A BIBLICAL AND THEOLOGICAL
DICTIONARY:

[An intimate acquaintance with the Holy Scriptures is a secure haven, and an impregnable bulwark, and an immovable tower, and imperishable glory, and impenetrable armour, and unfading joy, and perpetual delight, and whatever other excellence can be uttered.]

RAB. The title rabbi, with several others from the same root, , magnus est, vel multiplicatus est, began first to be assumed, according to Godwin, as a distinguishing title of honour by men of learning, about the time of the birth of Christ. We find it anciently given, indeed, to several magistrates and officers of state. In Esther i, 8, it is said, the king appointed - , which we render “all the officers of his house.” In Jeremiah xli, 1, we read of the , “the princes of the king.” In Job xxxii, 9, it is said, that the , which we render “great men, are not always wise;” a rendering which well expresses the original meaning of the word. It was not therefore in those days properly a title of honour, belonging to any particular office or dignity, in church or state; but all who were of superior rank, and condition in life were called . We do not find the prophets, or other men of learning in the Old Testament, affecting any title beside that which denoted their office; and they were contented to be addressed by their bare names. The first Jewish rabbi, said to have been distinguished with any title of honour, was Simeon, the son of Hillel, who succeeded his father as president of the sanhedrim; and his title was that of rabban. The later rabbies tell us, this title was conferred with a good deal of ceremony. When a person had gone through the schools and was thought worthy of the degree of rabbi, he was first placed in a chair somewhat raised above the company; then were delivered to him a key and a table book: the key, as a symbol of the power or authority now conferred upon him, to teach that knowledge to others which he had learned himself; and this key he afterward wore as a badge of his honour, and when he died it was buried with him: the table book was a symbol of his diligence in his studies, and of his endeavouring to make farther improvements in learning. The next ceremony in the creation of a rabbi was the imposition of hands on him by the delegates of the sanhedrim, practised in imitation of Moses’s ordaining Joshua by this rite, to succeed him in his office, Num. xxvii, 18; Deut. xxxiv, 9. And then they proclaimed his title.

According to Maimonides, the imposition of hands was not looked upon to be essential; but was sometimes omitted. They did not always, saith he, lay their hands on the head of the elder to be ordained; but called him rabbi, and said, “Behold thou art ordained, and hast power,” &c. We find this title given to John the Baptist, John iii, 26; and frequently to our blessed Saviour; as by John’s disciples, by Nicodemus, and by the people that followed, John i, 38; iii, 2; vi, 20. The reason of our Saviour’s prohibiting his disciples to be called rabbi is expressed in these words: “Be not ye called rabbi, for one is your master, even Christ,” at, your guide and conductor, on whose word and instructions alone you are to depend in matters of religion and salvation. Accordingly the inspired Apostles pretend to nothing more than, as the ambassadors of Christ, to deliver his instructions; and, for their own part, they expressly disclaim all dominion over the faith and consciences of men, 2 Cor. i, 24; v, 20. The Jewish writers distinguish between the titles rab, rabbi, rabban. As for rab and rabbi, the only difference between them is, that rab was the title of such as had had their education, and taken their degree, in some foreign Jewish school; suppose at Babylon, where there was a school or academy of considerable note; rabbi was the title of such as were educated in the land of Judea, who were accounted more honourable than the others. But as for rabban, it was the highest title; which, they say, was never conferred on more than seven persons, namely, on R. Simeon, five of his 803descendants, and on R. Jochanan, who was of a different family. It was on this account, it should seem, that the blind man gave this title to Christ, Mark x, 51; being convinced that he was possessed of divine power, and worthy of the most honourable distinctions. And Mary Magdalene, when she saw Christ after his resurrection, “said unto him, Rabboni,” John xx, 16, that is, my rabban, like my lord in English; for rabbon is the same with rabban, only pronounced according to the Syriac dialect.

There were several gradations among the Jews before the dignity of rabbin, as among us, before the degree of doctor. The head of a school was called chacham, or wise. He had the head seat in the assemblies and in the synagogues. He reprimanded the disobedient, and could excommunicate them; and this procured him great respect. In their schools they sat upon raised chairs, and their scholars were seated at their feet. Hence St. Paul is said to have studied at the feet of Rabbi Gamaliel, Acts xxii, 3. The studies of the rabbins are employed either on the text of the law, or the traditions, or the cabbala; these three objects form so many different schools and different sorts of rabbins. Those who chiefly apply to the letter of Scripture are called Caraites, Literalists. Those who chiefly study the traditions and oral laws of the Talmud are called Rabbanists. Those who give themselves to their secret and mysterious divinity, letters and numbers, are called Cabbalists, Traditionaries. The rabbins are generally very ignorant in history, chronology, philology, antiquity, and geography. They understand the holy language but imperfectly. They know not the true signification of a multitude of words in the sacred text. They are prodigiously conceited about their traditions, so that there is very little profit in reading them; and experience shows that most who have applied themselves to peruse their books, have been but little benefited by them, and have entertained a perfect contempt of their understanding and their works. The chief function of the rabbins is to preach in the synagogue, to make public prayers there, and to interpret the law; they have the power of binding and loosing, that is, of declaring what is forbidden, and what allowed. When the synagogue is poor and small, there is but one rabbin, who at the same time discharges the office of a judge and a teacher. But when the Jews are numerous and powerful, they appoint three pastors, and a house of judgment, where all their civil affairs are determined. Then the rabbin applies himself to instruction only, unless it be thought proper to call him into the council to give his advice, in which case he takes the chief place.

RABBATH, or RABBAT-AMMON, the capital city of the Ammonites, situated beyond Jordan. See Ammon.

RABBATH-MOAB, the capital city of the Moabites, called otherwise Ar, or Areopolis. See Moab.

RABBI. See Rab.

RABSHAKEH, a chief butler, or cupbearer. This is a term of dignity, and not a proper name. Rabshakeh was sent by Sennacherib, king of Assyria, to summon Hezekiah to surrender Jerusalem, 2 Kings xviii, 17, 18; xix, 4; Isaiah xxxvi.

RACA, a Syriac word which properly signifies empty, vain, beggarly, foolish, and which includes in it a strong idea of contempt. Our Saviour pronounces a censure on every person using this term to his neighbour, Matt. v, 22. Lightfoot assures us that, in the writings of the Jews, the word raca is a term of the utmost contempt, and that it was usual to pronounce it with marked signs of indignation.

RACHEL, the daughter of Laban, and sister of Leah. The Prophet Jeremiah, xxxi, 15, and St. Matthew, ii, 18, have put Rachel for the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, the children of Joseph, the son of Rachel. This prophecy was completed when these two tribes were carried into captivity beyond the Euphrates; and St. Matthew made application of it to what happened at Bethlehem, when Herod put to death the children of two years old and under. Then Rachel, who was buried there, might be said to make her lamentations for the death of so many innocent children sacrificed to the jealousy of a wicked monarch.

RAHAB was a hostess of the city of Jericho, who received and concealed the spies sent by Joshua. The Hebrew calls her Zona, Joshua ii, 1, which Jerom and many others understand of a prostitute. Others think she was only a hostess or innkeeper, and that this is the true signification of the original word. Had she been a woman of ill fame, would Salmon, a prince of the tribe of Judah, have taken her to wife Or could he have done it by the law Beside, the spies of Joshua would hardly have gone to lodge with a common harlot, they who were charged with so nice and dangerous a commission. Those who maintain that she was a harlot, pretend that she was perhaps one of those women who prostituted themselves in honour of the Pagan deities; as if this could extenuate her crime, or the scandal of her profession if she was a public woman. It is also observable that such women are called kadeshah, not zona, in the Hebrew. Rahab married Salmon, a prince of Judah, by whom she had Boaz, from whom descended Obed, Jesse, and David. Thus Jesus Christ condescended to reckon this Canaanitish woman among his ancestors. St. Paul magnifies the faith of Rahab, Heb. xi, 31.

Rahab is also a name of Egypt, Isa. xxx, 7; li, 9.

RAIMENT. In addition to what occurs under the article Habits, it may be observed that to make presents of changes of raiment, Gen. xlv, 22, has always been common among all ranks of orientals. The perfuming of raiment with sweet-scented spices or extracts is also still a custom, which explains the smell of Jacob’s raiment. A coat or robe of many colours, such as Jacob gave to Joseph, is also a mark of distinction. The Turks at Aleppo thus array their sons; and, in the time 804of Sisera, a coat of divers colours is mentioned among the rich spoils which fell to the conquerors. A frequent change of garments is also very common both to show respect and to display opulence. Is there an allusion to this in Psalm cii, 26: “As a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed” If so, it conveys the magnificent idea of the almighty Creator investing himself with the whole creation as with a robe, and having laid that aside, by new creations, or the successive production of beings, clothing himself with others, at his pleasure.

RAIN, the vapours exhaled by the sun, which descend from the clouds to water the earth, Eccles. xi, 3. The sacred writers often speak of the rain of the former and latter season, Deut. xi, 14; Hosea vi, 3. Twice in the year there generally fell plenty of rain in Judea; in the beginning of the civil year, about September or October; and half a year after, in the month of Abib, or March, which was the first month in the ecclesiastical or sacred year, whence it is called the latter rain in the first month, Joel ii, 23. (See Canaan.) The ancient Hebrews compared elocution, and even learning or doctrine, to rain: “My doctrine shall drop as the rain,” Deut. xxxii, 2.

RAMESES, or RAAMSES, a city supposed to have been situated in the eastern part of Egypt, called the land of Goshen, which was also hence termed the land of Rameses. It was one of the cities built by the Israelites as a treasure city, as it is translated in our Bibles; probably a store city, or, as others interpret it, a fortress. Its position may be fixed about six or eight miles above the modern Cairo, a little to the south of the Babylon of the Persians, the ancient Letopolis; as Josephus says that the children of Israel, after quitting this place, in their first march to Succoth, passed by the latter city.

