Chapter 35

8. An equally strong proof that the life of the animal sacrifice was accepted in place of the life of man, is afforded by the fact, that atonement was required by the law to be made, by sin offerings and burnt offerings, for even bodily distempers and disorders. It is not necessary to the argument to explain the distinctions between these various oblations; nor yet to inquire into the reason for requiring propitiation to be made for corporal infirmities which, in many cases, could not be avoided. They were, however, thus connected with sin as the cause of all these disorders; and God, who had placed his residence among the Israelites, insisted upon a perfect ceremonial purity, to impress upon them a sense of his moral purity, and the necessity of purification of mind. Whether these were the reasons, or some others not at all discoverable by us, all such unclean persons were liable to death, and were exempted from it only by animal sacrifices. This appears from the conclusion to all the Levitical directions concerning the ceremonial to be observed in all such cases: “Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness; that they die not in,” or by, “their uncleanness, when they defile my tabernacle which is among them,” Lev. xv, 31. So that, by virtue of the sin offerings, the children of Israel were saved from a death which otherwise they would have suffered from their uncleanness, and that by substituting the life of the animal for the life of the offerer. Nor can it be urged that death is, in these instances, threatened only as the punishment of not observing these laws of purification; for the reason given in the passage just quoted shows that the threatening of death was not hypothetical upon their not bringing the prescribed purification, but is grounded upon the fact of “defiling the tabernacle of the Lord which was among them,” which is supposed to be done by all uncleanness, as such, in the first instance.

9. As a farther proof of the vicarious character of the principal sacrifices of the Mosaic economy, we may instance those statedly offered for the whole congregation. Every day were offered two lambs, one in the morning, and the other in the evening, “for a continual burnt offering.” To these daily victims were to be added, weekly, two other lambs for the burnt offering of every Sabbath. None of these could be considered in the light of fines for offences, since they were offered for no particular persons, and must be considered, therefore, unless resolved into an unmeaning ceremony, piacular and vicarious. To pass over, however, the monthly sacrifices, and those offered at the great feasts, it is sufficient to fix upon those, so often alluded to in the Epistle to the Hebrews, offered on the solemn anniversary of expiation. On that day, to other prescribed sacrifices were to be added another ram for a burnt offering, and another goat, the most eminent of the sacrifices for a sin offering, whose blood was to be carried by the high priest into the inner sanctuary, which was not done by the blood of any other victim, except the bullock, which was offered the same day as a sin offering for the family of Aaron. The circumstances of this ceremony, whereby atonement was to be made “for all the sins” of the whole Jewish people, are so strikingly significant, that they deserve a particular detail. On the day appointed for this general expiation, the priest is commanded to offer a bullock and a goat, as sin offerings, the one for himself, and the other for the people; and, having sprinkled the blood of these in due form before the mercy seat, to lead forth a second goat, denominated “the scape-goat;” and, after laying both his hands upon the head of the scape-goat, and confessing over him all the iniquities of the people, to put them upon the head of the goat, and to send the animal, thus bearing the sins of the people, away into the wilderness; in this manner expressing, by an action which cannot be misunderstood, that the atonement, which, it is affirmed, was to be effected by the sacrifice of the sin offering, consisted in removing from the people their iniquities by this translation of them to the animal. For it is to be remarked, that the ceremony of the scape-goat is not a distinct one: it is a continuation of the process, and is evidently the concluding part and symbolical consummation of the sin offering: so that the transfer of the iniquities of the people upon the head of the scape-goat, and the bearing them away into the wilderness, manifestly imply, that the atonement effected by the sacrifice of the sin offering consisted in the transfer and consequent removal of those iniquities.

10. How, then, is this impressive and singularceremonial to be explained? Shall we resort to the notion of mulcts and fines? If so, then this and other stated sacrifices must be considered in the light of penal enactments. But this cannot agree with the appointment of such sacrifices annually in succeeding generations: “This shall be a statute for ever unto you.” The law appoints a certain day in the year for expiating the sins both of the high priest himself and of the whole congregation, and that for all high priests and all generations of the congregation. Now, could a law be enacted, inflicting a certain penalty, at a certain time, upon a whole people, as well as upon their high priest, thus presuming upon their actual transgression of it? The sacrifice was also for sins in general; and yet the penalty, if it were one, is not greater than individual persons were often obliged to undergo for single trespasses. Nothing, certainly, can be more absurd than this hypothesis. Shall we account for it by saying that sacrifices were offered for the benefit of the worshipper, but exclude the notion of expiation? But here we are obliged to confine the benefit to reconciliation and the taking away of sins, and that by the appointed means of the shedding of blood, and the presentation of blood in the holy place, accompanied by the expressive ceremony of imposition of hands upon the head of the victim; the import of which act is fixed, beyond all controversy, by the priest’s confessing over that victim the sins of all the people, and at the same time imprecating upon its head the vengeance due to them, Lev. xvi, 21. Shall we content ourselves with merely saying that this was a symbol? But the question remains, Of what was it the symbol? To determine this, let the several parts of the symbolic action be enumerated. Here is confession of sin; confession before God at the door of the tabernacle; the substitution of a victim; the figurative transfer of sins to that victim; the shedding of blood, which God appointed to make atonement for the soul; the carrying the blood into the holiest place, the very permission of which clearly marked the divine acceptance; the bearing away of iniquity; and the actual reconciliation of the people to God. If, then, this is symbolical, it has nothing correspondent with it, it never had or can have any thing correspondent to it but the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, and the communication of the benefits of his passion in the forgiveness of sins to those that believe in him, and in their reconciliation with God. Shall we, finally, say that those sacrifices had respect, not to God to obtain pardon by expiation, but to the offerer, teaching him moral lessons, and calling forth moral dispositions? We answer, that this hypothesis leaves many of the essential circumstances of the ceremonial wholly unaccounted for. The tabernacle and temple were erected for the residence of God, by his own command. There it was his will to be approached, and to these sacred places the victims were required to be brought. Any where else they might as well have been offered, if they had had respect only to the offerer; but they were required to be brought to God, to be offered according to a prescribed ritual, and by an order of men appointed for that purpose. Now truly there is no reason why they should be offered in the sanctuary rather than in any other place, except that they were offered to the Inhabitant of the sanctuary; nor could they be offered in his presence without having respect to him. There were some victims whose blood, on the day of atonement, was to be carried into the inner sanctuary; but for what purpose can we suppose the blood to have been carried into the most secret place of the divine residence, except to obtain the favour of Him in whose presence it was sprinkled? To this we may add, that the reason given for these sacred services is not in any case a mere moral effect to be produced upon the minds of the worshippers: they were “to make atonement,” that is, to avert God’s displeasure, that the people might not “die.”

