adopted to aid our conceptions; but conceptions of what? Not of any thing standing still, but of something going on. Of duration we have no other conception; and if there be nothing in nature which answers to this conception, then is duration itself imaginary, and we discourse about nothing. If the duration of the divine Being admits not of past, present, and future, one of these two consequences must follow,--that no such attribute as that of eternity belongs to him,--or that there is no power in the human mind to conceive of it. In either case, the Scriptures are greatly impugned; for “He whowas, andis, andis to come,” is a revelation of the eternity of God, which is then in no sense true. It is not true, if used literally: and it is as little so, if the language be figurative; for the figure rests on no basis, it illustrates nothing, it misleads. It is, however, to be remembered, that the eternal, supreme cause, must of necessity have such a perfect, independent, unchangeable comprehension of all things, that there can be no one point or instant of his eternal duration,wherein all things that are past, present, and to come, will not be as entirely known and represented to him in one single thought or view, and all things present and future be equally entirely in his power and direction; as if there was really no succession at all, but all things were actually present at once.
6. The Hebrew word for eternity isשלם. This is its proper sense; but, as Gesenius observes, as with us in common life, it is often used in an inaccurate or loose manner to express a very long space of time. So it is applied to the Jewish priesthood; to the Mosaic ordinances; to the possession of the land of Canaan; to the hills and mountains; to the earth, &c. These must, however, be considered as exceptions to predominant and certain usage.
ETHAN, the Ezrahite, one of the wisest men of his time; nevertheless, Solomon was wiser than he, 1 Kings iv, 31. The eighty-ninth psalm bears the name of Ethan the Ezrahite. This Ethan, and Ethan son of Kishi, of the tribe of Levi, and of the family of Merari, are the same person, 1 Chron. vi, 44. He was called likewise Idithun, and appears under this name in the titles to several psalms. He was a principal master of the temple music, 1 Chron. xv, 17, &c.
ETHANIM, one of the Hebrew months, 1 Kings viii, 2. In this month the temple of Solomon was dedicated. After the Jews returned from the captivity, the month Ethanim was called Tisri, which answers to our September.
ETHIOPIA. SeeCush.
EUCHARIST, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. The word, in its original Greek, εὐχαρίϛια, properly signifiesgiving thanks; from the hymns and thanksgivings which accompanied that holy service in the primitive church. SeeLord’s Supper.
EUNICE, the mother of Timothy, who was a Jewess by birth, but married to a Greek, Timothy’s father, 2 Tim. i, 5. Eunice had been converted to Christianity by some other preacher, Acts xvi, 1, 2, and not by St. Paul; for when that Apostle came to Lystra, he found there Eunice and Timothy, already far advanced in grace and virtue.
EUNUCH. The word signifies, one who guards the bed. In the courts of eastern kings, the care of the beds and apartments belonging to princes and princesses, was generally committed to eunuchs; but they had the charge chiefly of the princesses, who lived secluded. The Hebrewsarissignifies a real eunuch, whether naturally born such, or rendered such. But in Scripture this word often denotes an officer belonging to a prince, attending his court, and employed in the interior of his palace, as a name of office and dignity. In the Persian and Turkish courts, the principal employments are at this day possessed by real eunuchs. Our Saviour speaks of men who “made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven,” Matt. xix, 12; that is, who, from a religious motive, renounced marriage or carnal pleasures.
EUPHRATES, a river of Asiatic Turkey, which rises from the mountains of Armenia, as some have said, in two streams, a few miles to the north-east of Erzeron, the streams uniting to the south-west near that city; and chiefly pursuing a south-west direction to Semisat, where it would fall into the Mediterranean, if not prevented by a high range of mountains. In this part of its course the Euphrates is joined by the Morad, a stream almost doubling in length that of the Euphrates, so that the latter river might more justly be said to spring from Mount Ararat, about one hundred and sixty British miles to the east of the imputed source. At Semisat, the ancient Samosata, this noble river assumes a southerly direction, then runs an extensive course to the south-east, and after receiving the Tigris, falls by two or three mouths into the gulf of Persia, about fifty miles south-east of Bassora; north latitude 29° 50´; east longitude 66° 55´. The comparative course of the Euphrates may be estimated at about one thousand four hundred British miles. This river is navigable for a considerable distance from the sea. In its course it separates Aladulia from Armenia, Syria from Diarbekir, and Diarbekir from Arabia, and passing through the Arabian Irak, joins the Tigris. The Euphrates and Tigris, the most considerable as well as the most renowned rivers of western Asia, are remarkable for their rising within a few miles of each other, running the same course, never being more than one hundred and fifty miles asunder, and sometimes, before their final junction, approaching within fifteen miles of each other, as in the latitude of Bagdad. The space included between the two is the ancient country of Mesopotamia. But the Euphrates is by far the more noble river of the two. Sir R. K. Porter, describing this river in its course through the ruins of Babylon, observes, “The whole view was particularly solemn. The majestic stream of the Euphrates wandering in solitude, like a pilgrim monarch through the silent ruins of his devastated kingdom, still appeared a noble river, even under all the disadvantages of its desert-tracked course. Its banks were hoary with reeds; and the grey osier willows were yet there, on which the captives of Israel hung up their harps, and, while Jerusalem was not, refused to be comforted.” The Scripture calls it “the great river,” and assigns it for the eastern boundary of that land which God promised to the Israelites, Deut. i, 7; Joshua i, 4.