RAMOTH, a famous city in the mountains of Gilead, 1 Kings iv, 13. It is often called Ramoth-Gilead. Josephus calls it Ramathan, or Aramatha. The city belonged to the tribe of Gad, Deut. iv, 43. It was assigned for a dwelling of the Levites, and was one of the cities of refuge beyond Jordan, Joshua xx, 8; xxi, 38. It became famous during the reigns of the latter kings of Israel, and was the occasion of several wars between them and the kings of Damascus, who had made a conquest of it, which the sovereigns of Israel endeavoured to regain, 1 Kings xxii, 3–5. Eusebius says, that Ramoth was fifteen miles from Philadelphia toward the east. St. Jerom places it in the neighbourhood of Jabbok, and consequently to the north of Philadelphia.

RAVEN, , in Chaldee, orba, in Syriac, croac, in Latin, corvus, Gen. viii, 7; Lev. xi, 15; Deut. xiv, 14; 1 Kings xvii, 4, 6; Job xxxviii, 41; Psalm cxlvii, 9; Prov. xxx, 17; Cant. v, 11; Isa. xxxiv, 11; a, Luke xii, 24; a well known bird of prey. All the interpreters agree that oreb signifies the raven, from oreb, “evening,” on account of its colour. Michaëlis, in proposing a question respecting certain birds, says of the oreb, “Il est decidé, que c’est le corbeau; il seroit donc superflu de le demander. Mais je desirerois plus de certitude sur le nom Syriaque des corbeaux.” [It is settled that this is the raven; it would therefore be superfluous to investigate it. But I could wish more certainty respecting the Syriac name of ravens.] One can hardly doubt that it is taken from the note of this bird. On the decrease of the waters of the flood, so that the tops of the mountains became visible, Noah sent forth out of one of the windows of the ark a raven, a bold and adventurous bird, by way of experiment, to see whether the waters were sunk or abated. Forty days the violent rain had continued; and he might think this, therefore, a likely time for the waters to run off again. In the original text, in the Samaritan, in the Chaldee and Arabic, it is said that the raven “returned” to the ark; but the Greek interpreters, the Syriac, the Latin, and most of the eminent fathers and commentators, say that it did not return any more. Here are great authorities on both sides, but the latter reading, though so contrary in sense to the other, yet in the Hebrew is not very different in the form of the letters, and appears to be the better reading of the two. For if the raven had returned, what occasion had Noah to send forth a dove Or why did he not take the raven in unto him into the ark, as he did afterward the dove Or why did he not send forth the same raven again, as he did afterward the same dove again It is not improperly expressed in our translation, that “the raven went forth to and fro,” flying hither and thither, “until the waters were dried up from off the face of the earth.” He found, perhaps, in the higher grounds, some of the carcasses of those who had perished in the deluge.

The Prophet Elijah was in his retirement fed by this bird. A writer, indeed, in the Memoirs of Literature, for April, 1710, endeavours to show, from many authors, that there was in the country of Bethschan, in Decapolis, by the brook Cherith or Carith, a little town called Aorabi or Orbo, Judges vii, 25; Isa. x, 6; and he therefore explains the word orebim, which, in 1 Kings xvii, 4, we translate “ravens,” of the inhabitants of that village, some of whom, he contends, daily carried bread and flesh to Elijah, who had retired to and lay in a cave in the neighbourhood. On the other hand, Scheuchzer ably vindicates the commonly received opinion. The editor of Calmet, also, in the appendix, under the article Elijah, has some pertinent observations on this subject. “We ought to consider,” says he, “1. That Ahab sought Elijah with avidity, and took an oath of every people, no doubt, also, in his dominions, that he was not concealed among its inhabitants; his situation, therefore, required the utmost privacy, even to solitude. 2. That when the brook Cherith was dried up, the prophet was obliged to quit his asylum, which he needed not to have done, had a people been his suppliers, for they could have brought him water as well as food.”

In Psalm cxlvii, 9, it is said, “The Lord giveth to the beast his food, and to the young 805ravens which cry.” And in Job xxxviii, 41, “Who provideth for the raven his food, when his young ones cry unto God, wandering for want of meat” Job and the psalmist may allude to what is said by some naturalists, that the ravens drive out their young ones early from their nests, and oblige them to seek food for their own sustenance. The same kind Providence which furnishes support to his intelligent offspring is not unmindful of the wants, or inattentive to the desires, of the meanest of his creatures.

Christ instructs his disciples, from the same circumstance, to trust in the care and kindness of Heaven: “Consider the ravens; for they neither sow nor reap, neither have storehouse, nor barn; and God feedeth them. How much better are ye than the fowls!” Luke xii, 24. Solomon, speaking of the peculiar regard and veneration due to the worthy persons and salutary instructions of parents, observes, that an untimely fate, and the want of decent interment, may be expected from contrary conduct; and that the leering eye, which throws wicked contempt on a good father, and insolent disdain on a tender mother, shall be dug out of the unburied exposed corpse by the ravens of the valley, and eaten up by the young eagles, Prov. xxx, 17. It was a common punishment in the east, and one which the orientals dreaded above all others, to expose in the open fields the bodies of evil doers that had suffered by the laws of their offended country, to be devoured by the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven. The wise man insinuates that the raven makes his first and keenest attack on the eye, which perfectly corresponds with his habits, for he always begins his banquet with that part. Isiodore says of him, Primo in cadaveribus occulum petit; [he attacks first the eye of the dead;] and Epictetus, µe ae t teteett t faµ µata, “the ravens devour the eyes of the dead.” Many other testimonies might be adduced, but these are sufficient to justify the allusion in the proverb.

The raven, it is well known, delights in solitude. He frequents the ruined tower or the deserted habitation. In Isaiah, xxxiv, 11, it is accordingly foretold that the raven, with other birds of similar dispositions, should fix his abode in the desolate houses of Edom. In the Septuagint and other versions the Hebrew word for desolation is rendered raven. The meaning is, that in those splendid palaces, where the voice of joy and gladness was heard, and every sound which could ravish the ear and subdue the heart, silence was, for the wickedness of their inhabitants, to hold her reign for ever, interrupted only by the scream of the cormorant and the croaking of the raven.

READING. In the countries of the Levant the people never read silently, but go on in a kind of singing voice, aloud. The eunuch was probably thus reading when Philip overheard him, and finding that he was reading the Scriptures, said, “Understandest thou what thou readest”

REASON, Use of, in Religion. The sublime, incomprehensible nature of some of the Christian doctrines has so completely subdued the understanding of many pious men, as to make them think it presumptuous to apply reason in any way to the revelations of God; and the many instances in which the simplicity of truth has been corrupted by an alliance with philosophy confirm them in the belief that it is safer, as well as more respectable, to resign their minds to devout impressions, than to exercise their understandings in any speculations upon sacred subjects. Enthusiasts and fanatics of all different names and sects agree in decrying the use of reason, because it is the very essence of fanaticism to substitute, in place of the sober deductions of reason, the extravagant fancies of a disordered imagination, and to consider these fancies as the immediate illumination of the Spirit of God. Insidious writers in the deistical controversy have pretended to adopt those sentiments of humility and reverence, which are inseparable from true Christians, and even that total subjection of reason to faith which characterizes enthusiasts. A pamphlet was published about the middle of the last century that made a noise in its day, although it is now forgotten, entitled, “Christianity not founded on Argument,” which, while to a careless reader it may seem to magnify the Gospel, does in reality tend to undermine our faith, by separating it from a rational assent; and Mr. Hume, in the spirit of this pamphlet, concludes his Essay on Miracles with calling those dangerous friends or disguised enemies to the Christian religion who have undertaken to defend it by the principles of human reason: “Our most holy religion,” he says, with a disingenuity very unbecoming his respectable talents, “is founded on faith, not on reason;” and, “mere reason is insufficient to convince us of its veracity.” The church of Rome, in order to subject the minds of her votaries to her authority, has reprobated the use of reason in matters of religion. She has revived an ancient position, that things may be true in theology which are false in philosophy; and she has, in some instances, made the merit of faith to consist in the absurdity of that which was believed.

The extravagance of these positions has produced, since the Reformation, an opposite extreme. While those who deny the truth of revelation consider reason as in all respects a sufficient guide, the Socinians, who admit that a revelation has been made, employ reason as the supreme judge of its doctrines, and boldly strike out of their creed every article that is not altogether conformable to those notions which may be derived from the exercise of reason. These controversies concerning the use of reason in matters of religion are disputes, not about words, but about the essence of Christianity. But a few plain observations 806are sufficient to ascertain where the truth lies in this subject.

The first use of reason in matters of religion is to examine the evidences of revelation. For, the more entire the submission which we consider as due to every thing that is revealed, we have the more need to be satisfied that any system which professes to be a divine revelation does really come from God.

After the exercise of reason has established in our minds a firm belief that Christianity is of divine original, the second use of reason is to learn what are the truths revealed. As these truths are not in our days communicated to any by immediate inspiration, the knowledge of them is to be acquired only from books transmitted to us with satisfying evidence that they were written above seventeen hundred years ago, in a remote country and foreign language, under the direction of the Spirit of God. In order to attain the meaning of these books we must study the language in which they were written; and we must study also the manners of the times, and the state of the countries, in which the writers lived; because these are circumstances to which an original author is often alluding, and by which his phraseology is generally affected; we must lay together different passages in which the same word or phrase occurs, because without this labour we cannot ascertain its precise signification; and we must mark the difference of style and manner which characterizes different writers, because a right apprehension of their meaning often depends upon attention to this difference. All this supposes the application of grammar, history, geography, chronology, and criticism in matters of religion; that is, it supposes that the reason of man had been previously exercised in pursuing these different branches of knowledge, and that our success in attaining the true sense of Scripture depends upon the diligence with which we avail ourselves of the progress that has been made in them. It is obvious that every Christian is not capable of making this application. But this is no argument against the use of reason, of which we are now speaking. For they who use translations and commentaries rely only upon the reason of others, instead of exercising their own. The several branches of knowledge have been applied in every age by some persons for the benefit of others; and the progress in sacred criticism, which distinguishes the present times, is nothing else but the continued application, in elucidating the Scripture, of reason enlightened by every kind of subsidiary knowledge, and very much improved in this kind of exercise by the employment which the ancient classics have given it since the revival of letters.