11. We may find, also, another more explicit illustration in the sacrifice of the passover. The sacrificial character of this offering is strongly marked; for it was an offering brought to the tabernacle; it was slain in the sanctuary; and the blood was sprinkled upon the altar by the priests. It derives its name from the passing over and sparing of the houses of the Israelites, on the door posts of which the blood of the immolated lamb was sprinkled, when the first-born in the houses of the Egyptians were slain; and thus we have another instance of life being spared by the instituted means of animal sacrifice. Nor need we confine ourselves to particular instances. “Almost all things,” says an Apostle, who surely knew his subject, “are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood there is no remission.” Thus, by their very law, and by constant usage, were the Jews familiarized to the notion of expiatory sacrifice, as well as by the history contained in their sacred books, especially in Genesis, which speaks of the vicarious sacrifices offered by the patriarchs; and in the book of Job, in which that patriarch is said to have offered sacrifices for the supposed sins of his sons; and where Eliphaz is commanded, by a divine oracle, to offer a burnt offering for himself and his friends, “lest God should deal with them after their folly.”

12. On the sentiments of the uninspired Jewish writers on this point, the substitution of the life of the animal for that of the offerer, and, consequently, the expiatory nature of their sacrifices, Outram has given many quotations from their writings, which the reader may consult in his work on Sacrifices. Two or three only may be adduced by way of specimen. R. Levi Ben Gerson says, “The imposition of the hands of the offerers was designed to indicate that their sins were removed from themselves, and transferred to the animal.” Isaac Ben Arama: “He transfers his sins from himself, and lays them upon the head of the victim.” R. Moses Ben Nachman says, with respect to a sinner offering a victim, “It was just that his blood should be shed, and that his body should be burned; but the Creator, of his mercy, accepted the victim from him, as his substituteand ransom; that the blood of the animal might be shed instead of his blood; that is, that the blood of the animal might be given for his life.”

13. Full of these ideas of vicarious expiation, then, the Apostles wrote and spoke, and the Jews of their time heard and read, the books of the New Testament. The Socinian pretence is, that the inspired penmen used the sacrificial terms which occur in their writings figuratively; but we not only reply, as before, that they could not do this honestly, unless they had given notice of this new application of the established terms of the Jewish theology; but, if this be assumed, it leaves us wholly at a loss to discover what that really was which they intended to teach by these sacrificial terms and allusions. They are themselves utterly silent as to this point; and the varying theories of those who reject the doctrine of atonement, in fact, confess that their writings afford no solution of the difficulty. If, therefore, it is blasphemous to suppose, on the one hand, that inspired men should write on purpose to mislead; so, on the other, it is utterly inconceivable that, had they only been ordinary writers, they should construct a figurative language out of terms which had a definite and established sense, without giving any intimation at all that they employed them otherwise than in their received meaning, or telling us why they adopted them at all, and more especially when they knew that they must be interpreted, both by Jews and Greeks, in a sense which, if the Socinians are right, was in direct opposition to that which they intended to convey. SeeType,Sacrifice,Propitiation.

Expiation, orAtonement,Great Day of, was the tenth of Tizri, which nearly answers to our September, O. S. The Hebrews call itKIPPUR, orCHIPPUR, “pardon,” or “expiation,” because the faults of the year were then expiated. The principal ceremonies of this day have been noticed in the preceding article; but a more particular detail may be useful. The high priest, after he had washed, not only his hands and his feet, as usual at common sacrifices, but his whole body, dressed himself in plain linen, like the other priests, wearing neither his purple robe, nor the ephod, nor the pectoral, because he was to expiate his own sins, together with those of the people. He first offered a bullock and a ram for his own sins, and those of the priests: putting his hands on the heads of these victims, he confessed his own sins and the sins of his house. Afterward, he received from the princes of the people two goats for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering, to be offered in the name of the whole nation. The lot determined which of the two goats should be sacrificed, and which set at liberty. After this, the high priest put some of the sacred fire of the altar of burnt offerings into a censer, threw incense upon it, and entered with it, thus smoking, into the sanctuary. After he had perfumed the sanctuary with this incense, he came out, took some of the blood of the young bullock he had sacrificed, carried that also into the sanctuary, and, dipping his fingers in it, sprinkled it seven times between the ark and the vail, which separated the holy from the sanctuary, or most holy. Then he came out a second time, and, beside the altar of burnt offerings, killed the goat which the lot had determined to be the sacrifice. The blood of this goat he carried into the most holy sanctuary, and sprinkled it seven times between the ark and the vail, which separated the holy from the sanctuary: from thence he returned into the court of the tabernacle, and sprinkled both sides of it with the blood of the goat. During all this, none of the priests or people were admitted into the tabernacle, or into the court. After this, the high priest came to the altar of burnt offerings, wetted the four horns of it with the blood of the goat and young bullock, and sprinkled it seven times with the same blood. The sanctuary, the court, and the altar, being thus purified, the high priest directed the goat which was set at liberty by the lot to be brought to him. He put his hand on the goat’s head, confessed his own sins and the sins of the people, and then delivered the goat to a person appointed, who was to carry it to some desert place, and let it loose, or, as others say, throw it down some precipice. This being done, the high priest washed himself all over in the tabernacle; and, putting on other clothes, his pontifical dress, that is, his robe of purple, the ephod, and the pectoral, he sacrificed two rams for burnt offering, one for himself, the other for the people. The great day of expiation was a principal solemnity of the Hebrews, a day of rest and strict fasting.