EUROCLYDON, the Greek name for the north-east wind, very dangerous at sea, of the nature of a whirlwind, which falls of a sudden upon ships, Acts xxvii, 14. The same wind is now called a Levanter.
EUTYCHIANS, a denomination which arose in the fifth century, and were so called from Eutyches, abbot of a certain convent of monks at Constantinople. The Nestorians having explained the two natures in Christ in such a manner as, in the opinion of many, to make them equivalent to two persons, which was an evident absurdity, Eutyches, to avoid this error,fell into the opposite extreme, and maintained that there was only one nature in Jesus Christ, the divine nature, which, according to him, had so entirely swallowed up the human, that the latter could not be distinguished. Hence it was inferred that according to this system our Lord had nothing of humanity but the appearance.
EVANGELISTS, the inspired authors of the Gospels. The word is derived from the Greek, εὐαγτελιον, formed of εὖ,bene, “well,” and ἄγτελος,angel, messenger. The name of evangelists is said by some to have been given in the ancient church to such as preached the Gospel without being attached to any particular church, being either commissioned by the Apostles to instruct the nations, or, of their own accord, abandoning every worldly attachment, consecrated themselves to the sacred office of preaching the Gospel. In which sense these interpreters think it is that St. Philip, who was one of the seven deacons, is called “the evangelist” in Acts xxi, 8; and that St. Paul, writing to Timothy, bids him do the work of an evangelist, 2 Tim. iv, 5. It is, however, to be remarked, that the office in which the evangelists chiefly present themselves to our notice in the New Testament, is that of assistants to the Apostles; or, as they might be termed vice apostles, who acted under their authority and direction. As they were directed to ordain pastors or bishops in the churches, but had no authority given them to ordain successors to themselves in their particular office as evangelists, whatever it might be, they must be considered as but temporary officers in the church, like the Apostles and prophets. The term evangelist is, at present, confined to the writers of the four Gospels.
EVE, the first woman. She was calledהוה, Gen. iii, 20, a word that signifieslife, because she was to be the mother of all that live. Our translators, therefore, might have called herLife, as the Septuagint, who render the Hebrew word by Ζωὴ. Soon after the expulsion of the first pair from paradise, Eve conceived and bare a son; and imagining, as is probable, that she had given birth to the promised seed, she called his name Cain, which signifiespossession, saying, “I have gotten a man from the Lord.” She afterward had Abel, and some daughters, and then Seth. The Scriptures name only these three sons of Adam and Eve, but sufficiently inform us, Gen. v, 4, that they had many more, saying, that “Adam lived, after he had begotten Seth, eight hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.” SeeAdam.