After the two uses of reason that have been illustrated, a third comes to be mentioned, which may be considered as compounded of both. Reason is of eminent use in repelling the attacks of the adversaries of Christianity. When men of erudition, of philosophical acuteness, and of accomplished taste, direct their talents against our religion, the cause is very much hurt by an unskilful defender. He cannot unravel their sophistry; he does not see the amount and the effect of the concessions which he makes to them; he is bewildered by their quotations, and he is often led by their artifice upon dangerous ground. In all ages of the church there have been weak defenders of Christianity; and the only triumphs of the enemies of our religion have arisen from their being able to expose the defects of those methods of defending the truth which some of its advocates had unwarily chosen. A mind trained to accurate and philosophical views of the nature and the amount of evidence, enriched with historical knowledge, accustomed to throw out of a subject all that is minute and irrelative, to collect what is of importance within a short compass, and to form the comprehension of a whole, is the mind qualified to contend with the learning, the wit, and the sophistry of infidelity. Many such minds have appeared in this honourable controversy during the course of this and the last century; and the success has corresponded to the completeness of the furniture with which they engaged in the combat. The Christian doctrine has been vindicated by their masterly exposition from various misrepresentations; the arguments for its divine original have been placed in their true light; and the attempts to confound the miracles and prophecies upon which Christianity rests its claim, with the delusions of imposture, have been effectually repelled. Christianity has, in this way, received the most important advantages from the attacks of its enemies; and it is not improbable that its doctrines would never have been so thoroughly cleared from all the corruptions and subtleties which had attached to them in the progress of ages, nor the evidences of its truths have been so accurately understood, nor its peculiar character been so perfectly discriminated, had not the zeal and abilities which have been employed against it called forth in its defence some of the most distinguished masters of reason. They brought into the service of Christianity the same weapons which had been drawn for her destruction, and, wielding them with confidence and skill in a good cause, became the successful champions of the truth.

The fourth use of reason consists in judging of the truths of religion. Every thing which is revealed by God comes to his creatures from so high an authority, that it may be rested in with perfect assurance as true. Nothing can be received by us as true which is contrary to the dictates of reason, because it is impossible for us to receive at the same time the truth and the falsehood of a proposition. But many things are true which we do not fully comprehend; and many propositions, which appear incredible when they are first enunciated, are found, upon examination, such as our understandings can readily admit. These principles embrace the whole of the subject, and they mark out the steps by which reason is to proceed in judging of the truths of religion. We first examine the evidences of revelation. If these satisfy our understandings, we are certain 807that there can be no contradiction between the doctrines of this true religion, and the dictates of right reason. If any such contradiction appear, there must be some mistake; by not making a proper use of our reason in the interpretation of the Gospel, we suppose that it contains doctrines which it does not teach; or we give the name of right reason to some narrow prejudices which deeper reflection, and more enlarged knowledge, will dissipate; or we consider a proposition as implying a contradiction, when, in truth, it is only imperfectly understood. Here, as in every other case, mistakes are to be corrected by measuring back our steps. We must examine closely and impartially the meaning of those passages which appear to contain the doctrine; we must compare them with one another; we must endeavour to derive light from the general phraseology of Scripture and the analogy of faith; and we shall generally be able, in this way, to separate the doctrine from all those adventitious circumstances which give it the appearance of absurdity. If a doctrine which, upon the closest examination, appears unquestionably to be taught in Scripture, still does not approve itself to our understanding, we must consider carefully what it is that prevents us from receiving it. There may be preconceived notions hastily taken up which that doctrine opposes; there may be pride of understanding that does not readily submit to the views which it communicates; or reason may need to be reminded, that we must expect to find in religion many things which we are not able to comprehend. One of the most important offices of reason is to recognize her own limits. She never can be moved, by any authority, to receive as true what she perceives to be absurd. But, if she has formed a just estimate of human knowledge, she will not shelter her presumption in rejecting the truths of revelation under the pretence of contradictions that do not really exist; she will readily admit that there may be in a subject some points which she knows, and others of which she is ignorant; she will not allow her ignorance of the latter to shake the evidence of the former, but will yield a firm assent to that which she does understand, without presuming to deny what is beyond her comprehension. And thus, availing herself of all the light which she now has, she will wait in humble hope for the time when a larger measure shall be imparted.

REBEKAH, the wife of Isaac. See Isaac.

RECEIPT OF CUSTOM. Matthew, when called, was sitting at the receipt of custom, or dues on merchandise. He was a publican or tax-gatherer, or, as we should say, a custom house officer. The publicans had houses or booths built for them at the foot of bridges, at the mouth of rivers, by the sea shore, and the parts of the lake of Gennesareth, or sea of Tiberias, to collect the taxes on passengers and merchandise. See Publican.

RECHABITES. The Rechabites, though they dwelt among the Israelites, did not belong to any of their tribes; for they were Kenites, as appears from 1 Chron. ii, 55, where the Kenites are said to have come of “Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab.” These Kenites, afterward styled Rechabites, were of the family of Jethro, otherwise called Hobab, whose daughter Moses married; for “the children of the Kenite, Moses’s father-in-law,” it is said, “went up out of the city of palm trees with the children of Judah, and dwelt among the people,” Judges i, 16; and we read of “Heber the Kenite, who was of the children of Hobab, the father-in-law of Moses, who had severed himself from the Kenites,” or from the bulk of them who settled in the tribe of Judah, “and pitched his tent in the plain of Zaanaim,” Judges iv, 11. They appear to have sprung from Midian, the son of Abraham by Keturah, Gen. xxv, 2; for Jethro, from whom they are descended, is called a Midianite, Num. x, 23. Of this family was Jehonadab, the son of Rechab, a man of eminent zeal for the pure worship of God against idolatry, who assisted King Jehu in destroying the house of Ahab, and the worshippers of Baal, 2 Kings x, 15, 16, 23, &c. It was he who gave that rule of life to his children and posterity which we read of in Jer. xxxv, 6, 7. It consisted of these three articles: that they should drink no wine; that they should neither possess nor occupy any houses, fields, or vineyards; that they should dwell in tents. This was the institution of the children of Rechab; and this they continued to observe for upward of three hundred years, from the time of Jehu to that of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, when Nebuchadnezzar coming to besiege Jerusalem, the Rechabites were obliged to leave the country and take refuge in the city. In Jer. xxxv, there is a promise made to this people, that Jonadab, the son of Rechab, should not want a man to stand before the Lord; that is, that his posterity should not fail: and to this day this tribe is found among the Arabians of the desert, distinct, free, and practising exactly the institutions of Jonadab, whose name they bear, and of whose institutions they boast. This is a remarkable instance of the exact fulfilment of a minute and isolated prophecy. See Beni Khaibir.

RECONCILIATION. The expressions “reconciliation” and “making peace” necessarily suppose a previous state of hostility between God and man, which is reciprocal. This is sometimes called enmity, a term, as it respects God, rather unfortunate, since enmity is almost fixed in our language to signify a malignant and revengeful feeling. Of this, the oppugners of the doctrine of the atonement have availed themselves to argue, that as there can be no such affection in the divine nature, therefore, reconciliation in Scripture does not mean the reconciliation of God to man, but of man to God, whose enmity the example and teaching of Christ, they tell us, is very effectual to subdue. It is, indeed, a sad and humbling truth, and one which the Socinians in their discussions on the natural innocence of man are not willing to admit, that by the infection of sin “the carnal mind is enmity to God,” that human nature is malignantly hostile to God and to the control of his law; but this is far from expressing the whole of that relation 808of man in which, in Scripture, he is said to be at enmity with God, and so to need a reconciliation, the making of peace between God and him. That relation is a legal one, as that of a sovereign in his judicial capacity, and a criminal who has violated his laws and risen up against his authority, and who is, therefore, treated as an enemy. The word is used in this passive sense, both in the Greek writers and in the New Testament. So, in Romans xi, 28, the Jews, rejected and punished for refusing the Gospel, are said by the Apostle, “as concerning the Gospel,” to be “enemies for your sakes;” treated and accounted such; “but, as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.” In the same epistle, v, 10, the term is used precisely in the same sense, and that with reference to the reconciliation by Christ: “For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son;” that is, when we were objects of the divine judicial displeasure, accounted as enemies, and liable to be capitally treated as such. Enmity, in the sense of malignity and the sentiment of hatred, is added to this relation in the case of man; but it is no part of the relation itself; it is rather a cause of it, as it is one of the actings of a corrupt nature which render man obnoxious to the displeasure of God, and the penalty of his law, and place him in the condition of an enemy. It is this judicial variance and opposition between God and man which is referred to in the term reconciliation, and in the phrase “making peace,” in the New Testament; and the hostility is, therefore, in its own nature, mutual.