2. There have been various disputes among the learned respecting the meaning of the wordazazel, the name of the scape-goat on which the lot fell; but the most prevailing opinion is, that it is derived fromgnez, “a goat,” andazel, “to go away.” So Buxtorf and many others explain it; and so it was understood by our translators, who have therefore rendered it “a scape-goat.” Both goats were typical of Christ: that which was sacrificed is understood to have denoted his death, by means of which sin was expiated; the other, which was to have the sins of the people confessed over him, and, as it were, put upon him, and then to be sent alive into some desert place, where they could see him no more, was intended to signify the effect of the expiation, namely, the removing of guilt, indicating that it should never more be charged on the pardoned sinner.

3. The rites attending the public service of the day of expiation were chiefly performed by the high priest, whose duties were on this day more arduous than on any other day in the year, or perhaps on all the rest united. He was to kill and offer the sacrifices, and sprinkle their blood with his own hands, Lev. xvi, 11–15; and he was to enter with it into the holy of holies, which he was not permitted to do at any other time, Lev. xvi, 2, &c; Heb. ix, 7. It was thus his peculiar privilege to draw nearer to God, or to the tokens of his special presence, to the ark of the covenant, to the mercy seat, and to the Shekinah, than was allowed toany other mortal. The services which he performed in the inmost sanctuary were, the burning of incense, and sprinkling the blood of the sacrifices before the mercy seat, which he was to do with his finger seven times, Lev. xvi, 14.

4. The spiritual meaning of all these rites has been particularly explained by the Apostle Paul in Hebrews ix. As the high priest was a type of Christ, his laying aside those vestments which were made “for glory and beauty,” Exodus xxviii, 2, and appearing in his common garments, which he did on that day, probably signified our Lord’s humiliation, when he emptied himself of the glory which he had with the Father before the world was, and “was made in fashion as a man,” Phil. ii, 6, 7. The expiatory sacrifices, offered by the high priest, were typical of the true expiation which Christ made for the sins of his people, when he gave himself for them, that he might redeem them from all iniquity, Titus ii, 14; Heb. i, 3; and the priest’s confessing the sins of the people over them, and putting them upon the head of the scape-goat, Lev. xvi, 21, was a lively emblem of the imputation of sin to Christ, who “was made sin for us,” 2 Cor. v, 21; for “the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all,” Isaiah liii, 6. Farther, the goat’s “bearing upon him all the iniquities of the Jews into a land not inhabited,” Lev. xvi, 22, represents the effect of Christ’s sacrifice in delivering his people from guilt and punishment; and the priest’s entering into the holy of holies with the blood of the sacrifice is explained by the Apostle to be typical of Christ’s ascension into heaven itself, and his making intercession for his people in virtue of the sacrifice of his death.

EYE, the organ of sight. The Hebrews by a curious and bold metaphor call fountains eyes; and they also give the same name to colours: “And the eye,” or colour, “of the manna was as the eye,” or colour, “of bdellium,” Num. xi, 7. By an “evil eye” is meant, envy, jealousy, grudging, ill-judged parsimony; to turn the eyes on any one, is to regard him and his interests; to find grace in any one’s eyes, Ruth ii, 10, is to win his friendship and good will. “The eyes of servants look unto the hands of their masters,” Psalm cxxiii, 2, to observe the least motion, and obey the least signal. “Their eyes were opened,” Gen. iii, 7, they began to comprehend in a new manner. “The wise man’s eyes are in his head,” Eccles. ii, 14, he does not act by chance. The eye of the soul, in a moral sense, is the intention, the desire. God threatens to set his eyes on the Israelites for evil, and not for good, Amos ix, 4. Nebuchadnezzar recommends to Nebuzaradan that he would “set his eyes” on Jeremiah, and permit him to go where he pleased, Jer. xxxix, 12; xl, 4. Sometimes expressions of this kind are taken in a quite opposite sense: “Behold, the eyes of the Lord are on the sinful kingdom; and I will destroy it,” Amos ix, 8. To be eyes to the blind, or to serve them instead of eyes, is sufficiently intelligible, Job xxix, 15. The Persians called those officers of the crown who had the care of the king’s interests and the management of his finances, the king’s eyes. Eye service is peculiar to slaves, who are governed by fear only; and is to be carefully guarded against by Christians, who ought to serve from a principle of duty and affection, Eph. vi, 6; Col. iii, 22. The lust of the eyes, or the desire of the eyes, comprehends every thing that curiosity, vanity, &c, seek after; every thing that the eyes can present to men given up to their passions, 1 John ii, 16. “Cast ye away every man the abomination of his eyes,” Ezek. xx, 7, 8; let not the idols of the Egyptians seduce you. The height or elevation of the eyes is taken for pride, Eccles. xxiii, 5. St. Paul says that the Galatians would willingly have “plucked out their eyes” for him, Gal. iv, 15; expressing the intensity of their zeal, affection, and devotion to him. The Hebrews call the apple of the eye the black daughter of the eye. To keep any thing as the apple of the eye, is to preserve it with particular care, Deut. xxxii, 10: “He that toucheth you, toucheth the apple of mine eye,” Zech. ii, 8; attempts to injure me in the tenderest part, which men instinctively defend. The eye and its actions are occasionally transferred to God: “The eyes of the Lord run to and fro through the whole earth,” Zech. iv, 10; 2 Chron. xvi, 9; Psalm xi, 4. “The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good,” Proverbs xv, 3. “The Lord looked down from heaven,” &c. We read, Matthew vi, 22, “The light,” or lamp, “of the body is the eye; if therefore thine eye be single,” simple, clear, ἁπλοῦς, “thy whole body shall be full of light; but if thine eye be evil,” distempered, diseased, “thy whole body shall be darkened.” The direct allusion may hold to a lantern, or lamp, λύχνος; if the glass of it be clear, the light will shine through it strongly; but if the glass be soiled, dirty, foul, but little light will pass through it: for if they had not glass lanterns, such as we use, they had others in the east made of thin linen, &c: these were very liable to receive spots, stains, and foulnesses, which impeded the passage of the rays of light from the luminary within. So, in the natural eye, if the cornea be single, and the humours clear, the light will act correctly; but if there be a film over the cornea, or a cataract, or a skin between any of the humours, the rays of light will never make any impression on the internal seat of sight, the retina. By analogy, therefore, if the mental eye, the judgment, be honest, virtuous, sincere, well-meaning, pious, it may be considered as enlightening and directing the whole of a person’s actions; but if it be perverse, malign, biassed by undue prejudices, or drawn aside by improper views, it darkens the understanding, perverts the conduct, and suffers a man to be misled by his unwise and unruly passions.