EVIL is distinguished into natural and moral. Natural evil is whatever destroys or any way disturbs the perfection of natural beings, such as blindness, diseases, death, &c. Moral evil is the disagreement between the actions of a moral agent, and the rule of those actions, whatever it be. Applied to choice, or acting contrary to the moral or revealed laws of the Deity, it is termedwickedness, orsin. Applied to an act contrary to a mere rule of fitness, it is called afault. The question concerning the origin of evil has very much perplexed philosophers and divines, both ancient and modern. Plato, for the solution of this question, maintained, that matter, from its nature, possesses a blind and refractory force, from which arises in it a propensity to disorder and deformity; and that this is the cause of all the imperfection which appears in the works of God, and the origin of evil. Matter, he conceives, resists the will of the supreme Artificer, so that he cannot possibly execute his designs; and this is the cause of the mixture of good and evil, which is found in the material world. “It cannot be,” says he, “that evil should be destroyed, for there must always be something contrary to good;” and again, “God wills, as far as it is possible, every thing good, and nothing evil.” What that property of matter is which opposes the wise and benevolent intentions of the first Intelligence, Plato has not clearly explained; but he speaks of it as ξύμφυτος ἐπιθυμία, an innate propensity to disorder, and says, that before nature was adorned with its present beautiful forms, it was inclined to confusion and deformity, and that from this habitude arises all the evil which happens in the world. Plutarch supposes the Platonic notion to be, that there is in matter an unconscious, irrational soul; and this supposition has been adopted by several modern writers. But the writings of Plato afford no evidence that he conceived the imperfection of matter to arise from any cause distinct from its nature. Such a notion is incongruous with Plato’s general system, and is contrary to the doctrine of the Pythagorean school, to which he was probably indebted for his notions on this subject; for the philosophers of that sect held that motion is the effect of a power essential to matter. Some of the Stoics adopted the notion of the Platonists concerning the origin of evil, and ascribed it to the defective nature of matter, which it is not in the power of the great Artificer to change; asserting, that imperfections appear in the world, not through any defect of skill in its author, but because matter will not admit of the accomplishment of his designs. But it was perceived by others, that this hypothesis was inconsistent with the fundamental doctrine of the Stoics concerning nature. For since, according to their system, matter itself receives all its qualities from God, if its defects be the cause of evil, these defects must be ultimately ascribed to him. No other way of relieving this difficulty remained, than to have recourse to fate, and say, that evil was the necessary consequence of that eternal necessity to which the great whole, comprehending both God and matter, is subject. Thus, when Chrysippus was asked whether diseases were to be ascribed to Divine providence, he replied that it was not the intention of nature that these things should happen; nor were they conformable to the will of the Author of nature and Parent of all good things; but that, in framing the world, some inconveniences had adhered by necessary consequence, to his wise and useful plan. To others the question concerning the origin of evil appeared so intricateand difficult, that, finding themselves unequal to the solution of it, they denied either that there is any God at all, or, at least, any author or governor of the world. The Epicureans belonged to this class; nor does Lucretius allege any other reason for denying the system of the world to be the production of a Deity beside its being so very faulty. Others again judged it to be more rational to assign a double cause of visible effects, than to assign no cause at all; as nothing, indeed, can be more absurd than to admit actions and effects without any agent and cause. These persons perceiving a mixture of good and evil, and being persuaded that so many inconsistencies and disorders could not proceed from a good being, supposed the existence of a malevolent principle, or god, directly contrary to the good one; hence they derived corruption and death, diseases, griefs, mischiefs, frauds, and villanies, while from the good being they deduced nothing but good. This opinion was held by many of the ancients; by the Persian magi, Manicheans, Paulicians, &c.
2. Dr. Samuel Clarke, in his “Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God,” deduces from the possibility and real existence of human liberty an answer to the question, What is the cause and original of evil? For liberty, he says, implying a natural power of doing evil, as well as good; and the imperfect nature of finite beings making it possible for them to abuse this their liberty to an actual commission of evil; and it being necessary to the order and beauty of the whole, and for displaying the infinite wisdom of the Creator, that there should be different and various degrees of creatures, whereof, consequently, some must be less perfect than others; hence there necessarily arises a possibility of evil, notwithstanding that the Creator is infinitely good. In short thus: all that we call evil is either an evil of imperfection, as the want of certain faculties and excellencies which other creatures have; or natural evil, as pain, death, and the like; or moral evil, as all kinds of vice. The first of these is not properly an evil: for every power, faculty, or perfection, which any creature enjoys, being the free gift of God, which he was no more obliged to bestow, than he was to confer being or existence itself, it is plain the want of any certain faculty or perfection in any kind of creatures which never belonged to their nature, is no more an evil to them than their never having been created, or brought into being at all, could properly have been called an evil. The second kind of evil, which we call natural evil, is either a necessary consequence of the former; as death, to a creature on whose nature immortality was never conferred; and then it is no more properly an evil than the former; or else it is counterpoised, in the whole, with as great or greater good, as the afflictions and sufferings of good men, and then also it is not properly an evil; or else, lastly, it is a punishment; and then it is a necessary consequent of the third and last sort of evil, namely, moral evil. And this arises wholly from the abuse of liberty, which God gave to his creatures for other purposes, and which it was reasonable and fit to give them for the perfection and order of the whole creation; only they, contrary to God’s intention and command, have abused what was necessary for the perfection of the whole, to the corruption and depravation of themselves. And thus all sorts of evils have entered into the world, without any diminution to the infinite goodness of its Creator and Governor.