But that there is no truth in the notion, that reconciliation means no more than our laying aside our enmity to God, may also be shown from several express passages. The first is the passage we have above cited: “For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God,” Rom. v, 10. Here the act of reconciling is ascribed to God, and not to us; but if this reconciliation consisted in the laying aside of our own enmity, the act would be ours alone: and, farther, that it could not be the laying aside of our enmity, is clear from the text, which speaks of reconciliation while we were yet enemies. The reconciliation spoken of here is not, as Socinus and his followers have said, our conversion. For that the Apostle is speaking of a benefit obtained for us previous to our conversion, appears evident from the opposite members of the two sentences, “much more, being justified, we shall be saved from wrath through him,” “much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.” The Apostle argues from the greater to the less. If God were so benign to us before our conversion, what may we not expect from him now we are converted To reconcile here cannot mean to convert; for the Apostle evidently speaks of something greatly remarkable in the act of Christ; but to convert sinners is nothing remarkable, since none but sinners can be ever converted; whereas it was a rare and singular thing for Christ to die for sinners, and to reconcile sinners to God by his death, when there have been but very few good men who have died for their friends. In the next place, conversion is referred more properly to his glorious life, than to his shameful death; but this reconciliation is attributed to his death, as contradistinguished from his glorious life, as is evident from the antithesis contained in the two verses. Beside, it is from the latter benefit that we learn the nature of the former. The latter, which belongs only to the converted, consists of the peace of God, and salvation from wrath, Rom. v, 9, 10. This the Apostle afterward calls receiving the reconciliation. And what is it to receive the reconciliation, but to receive the remission of sins Acts x, 43. To receive conversion is a mode of speaking entirely unknown. If, then, to receive the reconciliation is to receive the remission of sins, and in effect to be delivered from wrath or punishment, to be reconciled must have a corresponding signification.

“God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them,” 2 Cor. v, 19. Here the manner of this reconciliation is expressly said to be, not our laying aside our enmity, but the non-imputation of our trespasses to us by God; in other words, the pardoning of our offences and restoring us to favour. The promise, on God’s part, to do this, is expressive of his previous reconciliation to the world by the death of Christ; for our actual reconciliation is distinguished from this by what follows, “and hath committed to us the ministry of reconciliation,” by virtue of which all men were, by the Apostles, entreated and besought to be reconciled to God. The reason, too, of this reconciliation of God to the world, by virtue of which he promises not to impute sin, is grounded by the Apostle, in the last verse of the chapter, not upon the laying aside of enmity by men, but upon the sacrifice of Christ: “For he hath made him to be sin,” a sin-offering, “for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” “And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby,” Eph. ii, 16. Here the act of reconciling is attributed to Christ. Man is not spoken of as reconciling himself to God; but Christ is said to reconcile Jews and Gentiles together, and both to God, “by his cross.” Thus, says the Apostle, “he is our peace;” but in what manner is the peace effected Not, in the first instance, by subduing the enmity of man’s heart, but by removing the enmity of “the law.” “Having abolished in” or by “his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments.” The ceremonial law only is here, probably meant; for by its abolition, through its fulfilment in Christ, the enmity between Jews and Gentiles was taken away; but still it was not only necessary to reconcile Jew and Gentile together, but to “reconcile both unto God.” This he did by the same act; abolishing the ceremonial law by becoming the antitype of all its sacrifices, and thus, by the sacrifice of himself, effecting the reconciliation of all to God, “slaying the enmity by his 809cross,” taking away whatever hindered the reconciliation of the guilty to God, which, as we have seen, was not enmity and hatred to God in the human mind only, but that judicial hostility and variance which separated God and man as Judge and criminal. The feeble criticism of Socinus, on this passage, in which he has been followed by his adherents to this day, is thus answered by Grotius: “In this passage the dative Te, to God, can only be governed by the verb pata, that he might reconcile; for the interpretation of Socinus, which makes to God stand by itself, or that to reconcile to God is to reconcile them among themselves, that they might serve God, is distorted and without example. Nor is the argument valid which is drawn from thence, that in this place St. Paul properly treats of the peace made between Jews and Gentiles; for neither does it follow from this argument, that it was beside his purpose to mention the peace made for each with God. For the two opposites which are joined, are so joined among themselves, that they should be primarily and chiefly joined by that bond; for they are not united among themselves, except by and for that bond. Gentiles and Jews, therefore, are made friends among themselves by friendship with God.”

Here also a critical remark will be appropriate. The above passages will show how falsely it has been asserted that God is no where in Scripture said to be reconciled to us, and that they only declare that we are reconciled to God; but the fact is, that the very phrase of our being reconciled to God imports the turning away of his wrath from us. Whitby observes, on the words atatte and ataa, “that they naturally import the reconciliation of one that is angry or displeased with us, both in profane and Jewish writers.” When the Philistines suspected that David would appease the anger of Saul, by becoming their adversary, they said, “Wherewith should he reconcile himself to his master Should it not be with the heads of these men” not, surely, How shall he remove his own anger against his master but, how shall he remove his master’s anger against him How shall he restore himself to his master’s favour “If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee,” not, that thou hast aught against thy brother, “first be reconciled to thy brother;” that is, appease and conciliate him; so that the words, in fact, import, “See that thy brother be reconciled to thee,” since that which goes before is, not that he hath done thee an injury, but thou him. Thus, then, for us to be reconciled to God is to avail ourselves of the means by which the anger of God toward us is to be appeased, which the New Testament expressly declares to be meritoriously “the sin-offering” of Him “who knew no sin,” and instrumentally, as to each individual personally, “faith in his blood.” See Propitiation.

REDEEMER. The Hebrew goel is thus rendered, and the title is applied to Christ, as he is the Avenger of man upon his spiritual enemy, and delivers man from death and the power of the grave, which the human avenger could not do. The right of the institution of goel was only in a relative, one of the same blood; and hence our Saviour’s assumption of our nature is alluded to and implied under this term. There was also the right of buying back the family inheritance when alienated; and this also applies to Christ, our Goel, who has purchased back the heavenly inheritance into the human family. Under these views Job joyfully exclaims, “I know that my Redeemer,” my Goel, “liveth,” &c. See Goel, Mediator, and Jesus Christ.

REDEMPTION denotes our recovery from sin and death by the obedience and sacrifice of Christ, who, on this account, is called the Redeemer. “Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,” Rom. iii, 24. “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us,” Gal. iii, 13. “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace,” Eph. i, 7. “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish, and without spot,” 1 Pet. i, 18, 19. “And ye are not your own, for ye are bought with a price,” 1 Cor. vi, 19, 20.

By redemption, those who deny the atonement made by Christ wish to understand deliverance merely, regarding only the effect, and studiously putting out of sight the cause from which it flows. But the very terms used in the above cited passages, “to redeem,” and “to be bought with a price,” will each be found to refute this notion of a gratuitous deliverance, whether from sin or punishment, or both. Our English word, to redeem, literally means “to buy back;” and t, to redeem, and pts, redemption, are, both in Greek writers and in the New Testament, used for the act of setting free a captive, by paying t, a ransom or redemption price. But, as Grotius has fully shown, by reference to the use of the words both in sacred and profane writers, redemption signifies not merely “the liberation of captives,” but deliverance from exile, death, and every other evil from which we may be freed; and t signifies every thing which satisfies another, so as to effect this deliverance. The nature of this redemption or purchased deliverance, (for it is not gratuitous liberation, as will presently appear,) is, therefore, to be ascertained by the circumstances of those who are the subjects of it. The subjects in the case before us are sinful men. They are under guilt, under “the curse of the law,” the servants of sin, under the power and dominion of the devil, and “taken captive by him at his will,” liable to the death of the body and to eternal punishment. To the whole of this case, the redemption, the purchased deliverance of man, as proclaimed in the Gospel, applies itself. Hence, in the 810above cited and other passages, it is said, “We have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins,” in opposition to guilt; redemption from “the curse of the law;” deliverance from sin, that “we should be set free from sin;” deliverance from the power of Satan; from death, by a resurrection; and from future “wrath,” by the gift of eternal life. Throughout the whole of this glorious doctrine of our redemption from these tremendous evils there is, however, in the New Testament, a constant reference to the t, the redemption price, which t is as constantly declared to be the death of Christ, which he endured in our stead. “The Son of man came to give his life a ransom for many,” Matt. xx, 28. “Who gave himself a ransom for all,” 1 Tim. ii, 6. “In whom we have redemption through his blood,” Eph. i, 7. “Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ,” 1 Pet. i, 18, 19. That deliverance of man from sin, misery, and all other penal evils of his transgression, which constitutes our redemption by Christ, is not, therefore, a gratuitous deliverance, granted without a consideration, as an act of mere prerogative; the ransom, the redemption price, was exacted and paid; one thing was given for another, the precious blood of Christ for captive and condemned men. Of the same import are those passages which represent us as having been “bought,” or “purchased” by Christ. St. Peter speaks of those “who denied the Lord t sata at, that bought them;” and St. Paul, in the passage above cited, says, “Ye are bought with a price, aste;” which price is expressly said by St. John to be the blood of Christ: “Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God (asa, hast purchased us) by thy blood,” Rev. v, 9.

RED SEA, celebrated chiefly for the miraculous passage of the Israelites through its waters. They were thrust out of Egypt, says Dr. Hales, on the fifteenth day of the first month; “about six hundred thousand men on foot, beside women and children. And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks and herds, even very much cattle,” Exod. xii, 37–39; Num. xi, 4; xxxiii, 3. After they set out from Rameses, in the land of Goshen, in the neighbourhood of Cairo, their first encampment was at Succoth, signifying “booths,” or an “enclosure for cattle,” after a stage of about thirty miles; their second, at Etham, or Adsjerud, on the edge of the wilderness, about sixty miles farther; “for the Lord led them not by the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt: but God led the people about by the way of the wilderness of the Red Sea,” or by a circuitous rout to the land of promise, in order to train them and instruct them, in the solitudes of Arabia Petræa, Exodus xiii, 17–20; Deut. xxxii, 10. Instead of proceeding from Etham, round the head of the Red Sea, and coasting along its eastern shore, the Lord made them turn southward along its western shore, and, after a stage of about twenty or thirty miles, to encamp in the valley of Bedea, where there was an opening in the great chain of mountains that line the western coast, called Pi-hahiroth, the mouth of the ridge between Migdol westward, and the sea eastward, “over against Baal-zephon,” on the eastern coast; to tempt Pharaoh, whose heart he finally hardened, to pursue them when they were “entangled in the land,” and shut in by the wilderness on their rear and flanks, and by the sea in their front. The leading motive with Pharaoh and his servants was to bring back the Israelites to bondage, and of the Egyptians in general, to recover the treasures of which they had been spoiled, Exod. xiv, 1–5. So Pharaoh pursued the Israelites by the direct way of Migdol, with six hundred chariots, his horsemen, and his army, and overtook them encamping by the sea, beside Pi-hahiroth, over against Baal-zephon. When their destruction, or their return to bondage, seemed to be inevitable, the Lord interposed and fought for Israel. He opened for them a passage across the Red Sea, where it was about twelve miles wide, and brought them through in safety; while he drowned the Egyptians, who blindly followed them to their own destruction, Psalm lxxvii, 18, &c.