2. The orientals, in some cases, deprive the criminal of the light of day, by sealing up his eyes. A son of the great Mogul was actually suffering this punishment when Sir Thomas Roe visited the court of Delhi. The hapless youth was cast into prison, and deprived of the light by some adhesive plaster put upon his eyes, for the space of three years; after whichthe seal was taken away, that he might with freedom enjoy the light; but he was still detained in prison. Other princes have been treated in a different manner, to prevent them from conspiring against the reigning monarch, or meddling with affairs of state: they have been compelled to swallow opium and other stupifying drugs, to weaken or benumb their faculties, and render them unfit for business. Influenced by such absurd and cruel policy, Shah Abbas, the celebrated Persian monarch, who died in 1629, ordered a certain quantity of opium to be given every day to his grandson, who was to be his successor, to stupify him, and prevent him from disturbing his government. Such are probably the circumstances alluded to by the prophet: “They have not known nor understood; for he hath shut their eyes that they cannot see; and their hearts that they cannot understand,” Isaiah xliv, 18. The verbטוח, rendered in our version,to shut, signifies “to overlay,” “to cover over the surface;” thus, the king of Israel prepared three thousand talents of gold, and seven thousand talents of refined silver, tooverlaythe walls of the temple, 1 Chron. xxix, 4. But it generally signifies tooverspread, or daub over, as with mortar or plaster, of which Parkhurst quotes a number of examples; a sense which entirely corresponds with the manner in which the eyes of a criminal are sealed up in some parts of the east. The practice of sealing up the eyes, and stupifying a criminal with drugs, seems to have been contemplated by the same prophet in another passage of his book: “Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes, lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert and be healed.”

3. Deprivation of sight was a very common punishment in the east. It was at first the practice to sear the eyes with a hot iron; but a discovery that this was not effectual, led to the cruel method of taking them out altogether with a sharp-pointed instrument. The objects of this barbarity were usually persons who aspired to the throne, or who were considered likely to make such an attempt. It was also inflicted on chieftains, whom it was desirable to deprive of power without putting them to death. For this reason the hapless Zedekiah was punished with the loss of sight, because he had rebelled against the king of Babylon, and endeavoured to recover the independence of his throne: “Then he put out the eyes of Zedekiah; and the king of Babylon bound him in chains, and carried him to Babylon, and put him in prison till the day of his death,” Jer. lii, 11.

4. Females used to paint their eyes. The substance used for this purpose is called in Chaldeeכהל,cohol; by the LXX, ϛίβι. Thus we read of Jezebel, 2 Kings ix, 30, that, understanding that Jehu was to enter Samaria, she decked herself for his reception, and (as in the original Hebrew) “put her eyes in paint.” This was in conformity to a custom which prevailed in the earliest ages. As large black eyes were thought the finest, the women, to increase their lustre, and to make them appear larger, tinged the corner of their eyelids with the impalpable powder of antimony or of black lead. This was supposed also to give the eyes a brilliancy and humidity, which rendered them either sparkling or languishing, as suited the various passions. The method of performing this among the women in the eastern countries at the present day, as described by Russel, is by a cylindrical piece of silver or ivory, about two inches long, made very smooth, and about the size of a common probe; this is wet with water, and then dipped into a powder finely levigated, made from what appears to be a rich lead ore, and applied to the eye; the lids are closed upon it while it is drawn through between them. This blacks the inside, and leaves a narrow black rim all round the edge. That this was the method practised by the Hebrew women, we infer from Isaiah iii, 22, where the prophet, in his enumeration of the articles which composed the toilets of the delicate and luxurious daughters of Zion, mentions “the wimples and the crisping pins,” or bodkins for painting the eyes. The satirist Juvenal describes the same practice:--

Ille supercilium madida fuligine tinctumObliqua producit acu, pingitque trementesAttollens oculos.Sat.ii.

Ille supercilium madida fuligine tinctumObliqua producit acu, pingitque trementesAttollens oculos.Sat.ii.

Ille supercilium madida fuligine tinctumObliqua producit acu, pingitque trementesAttollens oculos.Sat.ii.

Ille supercilium madida fuligine tinctum

Obliqua producit acu, pingitque trementes

Attollens oculos.

Sat.ii.

“These with a tiring pin their eyebrows dyeTill the full arch give lustre to the eye.”Gifford.

“These with a tiring pin their eyebrows dyeTill the full arch give lustre to the eye.”Gifford.

“These with a tiring pin their eyebrows dyeTill the full arch give lustre to the eye.”Gifford.

“These with a tiring pin their eyebrows dye

Till the full arch give lustre to the eye.”

Gifford.

This custom is referred to by Jeremiah, iv, 30:--

“Though thou clothest thyself in scarlet,Though thou adornest thyself with ornaments of gold,Though thou distendest thine eyes with paint,In vain shalt thou set forth thy beauty;Thy paramours have rejected thee.”

“Though thou clothest thyself in scarlet,Though thou adornest thyself with ornaments of gold,Though thou distendest thine eyes with paint,In vain shalt thou set forth thy beauty;Thy paramours have rejected thee.”