3. This is obviously all the answer which the question respecting the origin of evil is capable of receiving. It brings us to the point to which the Scriptures themselves lead us. And though many questions may yet be asked, respecting a subject so mysterious as the permission of evil by the Supreme Being, this is a part of hiscounselsof which we can have no cognizance, unless he is pleased to reveal them; and as revelation is silent upon this subject, except generally, that all his acts, his permissive ones as well as others, are “wise, and just, and good,” we may rest assured, that beyond what is revealed, human wisdom in the present state can never penetrate.
EXCOMMUNICATION, is the judicial exclusion of offenders from the religious rites and other privileges of the particular community to which they belong. Founded in the natural right which every society possesses to guard its laws and privileges from violation and abuse by the infliction of salutary discipline, proportioned to the nature of the offences committed against them, it has found a place, in one form or another, under every system of religion, whether human or divine. That it has been made an engine for the gratification of private malice and revenge, and been perverted to purposes the most unjustifiable and even diabolical, the history of the world but too lamentably proves; yet this, though unquestionably a consideration which ought to inculcate the necessity of prudence, as well as impartiality and temperance in the use of it, affords no valid argument against its legitimate exercise. From St. Paul’s writings we learn that the early excommunication was effected by the offender not being allowed to “eat” with the church, that is, to partake of the Lord’s Supper, the sign of communion. In the early ages of the primitive church also, this branch of discipline was exercised with moderation, which, however, gradually gave place to an undue severity. From Tertullian’s “Apology” we learn, that the crimes which in his time subjected to exclusion from Christian privileges, were murder, idolatry, theft, fraud, lying, blasphemy, adultery, fornication, and the like: and in Origen’s treatise against Celsus, we are informed that such persons were expelled from the communion of the church, and lamented as lost and dead unto God; [ut perditos Deoque mortuos;] but that on making confession and giving evidence of penitence, they were received back as restored to life. It was at the same time specially ordained, that no such delinquent, however suitably qualified in other respects, could be afterward admittedto any ecclesiastical office. But it does not appear that the infliction of this discipline was accompanied with any of those forms of excommunication, of delivering over to Satan, or of solemn execration, which were usual among the Jews, and subsequently introduced into them by the Romish church. The authors and followers of heretical opinions which had been condemned, were also subject to this penalty; and it was sometimes inflicted on whole congregations when they were judged to have departed from the faith. In this latter case, however, the sentence seldom went farther than the interdiction of correspondence with these churches, or of spiritual communication between their respective pastors. To the same exclusion from religious privileges, those unhappy persons were doomed, who, whether from choice or from compulsion, had polluted themselves, after their baptism, by any act of idolatrous worship; and the penance enjoined on such persons, before they could be restored to communion, was often peculiarly severe. The consequences of excommunication, even then, were of a temporal as well as a spiritual nature. The person against whom it was pronounced, was denied all share in the oblations of his brethren; the ties both of religious and of private friendship were dissolved; he found himself an object of abhorrence to those whom he most esteemed, and by whom he had been most tenderly beloved; and, as far as expulsion from a society held in universal veneration could imprint on his character a mark of disgrace, he was shunned or suspected by the generality of mankind.
2. It was not, however, till churchmen began to unite temporal with spiritual power, that any penal effects of a civil kind became consequent on their sentences of excommunication; and that this ghostly artillery was not less frequently employed for the purposes of lawless ambition and ecclesiastical domination, than for the just punishment of impenitent delinquents, and the general edification of the faithful. But as soon as this union took place, and in exact proportion to the degree in which the papal system rose to its predominance over the civil rights as well as the consciences of men, the list of offences which subjected their perpetrators to excommunication, was multiplied; and the severity of its inflictions, with their penal effects, increased in the same ratio. The slightest injury, or even insult, sustained by an ecclesiastic, was deemed a sufficient cause for the promulgation of an anathema. Whole families, and even provinces, were prohibited from engaging in any religious exercise, and cursed with the most tremendous denunciations of divine vengeance. Nor were kings and emperors secure against these thunders of the church; their subjects were, on many occasions, declared, by a papal bull, to be absolved from allegiance to them; and all who should dare to support them, menaced with a similar judgment. These terrors have passed away; the true Scriptural excommunication ought to be maintained in every church; which is the prohibition of immoral and apostate persons from the use of those religious rites which indicate “the communion of saints,” but without any temporal penalty.