On this memorable deliverance Moses composed a thanksgiving, which he and the Israelites sung unto the Lord. It is also a sublime prophecy, foretelling the powerful effect of this tremendous judgment on the neighbouring nations of Edom, Moab, Palestine, and Canaan, the future settlement of the Israelites in the promised land; and the erection of the temple and sanctuary on Mount Zion, and the perpetuity of the dominion and worship of God.

The precise place of this passage has been much contested. Some place it near Suez, at the head of the gulf; others, with more probability, about ten hours’ journey lower down, at Clysma, or the vale of Bedea. The day before the passage, by the divine command, the Israelites encamped beside Pi-hahiroth, “between Migdol and the sea, over against Baal-zephon,” Exodus xiv, 2; Num. xxxiii, 7. Pi-hahiroth signifies “the mouth of the ridge,” or chain of mountains, which line the western coast of the Red Sea, called Attaka, “deliverance,” in which was a gap, which formed the extremity of the valley of Bedea, ending at the sea eastward, and running westward to some distance, toward Cairo; Migdol, signifying “a tower,” probably lay in that direction; and Baal-zephon, signifying “the northern Baal,” was probably a temple on the opposite promontory, built on the eastern coast of the Red Sea. And the modern names of places in the vicinity tend to confirm these expositions of the ancient. Beside Attaka, on the eastern coast opposite, is a head land, called Ras Musa, or “the Cape of Moses;” somewhat lower, Hamam Faraun, “Pharaoh’s Springs;” below Girondel, a reach of the gulf, called Birket Faraun; and the general name of the gulf is Bahr al Kolsum, “the Bay of Submersion.” 811These names indicate that the passage was considerably below Suez, according to the tradition of the natives. The depth and breadth of the gulf, from Suez downward, is thus described by Niebuhr: “I have not found in this sea, from Suez southward, any bank or isthmus under water. When we departed from Suez, we sailed as far as Girondel, without fear of encountering any such. We had in the first place, the road of Suez, four fathom and half; at three German leagues from Suez, in the middle of the gulf, four fathoms; and about Girondel, near the shore, even to ten fathoms.” Bruce, also, describing the place of passage opposite Ras Musa, or a little below it, says, “There is here about fourteen fathom of water in the channel, and about nine in the sides, and good anchorage every where. The farthest side, the eastern, is a low sandy coast, and a very easy landing place.” Shaw reckons the breadth of the gulf at this place about ten miles; Neibuhr, three leagues and more; Bruce, something less than four leagues: we may therefore estimate it about twelve miles, from their joint reports. But this space the host of the Israelites could easily have passed in the course of a night, from the evening to the ensuing morning watch, or dawn of day, according to the Mosaical account. And surely the depth of the sea was no impediment, when the Lord divided it by “a strong east wind,” which blew across the sea all that night, and made the bottom of the sea dry land; “and the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground, and the waters were a wall unto them, on their right hand and on their left,” Exodus xiv, 21, 22.

In the queries of Michaëlis, sent to Niebuhr, when in Egypt, it was proposed to him to inquire upon the spot, whether there were not some ridges of rocks where the water was shallow, so that an army at particular times may pass over; secondly, whether the Etesian winds, which blow strongly all summer from the north-west, could not blow so violently against the sea as to keep it back on a heap, so that the Israelites might have passed without a miracle. And a copy of these queries was left, also, for Bruce, to join his inquiries likewise; his observations on which are excellent: “I must confess, however learned the gentlemen were who proposed these doubts, I did not think they merited any attention to solve them. This passage is told us by Scripture to be a miraculous one; and if so, we have nothing to do with natural causes. If we do not believe Moses, we need not believe the transaction at all, seeing that it is from his authority alone we derive it. If we believe in God, that he made the sea, we must believe he could divide it when he sees proper reason; and of that he must be the only judge. It is no greater miracle to divide the Red Sea than to divide the river Jordan. If the Etesian wind, blowing from the north-west in summer, could keep up the sea as a wall on the right, or to the south, of fifty feet high, still the difficulty would remain of building the wall on the left hand, or to the north. Beside, water standing in that position for a day must have lost the nature of fluid. Whence came that cohesion of particles which hindered that wall to escape at the sides This is as great a miracle as that of Moses. If the Etesian winds had done this once, they must have repeated it many a time before and since, from the same causes. Yet Diodorus Siculus says the Troglodytes, the indigenous inhabitants of that very spot, had a tradition from father to son, from their very earliest ages, that ‘once this division of the sea did happen there; and that, after leaving its bottom some time dry, the sea again came back, and covered it with great fury.’ The words of this author are of the most remarkable kind: we cannot think this Heathen is writing in favour of revelation: he knew not Moses, nor says a word about Pharaoh and his host; but records the miracle of the division of the sea in words nearly as strong as those of Moses, from the mouths of unbiassed, undesigning Pagans.” Still skeptical queries have their use; they lead to a stricter investigation of facts, and thereby tend strongly to confirm the veracity of the history they mean to impeach. Thus it appears from the accurate observations of Niebuhr and Bruce, that there is no ledge of rocks running across the gulf any where, to afford a shallow passage. And the second query, about the Etesian or northerly wind, is refuted by the express mention of a strong easterly wind blowing across, and scooping out a dry passage; not that it was necessary for Omnipotence to employ it there as an instrument, any more than at Jordan; but it seems to be introduced in the sacred history by way of anticipation, to exclude the natural agency that might in after times be employed for solving the miracle; and it is remarkable that the monsoon in the Red Sea blows the summer half of the year from the north, the winter half from the south, neither of which therefore, even if wind could be supposed to operate so violently upon the waters, could produce the miracle in question.

Wishing to diminish, though not to deny, the miracle, Niebuhr adopts the opinion of those who contend for a higher passage near Suez. “For,” says he, “the miracle would be less if they crossed the sea there than near Bedea. But whosoever should suppose that the multitude of the Israelites could be able to cross it here without a prodigy would deceive himself; for, even in our days, no caravan passes that way to go from Cairo to Mount Sinai, although it would considerably shorten the journey. The passage would have been naturally more difficult for the Israelites some thousands of years back, when the gulf was probably larger, deeper, and more extended toward the north; for, in all appearance, the water has retired, and the ground near this end has been raised by the sands of the neighbouring desert.” But it sufficiently appears, even from Niebuhr’s own statement, that the passage of the Israelites could not have been taken near Suez; for, 1. He evidently confounded the town of Kolsum, the ruins of which he places near Suez, and where he 812supposed the passage to be made, with the bay of Kolsum, which began about forty-five miles lower down; as Bryant has satisfactorily proved, from the astronomical observations of Ptolemy and of Ulug Beigh, made at Heroum, the ancient head of the gulf. 2. Instead of crossing the sea at or near Ethan, their second station, the Israelites turned southward, along the western shore; and their third station at Pi-hahiroth, or Bedea, was at least a full day’s journey below Ethan, as Bryant has satisfactorily proved from Scripture, Exodus xiv, 2. And it was this unexpected change in the direction of their march, and the apparently disadvantageous situation in which they were then placed, entangled in the land, and shut in by the wilderness, with a deep sea in front, the mountains of Attaka on the sides, and the enemy in their rear, that tempted the Egyptians to pursue them through the valley of Bedea, by the direct route from Cairo, who overtook them encamping by the sea, beside Pi-hahiroth, opposite to Ball-zephon, Exod. xiv, 2–9.

Niebuhr wonders how the Israelites could suffer themselves to be brought into such a disadvantageous situation, or be led blindfold by Moses to their apparent destruction. “One need only travel with a caravan,” says he, “which meets with the least obstacle, namely, a small torrent, to be convinced that the orientals do not let themselves be led, like fools, by their caravan baschi,” or leader of the caravan. But the Israelites went out of Egypt with “a high hand,” though led by Moses, yet under the visible guidance and protection of “the Lord God of the Hebrews,” who “went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, and by night in a pillar of fire;” and who, for their encouragement, to enter the passage of the sea miraculously prepared for them, removed the cloud which went before the camp of Israel hitherto, and placed it behind them. “And it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness to the one, but gave light by night to the other: so that the one came not near the other all the night,” Exod. xiv, 8–20.

Niebuhr wonders, also, how Pharaoh and the Egyptians could be led to follow the Israelites. “Pharaoh must have wanted prudence, if, after having seen so many prodigies in Egypt, he had entered into a sea of more than three leagues wide: all the Egyptians, too, must have been bereft of understanding, in wishing to pursue the Israelites into such a sea. Doubtless they knew their own country well enough to distinguish the bottom of a large sea, which bounds Egypt on that side, from a desert.” But Pharaoh and the Egyptians probably did not know their situation. The cloud which separated them from the Israelites increased the darkness of the night; and they probably did not enter into the sea till about midnight, by which time the van of the Israelites might have reached the eastern shore. Meanwhile, the bed of the sea, now beaten by the feet of the immense multitude of men and cattle that had gone before, might not have been easily distinguishable from the desert. If we ask, Why did the Egyptians venture to pursue the Israelites by night Why did they not wait till day light, when they could see whither they were going Niebuhr himself has unwittingly answered the question: Pharaoh wanted “prudence,” indeed, and the Egyptians were “bereft of understanding.” And this is the Scriptural solution; for God hardened the heart of Pharaoh to follow after them, that he might be honoured upon Pharaoh and all his host; and that, by their miraculous destruction, the Egyptians might know that he was the Lord supreme, Exod. xiv, 4–18. The Egyptians did not find out their mistake till the “morning appeared,” or till day-break, when the rear of the Israelites had gained the shore, and the Egyptians had reached the middle of the sea, and their whole host had entered into it: then, indeed, they attempted to fly back, but in vain; for “their chariot wheels were broken off, so that they drave them heavily, and their host was troubled” by the Lord, who looked or frowned upon them through the cloudy pillar of fire, and overwhelmed all their host in the midst of the sea; when the sea suddenly returned to his strength at the signal of Moses stretching forth his hand over it, Exod. xiv, 24–28.