“Though thou clothest thyself in scarlet,Though thou adornest thyself with ornaments of gold,Though thou distendest thine eyes with paint,In vain shalt thou set forth thy beauty;Thy paramours have rejected thee.”

“Though thou clothest thyself in scarlet,

Though thou adornest thyself with ornaments of gold,

Though thou distendest thine eyes with paint,

In vain shalt thou set forth thy beauty;

Thy paramours have rejected thee.”

And Ezekiel, describing the irregularities of the Jewish nation, under the idea of a debauched woman, says,כחלת עיניך, “Thou didst dress thine eyes with cohol;” which the Septuagint render, Ἐϛιϐίζȣ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς σου, “Thou didst dress thine eyes with stibium,” Ezek. xxiii, 40.

5. The passage, Psalm cxxiii, 2, derives a striking illustration from the customs of the east. The servants or slaves in eastern countries attend their masters or mistresses with the profoundest respect. Maundrell observes, that the servants in Turkey stand round their master and his guests in deep silence and perfect order, watching every motion. Pococke says, that at a visit in Egypt every thing is done with the greatest decency and the most profound silence, the slaves or servants standing at the bottom of the room, with their hands joined before them, watching with the utmost attention every motion of their master, who commands them by signs. De la Motraye says, that the eastern ladies are waited on even at the least wink of the eye, or motion of the fingers, and that in a manner not perceptible to strangers.

EZEKIEL, like his contemporary Jeremiah, was of the sacerdotal race. He was carried away captive to Babylon with Jehoiachim, king of Judah, B. C. 598, and was placed withmany others of his countrymen upon the river Chebar, in Mesopotamia, where he was favoured with the divine revelations contained in his book. He began to prophesy in the fifth year of his captivity, and is supposed to have prophesied about twenty-one years. The boldness with which he censured the idolatry and wickedness of his countrymen is said to have cost him his life; but his memory was greatly revered, not only by the Jews, but also by the Medes and Persians. The book which bears his name may be considered under the five following divisions: the first three chapters contain the glorious appearance of God to the prophet, and his solemn appointment to his office, with instructions and encouragements for the discharge of it. From the fourth to the twenty-fourth chapter inclusive, he describes, under a variety of visions and similitudes, the calamities impending over Judea, and the total destruction of the temple and city of Jerusalem, by Nebuchadnezzar, occasionally predicting another period of yet greater desolation, and more general dispersion. From the beginning of the twenty-fifth to the end of the thirty-second chapter, the prophet foretels the conquest and ruin of many nations and cities, which had insulted the Jews in their affliction; of the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Edomites, and Philistines; of Tyre, of Sidon, and Egypt; all of which were to be punished by the same mighty instrument of God’s wrath against the wickedness of man; and in these prophecies he not only predicts events which were soon to take place, but he also describes the condition of these several countries in the remote periods of the world. From the thirty-second to the fortieth chapter, he inveighs against the accumulated sins of the Jews collectively, and the murmuring spirit of his captive brethren; exhorts them earnestly to repent of their hypocrisy and wickedness, upon the assurance that God will accept sincere repentance; and comforts them with promises of approaching deliverance under Cyrus; subjoining intimations of some far more glorious, but distant, redemption under the Messiah, though the manner in which it is to be effected is deeply involved in mystery. The last nine chapters contain a remarkable vision of the structure of a new temple and a new polity, applicable in the first instance to the return from the Babylonian captivity, but in its ultimate sense referring to the glory and prosperity of the universal church of Christ. Jerom observes that the visions of Ezekiel are among the things in Scripture hard to be understood. This obscurity arises, in part at least, from the nature and design of the prophecies themselves; they were delivered amidst the gloom of captivity; and though calculated to cheer the drooping spirits of the Jews, and to keep alive a watchful and submissive confidence in the mercy of God, yet they were intended to communicate only such a degree of encouragement as was consistent with a state of punishment, and to excite an indistinct expectation of future blessings, upon condition of repentance and amendment. It ought also to be observed, that the last twelve chapters of this book bear a very strong resemblance to the concluding chapters of the Revelation. The style of this prophet is characterized by Bishop Lowth as bold, vehement, and tragical; as often worked up to a kind of tremendous dignity. He is highly parabolical, and abounds in figures and metaphorical expressions. He may be compared to the Grecian Æschylus; he displays a rough but majestic dignity; an unpolished though noble simplicity; inferior perhaps in originality and elegance to others of the prophets, but unequalled in that force and grandeur for which he is particularly celebrated. He sometimes emphatically and indignantly repeats his sentiments, fully dilates his pictures, and describes the idolatrous manners of his countrymen under the strongest and most exaggerated representations that the license of eastern style would admit. The middle part of the book is in some measure poetical, and contains even some perfect elegies, though his thoughts are in general too irregular and uncontrolled to be chained down to rule, or fettered by language.

EZION-GEBER. SeeElath.

EZRA, the author of the book which bears his name, was of the sacerdotal family, being a direct descendant from Aaron, and succeeded Zerubbabel in the government of Judea. This book begins with the repetition of the last two verses of the second book of Chronicles, and carries the Jewish history through a period of seventy-nine years, commencing from the edict of Cyrus. The first six chapters contain an account of the return of the Jews under Zerubbabel, after the captivity of seventy years; of their reëstablishment in Judea; and of the building and dedication of the temple at Jerusalem. In the last four chapters, Ezra relates his own appointment to the government of Judea by Artaxerxes Longimanus, his journey thither from Babylon, the disobedience of the Jews, and the reform which he immediately effected among them. It is to be observed, that between the dedication of the temple and the departure of Ezra, that is, between the sixth and seventh chapters of this book, there was an interval of about fifty-eight years, during which nothing is here related concerning the Jews, except that, contrary to God’s command, they intermarried with Gentiles. This book is written in Chaldee from the eighth verse of the fourth chapter to the twenty-seventh verse of the seventh chapter. It is probable that the sacred historian used the Chaldean language in this part of his work, because it contains chiefly letters and decrees written in that language, the original words of which he might think it right to record; and indeed the people, who were recently returned from the Babylonian captivity, were at least as familiar with the Chaldee as they were with the Hebrew tongue.