EXODUS, from ἐξ,out, and ὁδὸς,a way, the name of the second book of Moses, and is so called in the Greek version because it relates to the departure of the Israelites out of Egypt. It comprehends the history of about a hundred and forty-five years; and the principal events contained in it are, the bondage of the Israelites in Egypt, and their miraculous deliverance by the hand of Moses; their entrance into the wilderness of Sinai; the promulgation of the law, and the building of the tabernacle. SeePentateuch.
EXPIATION, a religious act, by which satisfaction or atonement is made for the commission of some crime, the guilt done away, and the obligation to punishment cancelled. The chief methods of expiation among the Jews were by sacrifices; and it is important always to recollect that the Levitical sacrifices were of an expiatory character; because as among the Jews sacrifices were unquestionably of divine original, and as the terms taken from them are found applied so frequently to Christ and to his sufferings in the New Testament, they serve to explain that peculiarity under which the Apostles regarded the death of Christ, and afford additional proof that it was considered by them as a sacrifice of expiation, as the grand universal sin-offering for the whole world. For our Lord is announced by John as “the Lamb of God;” and that not with reference to meekness or any other moral virtue; but with an accompanying phrase, which would communicate to a Jew the full sacrificial sense of the term employed, “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” He is called “our Passover, sacrificed for us.” He is said to have given “himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God, for a sweet-smelling savour.” As a priest, it was necessary “he should have somewhat to offer;” and he offered “himself,” “his own blood,” to which is ascribed the washing away of sin, and our eternal redemption. He is declared to have “put away sin by the sacrifice of himself,” to have “by himself purged our sins,” to have “sanctified the people by his own blood,” to have “offered to God one sacrifice for sins.” Add to these, and to innumerable other similar expressions and allusions, the argument of the Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews, in which, by proving at length, that the sacrifice of Christ was superior in efficacy to the sacrifices of the law, he most unequivocally assumes, that the death of Christ was a sacrifice and sin-offering; for without that it would no more have been capable of comparison with the sacrifices of the law, than the death of John the Baptist, St. Stephen, or St. James, all martyrs and sufferers for the truth, who had recently sealed their testimony with their blood. This very comparison, we may affirm, is utterly unaccountable and absurd on any hypothesis which denies the sacrifice of Christ; for what relation could his deathhave to the Levitical immolations and offerings, if it had no sacrificial character? Nothing could, in fact, be more misleading, and even absurd, than to apply those terms which, both among Jews and Gentiles, were in use to express the various processes and means of atonement and piacular propitiation, if the Apostles and Christ himself did not intend to represent his death strictly as an expiation for sin:--misleading, because such would be the natural and necessary inference from the terms themselves, which had acquired this as their established meaning:--and absurd, because if, as Socinians say, they used them metaphorically, there was not even an ideal resemblance between the figure and that which it was intended to illustrate. So totally irrelevant, indeed, will those terms appear to any notion entertained of the death of Christ which excludes its expiatory character, that to assume that our Lord and his Apostles used them as metaphors, is profanely to assume them to be such writers as would not in any other case be tolerated; writers wholly unacquainted with the commonest rules of language, and therefore wholly unfit to be teachers of others, and that not only in religion but in things of inferior importance.