The particulars of this transaction demonstrate, that neither the host of the Israelites, nor the host of Pharaoh, could possibly have passed at the head of the gulf near Suez; where the sea was only half a league broad, according to Niebuhr’s own supposition, and consequently too narrow to contain the whole host of Pharaoh at once; whose six hundred chariots alone, exclusive of his cavalry and infantry, must have occupied more ground. Manetho, and the Egyptian writers, have passed over in silence this tremendous visitation of their nation. An ancient writer, however, Artapanus, who wrote a history of the Jews, about B. C. 130, has preserved the following curious Egyptian traditions:--“The Memphites relate, that Moses, being well acquainted with the country, watched the influx of the tide, and made the multitude pass through the dry bed of the sea. But the Heliopolitans relate, that the king, with a great army, accompanied by the sacred animals, pursued after the Jews, who had carried off with them the substance of the Egyptians; and that Moses, having been directed by a divine voice to strike the sea with his rod, when he heard it, touched the water with his rod; and so the fluid divided, and the host passed over through a dry way. But when the Egyptians entered along with them, and pursued them, it is said, that fire flashed against them in front, and the sea, returning back, overwhelmed the passage. Thus the Egyptians perished, both by the fire, and by the reflux of the tide.“

The latter account is extremely curious: it not only confirms Scripture, but it notices three additional circumstances: 1. That for their protection against the God of Israel, the Egyptians brought with them the sacred animals; and by this means God executed judgment upon all the bestial gods of Egypt, as foretold, 813Exod. xii, 12, that perished with their infatuated votaries; completing the destruction of both, which began with smiting the first-born both of man and beast. 2. That the recovery of the jewels of silver and jewels of gold, and raiment, which they asked and obtained of the Egyptians, according to the divine command, Exod. xii, 35, 36, was a leading motive with the Egyptians to pursue them; as the bringing back the Israelites to slavery had been with Pharaoh and his servants, or officers. 3. That the destruction of the Egyptians was partly occasioned by lightning and thunderbolts from the presence of the Lord; exactly corresponding to the psalmist’s sublime description: “The waters saw thee, O God, the waters saw thee; they were afraid: the depths also were troubled. The clouds poured out water, the air thundered, thine arrows also went abroad. Yea, he sent out his arrows, and scattered them; he shot forth lightnings, hail stones, and coals of fire, and discomfited them. Then the channels of waters were seen, and the foundations of the world were discovered, at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils,” Psalm lxxvii, 16, 17; xviii, 13–15.

The Red Sea derived its name from Edom, signifying “red,” a title of Esau, to whom the bordering country of Edom, or Idumæa, belonged, Gen. xxv, 30; xxxvi, 31–40. It was also called Yam Suph, “the weedy sea,” in several passages, Num. xxxiii, 10; Psalm cvi, 9, &c, which are improperly rendered “the Red Sea.” Some learned authors have supposed that it was so named from the quantity of weeds in it. “But in contradiction to this,” says Bruce, “I must confess, that I never in my life, and I have seen the whole extent of it, saw a weed of any sort in it. And indeed, upon the slightest consideration, it will appear to any one, that a narrow gulf, under the immediate influence of monsoons, blowing from contrary points six months each year, would have too much agitation to produce such vegetables, seldom found but in stagnant water, and seldomer, if ever, found in salt ones. My opinion then is, that it is from the large trees, or plants, of white coral, perfectly in imitation of plants on land, that the sea has taken the name ‘weedy.’ I saw one of these, which, from a root nearly central, threw out ramifications in a nearly central form, measuring twenty-six feet diameter every way.” This seems to be the most probable solution that has been hitherto proposed of the name. The tides in this sea are but moderate. At Suez the difference between high and low water did not exceed from three to four feet, according to Niebuhr’s observations on the tides in that gulf, during the years 1762 and 1763.

REED, , Job xl, 21; xli, 2, 20; Isaiah ix, 14; xix, 15; lviii, 5; aµ, Matt. xi, 7; a plant growing in fenny and watery places; very weak and slender, and bending with the least breath of wind, Matt. xi, 7; Luke vii, 24. Thus it is threatened, “The Lord shall smite Israel as a reed is shaken in the water, and he shall root up Israel out of the good land which he gave to their fathers, and shall scatter them beyond the river, because they have made their idol groves, provoking him to anger,” 1 Kings xiv, 15. The slenderness and fragility of the reed is mentioned in 2 Kings xviii, 21; Isaiah xxxvi, 6; and is referred to in Matt. xii, 20, where the remark, illustrating the gentleness of our Saviour, is quoted from the prophecy of Isaiah, xlii, 3. The Hebrew word in these places is , as also in Job xl, 21; Isaiah xix, 6; xxxv, 7; Ezek. xxix, 6. See Cane.

REFORMATION, usually spoken of the great Reformation in the church, begun by Luther in 1517. The sad departure from the standard of holiness which the Romish hierarchy should have placed before them, combined with the indecency and arrogance with which they trampled upon the rights of sovereigns, and upon the property and the comfort of all classes of men, had, for a considerable period, produced a general conviction, that a reformation of the church in its head and members, to use the expression which was then prevalent, was absolutely requisite: and some steps to accomplish this had been actually taken. The celebrated council of Constance, while, in its efforts to heal the schism which had so long grieved and scandalized the Catholic world, it set aside the rival pontiffs who claimed to be the successors of St. Peter, laid down the important maxim, that a general council was superior to a pope, and that its decisions can restrain his power; and this doctrine, which might otherwise have appeared to arise out of the extraordinary circumstances under which it was declared, was fully confirmed by the council of Basil, which met several years after, and which decided the point upon grounds that might at all times be urged. The popes, indeed, remonstrated against this, but still they were compelled to lower their tone; and they were often reminded, even within the precincts of their own court, that the period was fast approaching when the fallacy of many of their pretensions would be ascertained and exposed. It had become common, before the election of a new pontiff, to frame certain articles of reformation, which the successful candidate was required to swear that he would carry into effect; and although the oath was uniformly disregarded or violated, the views which led to the imposition of it indicated the existence of a spirit which could not be eradicated, and which might, from events that could not be foreseen, and could not be controlled, acquire a vigour which no exertion of power could resist. Such, under the beneficent arrangement of Providence, was soon actually the case. In the progress of the opposition made to some of the worst abuses of Rome, they who conducted that opposition were guided to the word of life; they studied it with avidity and with delight; and they found themselves furnished by it with sufficient armour for the mighty contest in which they were to engage. They discovered in the New Testament what Christianity really was; their representations of it were received with wonder, and read with avidity; the secession from 814the church of Rome became much more rapid and much more extensive than it had previously been, and all possibility of reconciliation with that church was done away. Of this the popes were fully aware; and as the only way of counteracting that which was to them so formidable, they attempted, by various devices, to fetter the press, to prevent the circulation of the Bible, and thus again to plunge the world into that intellectual darkness from which it had been happily delivered. The scheme was impracticable. The “Indices Expurgatorii,” in which they pointed out the works that they condemned, and which they declared it to be heresy and pollution to peruse, increased the desire to become acquainted with them; and although some who indulged that curiosity suffered the punishment denounced by the inquisition against the enemies of papal superstition, there was an immense proportion which even spiritual tyranny could not reach; so that the light which had been kindled daily brightened, till it shone with unclouded lustre through many of the most powerful and the most refined nations of Europe.

It is worthy of careful observation, that the resistance which ultimately proved so successful, was first occasioned by practices that had been devised for establishing the monstrous despotism of the popes; that when it commenced, it was directed against what was conceived to be an abuse of power, without the slightest suspicion being entertained that the power itself was unchristian; that the reformers gradually advanced; every additional inquiry to which they were conducted enlarging their views, and bringing them acquainted with fresh proofs of that daring usurpation to which men had long submitted, till at length the foundation upon which the whole system, venerated through ages, rested, was disclosed to them, and perceived to be a foundation of sand. The consequence was, that the supremacy of the pope was by multitudes abjured; that he was branded as antichrist; that communion with the popish church was avoided as sinful, and that the form of ecclesiastical polity, the essential principle of which was the infallibility of the bishop of Rome, was for ever renounced. The wonderful manner in which this signal revolution, so fraught with blessings to mankind, was accomplished, the various events which mark its history, and the characters and exertions of the men by whose agency it was effected, cannot be too often surveyed, or too deeply fixed in the memory. The whole, even with reference to the illumination of the human mind and the improvement of the social state of the world, is in a high degree interesting; and that interest is unspeakably increased by our discerning the most striking evidence of the gracious interposition of Providence dissipating the cloud which obscured divine truth, and restoring to mankind that sacred treasure which is sufficient to make all who seriously examine it wise unto salvation. It does not, however, come within the province of this work to give a minute history of the origin and progress of the Reformation, to trace the steps of Zuinglius and of Luther, and to detail the circumstances which advanced or retarded them in the glorious career upon which they had entered. Much discussion has taken place with respect to the motives by which Luther was actuated. This point, in reference to what he accomplished, is really of little moment; but there cannot be a doubt that although he might, throughout his arduous struggle, be guided occasionally by inferior considerations, he was eventually, at least, chiefly animated by the noble and disinterested wish to emancipate his fellow creatures from what he was convinced was the direct and most infatuated spiritual oppression; that he looked to Heaven for support, and that such support he largely received.