Till the arrival of Nehemiah, Ezra had the principal authority in Jerusalem. In the second year of Nehemiah’s government, the people being assembled in the temple, at the feast of tabernacles, Ezra was desired to read the law. He read it from morning till noon,and was accompanied by Levites who stood beside him, and kept silence. The next day they desired to know of Ezra how they were to celebrate the feast of tabernacles. This he explained, and continued eight days reading the law in the temple. All this was followed by a solemn renewal of the covenant with the Lord. Josephus says that Ezra was buried at Jerusalem; but the Jews believe that he died in Persia, in a second journey to Artaxerxes. His tomb is shown there in the city of Zamuza. He is said to have lived nearly one hundred and twenty years.

Ezra was the restorer and publisher of the Holy Scriptures, after the return of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity. 1. He corrected the errors which had crept into the existing copies of the sacred writings by the negligence or mistake of transcribers. 2. He collected all the books of which the Holy Scriptures then consisted, disposed them in their proper order, and settled the canon of Scripture for his time. 3. He added throughout the books of his edition what appeared necessary for illustrating, connecting, or completing them; and of this we have an instance in the account of the death and burial of Moses, in the last chapter of Deuteronomy. In this work he was assisted by the same Spirit by which they were at first written. 4. He changed the ancient names of several places become obsolete, and substituted for them new names, by which they were at that time called. 5. He wrote out the whole in the Chaldee character; that language having grown into use after the Babylonish captivity. The Jews have an extraordinary esteem for Ezra, and say that if the law had not been given by Moses, Ezra deserved to have been the legislator of the Hebrews.

FABLE, a fiction destitute of truth. St. Paul exhorts Timothy and Titus to shun profane and Jewish fables, 1 Tim. iv, 7; Titus i, 14; as having a tendency to seduce men from the truth. By these fables some understand the reveries of the Gnostics; but the fathers generally, and after them most of the modern commentators, interpret them of the vain traditions of the Jews; especially concerning meats, and other things, to be abstained from as unclean, which our Lord also styles “the doctrines of men,” Matt. xv, 9. This sense of the passages is confirmed by their contexts. In another sense, the word is taken to signify an apologue, or instructive tale, intended to convey truth under the concealment of fiction; as Jotham’s fable of the trees, Judges ix, 7–15, no doubt by far the oldest fable extant.

FACE. Moses begs of God to show him his face, or to manifest his glory; he replies, “I will make all my goodness pass before thee,” and I will proclaim my name; “but my face thou canst not see; for there shall no man see it and live!” The persuasion was very prevalent in the world, that no man could support the sight of Deity, Genesis xvi, 13; xxxii, 30; Exod. xx, 19; xxiv, 11; Judges vi, 22, 23. We read that God spake mouth to mouth with Moses, even apparently, and not in dark speeches, Numbers xii, 8; “The Canaanites have heard that thou art among thy people, and seen face to face,” Numbers xiv, 14. God talked with the Hebrews “face to face out of the midst of the fire,” Deut. v, 4. All these places are to be understood simply, that God so manifested himself to the Israelites, that he made them hear his voice as distinctly as if he had appeared to them face to face; but not that they actually saw more than the cloud of glory which marked his presence. The face of God denotes sometimes his anger: “The face of the Lord is against them that do evil.” “As wax melteth before the fire, so let the wicked perish before the face of God,” Psalm lxviii, 2. To turn the face upon any one, especially when connected with the light or shining of the countenance, are beautiful representations of the divine kindness and condescension. To regard the face of any one, is to have respect of persons, Proverbs xxviii, 21. The Apostle, speaking of the difference between our knowledge of God here and in heaven, says, “Now we see through a glass darkly; but then face to face,” 1 Cor. xiii, 12; by which he shows the vast difference between our seeing or knowing God and divine things by an imperfect revelation to faith, and by direct vision. This observation of the Apostle is rendered the more striking, when it is recollected that the Roman glass was not fully transparent as ours, but dull and clouded. Of this, specimens may be seen in the glass vessels taken out of Pompeii.

FAITH, in Scripture, is presented to us under two leading views: the first is that ofassentorpersuasion; the second, that ofconfidenceorreliance. The former may be separate from the latter, but the latter cannot exist without the former. Faith, in the sense of an intellectual assent to truth, is, by St. James, allowed to devils. A dead, inoperative faith is also supposed, or declared, to be possessed by wicked men, professing Christianity; for our Lord represents persons coming to him at the last day, saying, “Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name” &c, to whom he will say, “Depart from me, I never knew you.” And yet the charge in this place does not lie against the sincerity of their belief, but against their conduct as “workers of iniquity.” As this distinction is taught in Scripture, so it is also observed in experience: assent to the truths of revealed religion may result from examination and conviction, while yet the spirit and conduct may remain unrenewed and sinful.

2. The faith which is required of us as a condition of salvation always includes confidence or reliance, as well as assent or persuasion. That faith by which “the elders obtained a good report,” was of this character; it unitedassentto the truth of God’s revelations with a nobleconfidencein his promise. “Our fathers trusted in thee, and were not confounded.” We have a farther illustration in our Lord’s address to his disciples upon the withering away of the fig tree: “Have faith in God.” He did not question whether they believed theexistence of God, but exhorted them to confidence in his promises, when called by him to contend with mountainous difficulties: “Have faith in God; for verily I say unto you, that whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea, and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe (trust) that these things which he saith shall come to pass, he shall have whatsoever he saith.” It was in reference to his simple confidence in Christ’s power that our Lord so highly commended the centurion, and said, “I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel,” Matt. viii, 10. And all the instances of faith in the persons miraculously healed by Christ, were also of this kind: their faith was belief in his claims, and also confidence in his goodness and power.