2. The use of such terms, we have said, would not only be wholly absurd, but criminally misleading to the Gentiles, as well as to the Jews, who were first converted to Christianity. To them the notion of propitiatory offerings, offerings to avert the displeasure of the gods, and which expiated the crimes of offenders, was most familiar, and terms corresponding to it were in constant use. The bold denial of this by Dr. Priestley might well bring upon him the reproof of Archbishop Magee, who, after establishing this point from the Greek and Latin writers, observes, “So clearly does their language announce the notion of a propitiatory atonement, that if we would avoid an imputation on Dr. Priestley’s fairness, we are driven, of necessity, to question the extent of his acquaintance with those writers.” The reader may consult the instances given by this writer, in No. 5 of his “Illustrations,” appended to his “Discourses on the Atonement;” and also the tenth chapter of Grotius “De Satisfactione,” whose learning has most amply illustrated and firmly settled this view of the Heathen sacrifices. The use to be made of this in the argument is, that as the Apostles found the very terms they used with reference to the nature and efficacy of the death of Christ, fixed in an expiatory signification among the Greeks, they could not, in honesty, use them in a distant figurative sense, much less in a contrary one, without giving their readers due notice of their having invested them with a new import. From ἄγος,a pollution,an impurity, which was to be expiated by sacrifice, are derived ἁγνίζω and ἁγιάζω, which denote the act of expiation; καθαίρω, too,to purify,cleanse, is applied to the effect of expiation; and ἱλάσκομαι denotes the method of propitiating the gods by sacrifice. These, and other words of similar import, are used by the authors of the Septuagint, and by the Evangelists and Apostles; but they give no premonition of using them in any strange and altered sense; and when they apply them to the death of Christ, they must, therefore, be understood to use them in their received meaning. In like manner the Jews had their expiatory sacrifices, and the terms and phrases used in them are, in like manner, employed by the Apostles to characterize the death of their Lord; and they would have been as guilty of misleading their Jewish as their Gentile readers, had they employed them in a new sense, and without warning, which, unquestionably, they never gave.
3. As to the expiatory nature of the sacrifices of the law, it is not required by the argument to show thatallthe Levitical offerings were of this character. There were also offerings for persons and for things prescribed for purification, which were incidental; but even they grew out of the leading notion of expiatory sacrifice, and that legal purification which resulted from the forgiveness of sins. It is enough to prove, that the grand and eminent sacrifices of the Jews were strictly expiatory, and that by them the offerers were released from punishment and death, for which ends they were appointed by the Lawgiver. When we speak, too, of vicarious sacrifice, we do not mean either, on the one hand, such a substitution as that the victim should bear the same quantum of pain and suffering as the offender himself; or, on the other, that it was put in the place of the offender as a mere symbolical act, by which he confessed his desert of punishment; buta substitution made by divine appointment, by which the victim was exposed to sufferings and death instead of the offender, in virtue of which the offender himself was released. With this view, one can scarcely conceive why so able a writer as Archbishop Magee should prefer to use the term, “vicariousimport,” rather than the simple and established term, “vicarious;” since the Antinomian notion of substitution may be otherwise sufficiently guarded against, and the phrase “vicariousimport” is certainly capable of being resolved into that figurative notion of mere symbolical action, which, however plausible, does in fact deprive the ancient sacrifices of theirtypical, and the oblation of Christ of itsreal, efficacy. Vicarious acting, is acting for another; vicarious suffering, is suffering for another; but the nature and circumstances of that suffering in the case of Christ are to be determined by the doctrine of Scripture at large, and not wholly by the term itself, which is, however, useful for this purpose, (and therefore to be preserved,) that it indicates the sense in which those who use it understand the declaration of Scripture, “Christ died for us,” so as that he died not merely for ourbenefit, butin our stead; in other words, that, but for his having died, those who believe in him would personally have suffered that death which is the penalty of every violation of the law of God.