REFUGE, Cities of. In order to provide for the security of those who, without design, might happen to kill a person in whatever manner it should be, the Lord commanded Moses to appoint six cities of refuge, Exod. xxi, 18; Num. xxxv, 11, &c, that whoever should undesignedly spill the blood of a fellow creature, might retire thither, and have time to prepare for his defence before the judges; so that the relatives of the deceased might not pursue and kill him. Of these cities there were three on each side Jordan. Those on this side Jordan were Kedesh of Naphtali, Hebron, and Shechem; those beyond Jordan were Bezer, Golan, and Ramoth-Gilead, Joshua xx, 7, 8. They served not only for the Hebrews, but for strangers also that should dwell in their country. These cities were to be of easy access, and to have good roads to them, and bridges wherever there should be occasion. The width of these roads was, at least, to be two-and-thirty cubits, or eight-and-forty feet. When there were any cross roads, they were careful to erect posts with an inscription pointing to the city of refuge. Every year, on the fifteenth of the month Adar, which answers to our February moon, the magistrates of the city visited the roads, to see if they were in good condition. The city was to be well supplied with water and provisions. It was not allowed to make any weapons there, lest the relatives of the deceased should be furnished with arms for the gratifying of their revenge. Lastly, it was necessary that whoever took refuge there, should understand a trade or calling, that he might not be chargeable to the inhabitants. They were wont to send some prudent persons to meet those who were pursuing their revenge for the relations, that they might dispose them to clemency, and persuade them to wait the decision of justice.

Though the man-slayer had fled to the city of refuge, yet he was not on this account exempted from the pursuit of justice. An information was preferred against him, Num. xxxv, 12; he was summoned before the judges, and before the people, to clear himself, and to prove that the murder was merely casual and involuntary. If he was found innocent, he dwelt safely in the city to which he had retired; if otherwise, he was put to death according to the severity of the law. The following 815texts of Scripture are not very explicit whether the affair was under the cognizance of the judges of the place where the murder was committed, or of the judges of the city of refuge to which the murderer had fled, Deut. xix, 11, 12; Joshua xx, 4–6; Num. xxxv, 25; and the commentators are at variance in this matter. But it appears, from a passage of Joshua, that the man-slayer was to undergo two trials; first, in the city of refuge, where the judges summarily examined the affair, and heard his allegations at his first arrival; secondly, when he was taken back to his own city, to be judged by the magistrates of the place, who took the cause under a more strict and scrupulous examination. If the latter judges declared him innocent, they had him reconducted, under a strong guard, to the city of refuge to which he had before fled. He was not, however, immediately liberated; but, to inspire the greater horror even of involuntary murder, it seems as if the law would punish it by a kind of banishment; for he was obliged to dwell in the city, without going out of it, till the death of the high priest; and if before that time he was imprudent enough to leave the city, the avenger of blood might safely kill him; but after the death of the high priest, he was at liberty to go whither he pleased without molestation.

It is a curious fact, that the North American Indian nations have most of them either a house or town of refuge, which is a sure asylum to protect a man-slayer, or the unfortunate captive, if they can once enter it. “In almost every Indian nation,” says Adair, “there are several peaceable towns which are called old, beloved, ancient, holy, or white towns: (white being their fixed emblem of peace, friendship, prosperity, happiness, purity, &c:) they seem to have been formerly towns of refuge; for it is not in the memory of their oldest people that ever human blood was shed in them, although they often force persons from thence, and put them to death elsewhere.” Sanctuaries affording security for criminals are still known in the east, and anciently were established in Europe.

REGENERATION, a new birth; that work of the Holy Spirit by which we experience a change of heart. It is expressed in Scripture by being born again, John iii, 7; born from above; being quickened, Eph. ii, 1; by Christ being formed in the heart, Gal. iv, 19; by our partaking of the divine nature, 2 Peter i, 4. The efficient cause of regeneration is the divine Spirit. That man is not the author of it, is evident from John i, 12, 13; iii, 4; Eph. ii, 8, 10. The instrumental cause is the word of God, James i, 18; 1 Peter i, 23; 1 Cor. iv, 15. The change in regeneration consists in the recovery of the moral image of God upon the heart; that is to say, so as to love him supremely and serve him ultimately as our highest end, and to delight in him superlatively as our chief good. The sum of the moral law is to love the Lord our God with all our heart, and soul, and strength, and mind. This is the duty of every rational creature; and in order to obey it perfectly, no part of our inward affection or actual service ought to be, at any time, or in the least degree, misapplied. Regeneration consists in the principle being implanted, obtaining the ascendancy, and habitually prevailing over its opposite. It may be remarked, that though the inspired writers use various terms and modes of speech in order to describe this change of mind, sometimes terming it conversion, regeneration, a new creation, or the new creature, putting off the old man with his deeds, and putting on the new man, walking not after the flesh, but after the Spirit, &c; yet it is all effected by the word of truth, or the Gospel of salvation, gaining an entrance into the mind, through divine teaching, so as to possess the understanding, subdue the will, and reign in the affections. In a word, it is faith working by love that constitutes the new creature, the regenerate man, Gal. v, 6; 1 John v, 1–5. Regeneration is to be distinguished from our justification, although it is connected with it. Every one who is justified, is also regenerated; but the one places us in a new relation, and the other in a new moral state. Our Lord, in one instance, uses the term regeneration for the resurrection state: “Ye which have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging,” Matt. xix, 28. And, accordingly, Dr. Campbell translates the passage thus: “At the renovation, when the Son of man shall be seated on the glorious throne, ye, my followers, sitting also upon twelve thrones, shall judge.” We are accustomed, says he, to apply the term solely to the conversion of individuals; whereas its relation here is to the general state of things. The principal completion will be at the general resurrection, when there will be, in the most important sense, a renovation or regeneration of heaven and earth, when all things shall become new.

REHOBOAM, the son and successor of Solomon; his mother was Naamah, an Ammonitish woman, whom Solomon had married, 1 Kings xiv, 20, 21. He was forty-one years of age when he began to reign, and, consequently, was born in the first year of his father’s reign, A. M. 2990, or the year before. This prince reigned seventeen years at Jerusalem, and died A. M. 3046. After the death of Solomon, Rehoboam came to Shechem, because all Israel was there assembled to make him king, 1 Kings xii. Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who had headed a sedition against Solomon, and had been compelled, toward the close of his reign, to take refuge in Egypt, as soon as he heard that this prince was dead, returned into Judea, and came to the assembly of the people of Shechem. The Israelites would have made terms with Rehoboam; but, being a poor politician, and following the advice of some junior counsellors, he managed his business so imprudently that he lost the whole house of Israel, save the tribes of Judah and Benjamin.

816RELIGION. See Christianity.

REMONSTRANTS have obtained this name, particularly on the continent, because, in 1610, they presented to the states of Holland a petition, entitled their Remonstrance, in which they stated their grievances, and prayed for relief. They are also called Arminians, because they maintained the doctrines respecting predestination and grace, which were embraced and defended by James Harmenson or Arminius, an eminent Protestant divine, and a native of Holland, who was born in 1560, and died in 1609. He first studied at Leyden, and then at Geneva. While at the university of Geneva, he studied under Beza, by whom he was instructed in the doctrines of Calvin; and having been judged by Martin Lydius, professor of divinity at Franeker, a proper person to refute a work in which the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination had been attacked by some ministers of Delft, he undertook the task. On a strict examination of the reasons on both sides, however, he became a convert to the opinions which he was employed to refute. The result of his inquiries on this, and other subjects connected with it, was, that, thinking the doctrine of Calvin with respect to free will, predestination, and grace, too severe, he expressed his doubts respecting them in the year 1591, and at length adopted the religious system of those who extend the love of God, and the merits of his Son, to all mankind. After his appointment to the theological chair of Leyden, in 1603, he avowed and vindicated the principles which he had embraced; but the prudence and caution with which he published and defended them could not screen him from the resentment of those who adhered to the theological system of Calvin, and in particular from the opposition of Gomar his colleague. After the death of Arminius, the controversy, thus begun, became more general, and threatened to involve the United Provinces in civil discord. However, the Arminian tenets gained ground, and were adopted by several persons of merit and distinction. The Calvinists or Gomarists as they were now called, appealed to a national synod. Accordingly, a synod was at length convened at Dordrecht or Dort, and was composed of ecclesiastical and lay deputies from the United Provinces, and also of ecclesiastical deputies from the reformed churches of England, Switzerland, Bremen, Hesse, and the Palatinate. This synod sat from the first of November, 1618, to the twenty-sixth of April, 1619. The principal advocate in favour of the Arminians was Episcopius, who was at that time professor of divinity at Leyden. The religious principles of the Arminians have insinuated themselves more or less into the established church in Holland, and imbued the theological system of many of those pastors who are appointed to maintain the doctrine and authority of the synod of Dort. The principles of Arminius were early introduced into various other countries, as Great Britain, France, Geneva, and many parts of Switzerland; but their progress is said to have been rather retarded of late, especially in Germany and several parts of Switzerland, by the prevalence of the Leibnitzian and Wolfian philosophy, which is more favourable to Calvinism. The distinguishing tenets of the Remonstrants may be said to consist chiefly in the different light in which they view the subjects of the five points, or in the different explanation which they give to them, and comprised in the five following articles: predestination, universal redemption, the operation of grace, the freedom of the will, and perseverance. They believe that God, having an equal regard for all his creatures, sent his Son to die for the sins not of the elect only, but of the whole world; that no mortal is rendered finally unhappy by an eternal and invincible decree, but that the misery of those who perish arises from themselves; and that, in this present imperfect state, believers, if not vigilant, may, through the force of temptation, and the influence of Satan, fall from grace, and sink into final perdition. See Arminianism.