3. That faith in Christ which in the New Testament is connected with salvation, is clearly of this nature; that is, it combines assent with reliance, belief with trust. “Whatsoever ye ask the Father in my name,” that is, in dependence upon my interest and merits, “he shall give it you.” Christ was preached both to Jews and Gentiles as the object of their trust, because he was preached as the only true sacrifice for sin; and they were required to renounce their dependence upon their own accustomed sacrifices, and to transfer that dependence to his death and mediation,--and “in his name shall the Gentiles trust.” He is said to be set forth as a propitiation, “through faith in his blood;” which faith can neither merely mean assent to the historical fact that his blood was shed by a violent death; nor mere assent to the general doctrine that his blood had an atoning quality; but as all expiatory offerings weretrusted inas the means of propitiation both among Jews and Gentiles, faith or trust was now to be exclusively rendered to the blood of Christ, as the divinely appointed sacrifice for sin, and the only refuge of the true penitent.

4. To the most unlettered Christian this then will be very obvious, that true and saving faith in Christ consists both of assent and trust; but this is not a blind and superstitious trust in the sacrifice of Christ, like that of the Heathens in their sacrifices; nor the presumptuous trust of wicked and impenitent men, who depend on Christ to save them in their sins; but such a trust as is exercised according to the authority and direction of the word of God; so thatto knowthe Gospel in its leading principles, and to have a cordialbeliefin it, is necessary to that more specific act of faith which is calledreliance, or in systematic language,fiducial assent. The Gospel, as the scheme of man’s salvation, declares that he is under the law; that this law of God has been violated by all; and that every man is under sentence of death. Serious consideration of our ways, confession of the fact, and sorrowful conviction of the evil and danger of sin, will, under the influence of divine grace, follow the cordial belief of the testimony of God; and we shall then turn to God with contrite hearts, and earnest prayers, and supplications for his mercy. This is called “repentance toward God;” and repentance being the first subject of evangelical preaching, and then the injunction to believe the Gospel, it is plain, that Christ is onlyimmediatelyheld out, in this divine plan of our redemption, as the object of trust in order to forgiveness to persons in this state of penitence and under this sense of danger. The degree of sorrow for sin, and alarm upon this discovery of our danger as sinners, is no where fixed to a precise standard in Scripture; only it is supposed every where, that it is such as to lead men to inquire earnestly, “What shall I do to be saved?” and with earnest seriousness to use all the appointed means of grace, as those who feel that their salvation is at issue, that they are in a lost condition, and must be pardoned or perish. To all such persons, Christ, as the only atonement for sin, is exhibited as the object of their trust, with the promise of God, “that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.” Nothing is required of such but this actual trust in, and personal apprehension or taking hold of, the merits of Christ’s death as a sacrifice for sin; and upon their thus believing they are justified, their “faith is counted for righteousness,” or, in other words, they are forgiven.

5. This appears to be the plain Scriptural representation of this doctrine; and we may infer from it, (1.) That the faith by which we are justified is not a mere assent to the doctrines of the Gospel, which leaves the heart unmoved and unaffected by a sense of the evil and danger of sin and the desire of salvation, although it supposes this assent; nor, (2.) Is it that more lively and cordial assent to, and belief in, the doctrine of the Gospel, touching our sinful and lost condition, which is wrought in the heart by the Spirit of God, and from which springeth repentance, although this must precede it; nor, (3.) Is it only the assent of the mind to the method by which God justifies the ungodly by faith in the sacrifice of his Son, although this is an element of it; but it is a hearty concurrence of the will and affections with this plan of salvation, which implies a renunciation of every other refuge, and an actual trust in the Saviour, and personal apprehension of his merits: such a belief of the Gospel by the power of the Spirit of God as leads us to come to Christ, to receive Christ, to trust in Christ, and to commit the keeping of our souls into his hands, in humble confidence of his ability and his willingness to save us.

6. This is that qualifying condition to which the promise of God annexes justification; that without which justification would not take place; and in this sense it is that we are justified by faith; not by the merit of faith, but by faith instrumentally as this condition: for its connection with the benefit arises from the merits of Christ and the promise of God. If Christ had not merited, God had not promised; if God had not promised, justification had never followed upon this faith; so that the indissoluble connection of faith and justification is from God’s institution, whereby he hath bound himself to give the benefit upon performance ofthe condition. Yet there is an aptitude in this faith to be made a condition; for no other act can receive Christ as a Priest propitiating and pleading the propitiation and the promise of God for his sake to give the benefit. As receiving Christ and the gracious promise in this manner, it acknowledgeth man’s guilt, and so man renounceth all righteousness in himself, and honoureth God the Father, and Christ the Son, the only Redeemer. It glorifies God’s mercy and free grace in the highest degree. It acknowledges on earth, as it will be perpetually acknowledged in heaven, that the whole salvation of sinful man, from the beginning to the last degree thereof, whereof there shall be no end, is from God’s freest love, Christ’s merit and intercession, his own gracious promise, and the power of his own Holy Spirit.

7. Faith, in Scripture, sometimes is taken for the truth and faithfulness of God, Rom. iii, 3; and it is also taken for the persuasion of the mind as to the lawfulness of things indifferent, Rom. xiv, 22, 23; and it is likewise put for the doctrine of the Gospel, which is the object of faith, Acts xxiv, 24; Phil. i, 27; Jude 3; for the belief and profession of the Gospel, Rom. i, 8; and for fidelity in the performance of promises.

FALL OF MAN. In addition to what is stated on this subject under the articleAdam, it may be necessary to establish the literal sense of the account given of man’s fall in the book of Genesis. This account is, that a garden having been planted by the Creator, for the use of man, he was placed in it, “to dress it, and to keep it;”--that in this garden two trees were specially distinguished, one as “the tree of life,” the other as “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil;”--that from eating of the latter Adam was restrained by positive interdict, and by the penalty, “In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die;”--that the serpent, who was more subtle than any beast of the field, tempted the woman to eat, by denying that death would be the consequence, and by assuring her, that her eyes and her husband’s eyes “would be opened,” and that they would “be as gods, knowing good and evil;”--that the woman took of the fruit, gave of it to her husband, who also ate;--that for this act of disobedience they were expelled from the garden, made subject to death, and laid under other maledictions.