4. That sacrifices under the law were expiatory and vicarious, admits of abundant proof.
The chief objections made to this doctrineare, (1.) That under the law in all capital cases, the offender, upon legal proof or conviction, was doomed to die, and that no sacrifice could exempt him from the penalty. (2.) That in all lower cases to which the law had not attached capital punishment, but pecuniary mulcts, or personal labour or servitude upon their nonpayment, this penalty was to be strictly executed, and none could plead any privilege or exemption on account of sacrifice; and that when sacrifices were ordained with a pecuniary mulct, they are to be regarded in the light offine, one part of which was paid to the state, the other to the church. This was the mode of argument adopted by the author of “the Moral Philosopher;” and nothing of weight has been added to these objections since his day. Now, much of this may be granted, without any prejudice to the argument; and, indeed, is no more than the most orthodox writers on this subject have often remarked. The law, under which the Jews were placed, was at once, as to them, both a moral and a political law; and the Lawgiver excepted certain offences from the benefit of pardon, because that would have been exemption from temporal death, which was the state penalty. He therefore would accept no atonement for such transgressions. Blasphemy, idolatry, murder, and adultery, were the “presumptuous sins” which were thus exempted; and the reason will be seen in the political relation of the people to God; for in refusing to exempt them from punishment in this world, respect was had to the order and benefit of society. Running parallel, however, with this political application of the law to the Jews as subjects of the theocracy, we see the authority of the moral law kept over them as men and creatures; and if these “presumptuous sins,” of blasphemy and idolatry, of murder and adultery, and a few others, were the only capital crimes considered politically, they were not the only capital crimes considered morally; that is, there were other crimes which would have subjected the offender to death, but for this provision of expiatory oblations. The true question then is, whether such sacrifices were appointed by God, and accepted instead of the personal punishment or life of the offender, which otherwise would have been forfeited, as in the other cases; and if so, if the life of animal sacrifices was accepted instead of the life of man, then the notion that “they were mere mulcts and pecuniary penalties” falls to the ground, and the vicarious nature of most of the Levitical oblations is established. That other offences, beside those above mentioned, were capital, that is, exposed the offender to death, is clear from this, that all offences against the law had this capital character. As death was the sanction of the commandment given to Adam, so every one who transgressed any part of the law of Moses became guilty of death; every man was “accursed,” that is, devoted to die, who “continued not in all things written in the book of the law.” “The man only that doeth these things shall live by them,” was the rule; and it was, therefore, to redeem the offenders from this penalty that sacrifices were appointed. So with reference to the great day of expiation, we read, “For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that you may be clean from all your sins; and this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel, for all their sins, once a year,” Lev. xvi, 30–34.
5. To prove that this was the intention and effect of the annual sacrifices of the Jews, we need do little more than refer to Lev. xvii, 10, 11: “I will set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” Here the blood which is said to make an atonement for the soul, is the blood of the victims; and to make an atonement for the soul is the same as to be a ransom for the soul, as will appear by referring toExodusxxx, 12–16; and to be a ransom for the soul is to avert death. “They shall give every man a ransom for his soul unto the Lord, that there be no plague among them,” by which their lives might be suddenly taken away. The “soul” is also here used obviously for the life; the blood, or the life of the victims in all sacrifices, was substituted for the life of man, to preserve him from death, and the victims were therefore vicarious.
6. The Hebrew wordכפר, renderedatonement, signifying primarilyto cover,to overspread, has been the subject of some evasive criticisms. It comes, however, in the secondary sense to signify atonement or propitiation, because the effect of that is to cover, or, in Scripture meaning, to remit offences. The Septuagint also renders it by ἐξιλάσκομαι,to appease,to make propitious. It is used, indeed, where the means of atonement are not of the sacrificial kind, but these instances equally serve to evince the Scripture sense of the term, in cases of transgression, to be that of reconciling the offended Deity, by averting his displeasure; so that when the atonement for sin is said to be made by sacrifice, no doubt can remain that the sacrifice was strictly a sacrifice of propitiation. Agreeably to this conclusion we find it expressly declared, in the several cases of piacular oblations for transgression of the divine commands, that the sin for which atonement was made by those oblations should be forgiven.
7. As the notion that the sacrifices of the law were not vicarious, but mere mulcts and fines, is overturned by the general appointment of the blood to be an atonement for the souls, the forfeited lives, of men, so also is it contradicted by particular instances. Let us refer to Leviticus v, 15,16: “If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance in the holy things of the Lord, he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done in the holy thing, and shall add a fifth part thereto, and shall give it to the priest.” Here, indeed, isthe proper fine for the trespass; but it is added, “He shall bring for his trespass unto the Lord a ram without blemish, and the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering, and it shall be forgiven him.” Thus, then, so far from the sacrifice being the fine, the fine is distinguished from it, and with the ram only was the atonement made to the Lord for his trespass. Nor can the ceremonies with which the trespass and sin offerings were accompanied agree with any notion but that of their vicarious character. The worshipper, conscious of his trespass, brought an animal, his own property, to the door of the tabernacle. This was not a eucharistical act; not a memorial of mercies received, but of sins committed. He laid his hands upon the head of the animal, the symbolical act of transferring punishment; then slew it with his own hand, and delivered it to the priest, who burned the fat and part of the animal upon the altar; and, having sprinkled part of the blood upon the altar, and, in some cases, upon the offerer himself, poured the rest at the bottom of the altar. And thus, we are told, “The priest shall make an atonement for him, as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.” So clearly is it made manifest by these actions, and by the description of their nature and end, that the animal bore the punishment of the offender, and that by this appointment he was reconciled to God, and obtained the forgiveness of his offences.