2. That this history should be the subject of much criticism, not only by infidels, but by those who hold false and perverted views of the Christian system, was to be expected. Taken in its natural and obvious sense, along with the comments of the subsequent Scriptures, it teaches the doctrines of the existence of an evil, tempting, invisible spirit, going about seeking whom he may deceive and devour; of the introduction of moral corruptness into human nature, which has been transmitted to all men; and is connected also with the doctrine of a vicarious atonement for sin; and wherever the fundamental truths of the Christian system are denied, attempts will be made so to interpret this part of the Mosaic history as to obscure the testimony which it gives to them, either explicitly, or by just induction. Interpreters have adopted various and often strange theories; but those whose opinions it seems necessary to notice may be divided into such as deny the literal sense of the relation entirely; such as take the account to be in part literal and in part allegorical; and those who, while they contend earnestly for the literal interpretation of every part of the history, consider some of the terms used, and some of the persons introduced, as conveying a meaning more extensive than the letter, and as constituting several symbols of spiritual things and of spiritual beings.

3. Those who have denied the literal sense entirely, and regarded the whole relation as an instructivemythos, or fable, have, as might be expected, when all restraint of authority was thus thrown off from the imagination, themselves adopted very different theories. Thus we have been taught, that this account was intended to teach the evil of yielding to the violence of appetite and to its control over reason; or the introduction of vice in conjunction with knowledge and the artificial refinements of society; or the necessity of keeping the great mass of mankind from acquiring too great a degree of knowledge, as being hurtful to society; or to consider it as another version of the story of the golden age, and its being succeeded by times more vicious and miserable; or as designed, enigmatically, to account for the origin of evil, or of mankind. This catalogue of opinions might be much enlarged: some of them have been held by mere visionaries; others by men of learning, especially by several of the semi-infidel theologians and Biblical critics of Germany; nor has our own country been exempt from this class of bold expositors. How to fix upon the moral of “the fable” is, however, the difficulty; and the great variety of opinion is a sufficient refutation of the general notion assumed by the whole class, since scarcely can two of them be found who adopt the same views, after they have discarded the literal acceptation.

4. But that the account of Moses is to be taken as a matter of real history, and according to its literal import, is established by two considerations, against which, as being facts, nothing can successfully be urged. The first is, that the account of the fall of the first pair is a part of a continuous history. The creation of the world, of man, of woman; the planting of the garden of Eden, and the placing of man there; the duties and prohibitions laid upon him; his disobedience; his expulsion from the garden; the subsequent birth of his children, their lives, and actions, and those of their posterity, down to the flood; and, from that event, to the life of Abraham, are given in the same plain and unadorned narrative; brief, but yet simple; and with no intimation at all, either from the elevation of the style or otherwise, that a fable or allegory is in any part introduced. As this, then, is the case, and the evidence of it lies upon the very face of the history, it is clear, that if the account of the fall be excerptedfrom the whole narrative as allegorical, any subsequent part, from Abel to Noah, from Noah to Abraham, from Abraham to Moses, may be excerpted for the same reason, which reason is merely this, that it does not agree with the theological opinions of the interpreter; and thus the whole of the Pentateuch may be rejected history, and converted into fable. Either then the account of the fall must be taken as history, or the historical character of the whole five books of Moses must be unsettled; and if none but infidels will go to the latter consequence, then no one who admits the Pentateuch to be a true history generally, canconsistentlyconsistentlyrefuse to admit the story of the fall of the first pair to be a narrative of real events, because it is written in the same style, and presents the same character of a continuous record of events. So conclusive has this argument been felt, that the anti-literal interpreters have endeavoured to evade it, by asserting that the part of the history of Moses in question bears marks of being a separate fragment, more ancient than the Pentateuch itself, and transcribed into it by Moses, the author and compiler of the whole. This point is examined and satisfactorily refuted in Holden’s learned and excellent work, entitled, “Dissertation on the Fall of Man;” but it is easy to show, that it would amount to nothing, if granted, in the mind of any who is satisfied on the previous question of the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. For let it be admitted that Moses, in writing the pentateuchal history, availed himself of the traditions of the patriarchal ages, a supposition not in the least inconsistent with his inspiration or with the absolute truth of his history, since the traditions so introduced have been authenticated by the Holy Spirit; or let it be supposed, which is wholly gratuitous, that he made use of previously existing documents; and that some differences of style in his books may be traced which serve to point out his quotations, which is a position that some of the best Hebraists have denied; yet two things are to be noted: first, that the inspired character of the books of Moses is authenticated by our Lord and his Apostles, so that they must necessarily be wholly true, and free from real contradictions; and, secondly, that to make it any thing to their purpose who contend that the account of the fall is an older document, introduced by Moses, it ought to be shown that it is not written as truly in the narrative style, even if it could be proved to be, in some respects, a different style, as that which precedes and follows it. Now the very literal character of our translation will enable even the unlearned reader to discover this. Whether it be an embodied tradition, or the insertion of a more ancient document, (though there is no foundation at all for the latter supposition,) it is obviously a narrative, and anarrativeas simple as any which precedes or follows it.

5. The other indisputable fact to which I just now adverted, as establishing the literal sense of the history, is that, as such, it is referred to and reasoned upon in various parts of Scripture: “Knowest thou not this of old, since man (Adam) was placed upon earth, that the triumphing of the wicked is short, and the joy of the hypocrite but for a moment?” Job xx, 4, 5. There is no reason to doubt but that this passage refers to the fall and the first sin of man. The date agrees; for the knowledge here taught is said to arise from facts as old as the first placing of man upon earth, and the sudden punishment of the iniquity corresponds to the Mosaic account: “The triumphing of the wicked is short, his joy but for a moment.” “If I covered my transgressions as Adam, by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom,” Job xxxi, 33. Magee renders the verse,

Back to IndexNext