REMPHAN, eµf, signifies an idol, according to the Septuagint. Amos, v, 26, upbraids the Hebrews with having carried, during their wanderings in the wilderness, the tabernacle of their Moloch and Chiun, their images, the star of their god, which they made to themselves, according to our version of the Bible. St. Stephen, quoting this passage of Amos, says, “Ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan,” Acts vii, 43, which has given occasion to a variety of conjectures. Grotius thinks it to have been some deity, as Rimmon; and Capellus and Hammond take this Remphan to be a king of Egypt, deified by his subjects; a late writer is of opinion, that God here refers to the idolatries to which in succeeding ages the Jews were gradually given up, after having begun to revolt in the wilderness by the sin of the golden calf.

REPENTANCE is sometimes used generally for a change of mind, and an earnest wishing that something were undone that has been done. Esau found no place for repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears; he could not move his father Isaac to repent of what he had done, or to recall the blessing from Jacob and confer it on himself, Heb. xii, 17; Matt. iii, 2; iv, 17. Taken in a religious sense it signifies conviction of sin and sorrow for it. But there is, 1. A partial or worldly repentance, wherein one is grieved for and turns from his sin, merely on account of the hurt it has done, or is likely to do, him: so a malefactor, who still loves his sin, repents of doing it, because it brings him to punishment. 2. An evangelical repentance, which is a godly sorrow wrought in the heart of a sinful person by the word and Spirit of God, whereby, from a sense of his sin, as offensive to God, and defiling and endangering to his own soul, and from an apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, he, with grief and hatred of all his known sins, turns from them to God, as his Saviour and Lord. This is called “repentance toward God,” as therein we turn from sin to 817him; and “repentance unto life,” as it leads to spiritual life, and is the first step to eternal life, Matt. iii, 2; Acts iii, 19; xi, 18; xx, 12. God himself is said to repent, but this can only be understood of his altering his conduct toward his creatures, either in the bestowing of good or the infliction of evil: which change in the divine conduct is founded on a change in his creatures; and thus, speaking after the manner of men, God is said to repent.

REPETITIONS IN PRAYER. These are forbidden by our Lord, and were well styled “vain,” if they consisted, as among the Mohammedans, in the repetition of words and phrases. Richardson mentions an old man who travelled with him, who was thought to be of peculiar sanctity, and most devout in prayer: “Certainly he did not pray in secret, communing with his heart, but called aloud with all his might, and repeated the words as fast as his tongue could give them utterance. The form and words of his prayer were the same with those of the others; but this good man had made a vow to repeat certain words of the prayer a given number of times, both night and morning. The word rabboni, for example, answering to our word Lord, he would bind himself to repeat a hundred or two hundred times, twice a day; and, accordingly, went on in the hearing of all the party; and, on his knees sometimes with his face directed steadily to heaven, and at other times bowing down to the ground, and calling out rabboni, rabboni, rabboni, rabboni, rabboni, &c, as fast as he could articulate the words after each other, like a school boy going through his task, not like a man who, praying with the heart and the understanding also, continues longer on his knees, in the rapture of devotion, whose soul is a flame of fire, enkindled by his Maker, and fixing upon his God, like Jacob, will not let him go until he bless him. Having settled his accounts with the word rabboni, which the telling of his beads enabled him to know when he had done, he proceeded to dispose of his other vows in a similar manner. Allah houakbar, perhaps, came next, ‘God most great;’ and he would go on, as with the other, Allah houakbar, Allah houakbar, Allah houakbar, Allah houakbar, &c, repeating them as fast as he could frame his organs to pronounce them.”

REPHAIM. The Rephaim were the ancient giants of the land of Canaan. There were anciently several families of them in this country. It is commonly thought that they were descended from one called Rephah or Rapha; but others imagine that the word Rephaim properly signifies giants, in the ancient language of this people. There were some of the Rephaim beyond Jordan, at Ashteroth Karnaim, in the time of Abraham, when Chedorlaomer made war against them, Gen. xiv, 5. There were also some of them in the country in the days of Moses. Og, king of Bashan, was one of the posterity of the Rephaim, Joshua xii, 4. Also in the time of Joshua there were some of their descendants in the land of Canaan, Joshua xvii, 15. Lastly, we hear of them still in David’s time, in the city of Gath, 1 Chron. xx, 4–6. The giants Goliah, Sippai, Lahmi, and others, were some remains of the Rephaim; their magnitude and strength are known from Scripture. See Giants.

REPHIDIM, a station or encampment of the Israelites, Exod. xvii, 1. At this station, adjoining to Mount Horeb, the people again murmured for want of water; and they chid Moses, saying, “Give us water that we may drink.” And “they tempted the Lord, saying, Is the Lord among us or not” Moses, therefore, to convince them that he was, by a more obvious miracle than at Marah, smote the rock with his rod, by the divine command, and brought water out of it for the people to drink: wherefore, he called the place Meribah, “chiding,” and the rock Massah, “temptation.” On their way to Rephidim, the Amalekites, the original inhabitants of the country, who are noticed in Abraham’s days, Gen. xiv, 7, not having the fear of God before their eyes, nor regarding the judgments recently inflicted on the Egyptians, attacked the rear of the Israelites when they were faint and weary; but were defeated by a chosen party, under the command of Joshua, the faithful lieutenant of Moses, who is first noticed on this occasion, and even then pointed out by the Lord as his successor. This victory was miraculous; for while Moses held up his hand Israel prevailed, but when he let it down Amalek prevailed. So Aaron and Hur (the husband of Miriam, according to Josephus) held up both his hands steadily till sunset, and thereby gave a decided victory to Israel. This unprovoked aggression of the Amalekites drew down upon them from the Lord the sentence of “war from generation to generation,” between them and the Israelites, and of final extermination, which was commanded to be written or registered in a book, for a memorial to Joshua and his successors, the judges and kings of Israel, and was carried into execution by Saul, 1 Sam. xv, 8, by David, 1 Sam. xxx, 17, and finally accomplished by the Simeonites in Hezekiah’s reign, Exod. xvii, 8–13; Deut. xxv, 17; 1 Chron. iv, 43. While the Israelites were encamped at Rephidim, on the western side of Horeb, the mount of God, Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, who lived in that neighbourhood, and was priest and prince of Midian, came to visit him, with his wife Zipporah, and his two sons, Eleazar and Gershom, who had accompanied him part of the way to Egypt, but returned home again; and they rejoiced with him “for all the goodness which the Lord had done for Israel, whom he had delivered out of the hand of the Egyptians;” and upon this occasion, Jethro, as “a priest of the most high God,” of the order of Melchizedek, “offered a burnt-offering and sacrifices of thanksgiving to God, at which Aaron and all the elders of Israel ate bread with Jethro before God,” by a repetition of the eucharistic feast upon a sacrifice which Melchizedek formerly administered to Abraham, Gen. xiv, 18; Exod. xviii, 1–12. Thus was 818fulfilled the prophetic sign which the Lord had given to Moses when he first appeared to him in the burning bush: “This shall be a token unto thee that I have sent thee: when thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain,” Exod, iii, 12. The speedy accomplishment, therefore, of this sign, at the beginning of their journey, was well calculated to strengthen their faith or reliance on the divine protection throughout. Jethro appears to have been distinguished not only for his piety, but also for his political wisdom. By his advice, which also was approved by the Lord, Moses, to relieve himself from the fatigue of administering justice to the people, the whole day, from morning until evening, instituted inferior judges or magistrates over thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens, as his deputies, who were to relieve him from the burden of judging the smaller causes, but to refer the greater or more difficult to Moses, for his decision.

REPROBATION is equivalent to rejection. Rejection always implies a cause: “Reprobate silver shall men call them, insomuch that the Lord hath rejected them,” Jer. vi, 30; that is, they are base metal, which will not bear the proof. Conditional reprobation, or rejecting men from the divine mercy, because of their impenitence or refusal of salvation, is a Scriptural doctrine; but to the unconditional, absolute reprobation of the rigid Calvinists, the following objections may be urged:--

1. It cannot be reconciled to the love of God. “God is love.” “He is loving to every man, and his tender mercies are over all his works.”

2. Nor to the wisdom of God; for the bringing into being a vast number of intelligent creatures under a necessity of sinning, and of being eternally lost, teaches no moral lesson to the world; and contradicts all those notions of wisdom in the ends and processes of government, which we are taught to look for, not only from natural reason, but from the Scriptures.

3. Nor to the grace of God, which is so often magnified in the Scriptures; for doth it argue any sovereign or high strain, any superabounding richness of grace or mercy in any man, when ten thousand have equally offended him, only to pardon one or two of them Or in what sense has “the grace of God appeared unto all men,” or even to one-millionth part of them

4. Nor can this merciless reprobation be reconciled to any of those numerous passages in which almighty God is represented as tenderly compassionate and pitiful to the worst and most unworthy of his creatures, even them who finally perish. “I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth.” “Being grieved at the hardness of their hearts.” “How often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” “The Lord is long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish.” “Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance”

5. It is as manifestly contrary to his justice. Here, indeed, we would not assume to measure this attribute of God by unauthorized human conceptions; but when God himself has appealed to those established notions of justice and equity which have been received among all enlightened persons, in all ages, as the measure and rule of his own, we cannot be charged with this presumption. “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right” “Are not my ways equal saith the Lord.” We may then be bold to affirm that justice and equity in God are what they are taken to be among reasonable men; and if all men every where would condemn it, as most contrary to justice and right, that a sovereign should condemn to death one or more of his subjects for not obeying laws which it is absolutely impossible for them, under any circumstances which they can possibly avail themselves of, to obey, and much more the greater part of his subjects; and to require them, on pain of aggravated punishment, to do something in order to the pardon and remission of their offences, which he knows they cannot do, say to stop the tide or to remove a mountain; it implies a charge as obviously unjust against God, who is “just in the judgments which he executeth,” to suppose him to act precisely in the same manner in regard to those whom he has passed by and rejected, without any avoidable fault of their own; to destroy them by the simple rule of his own sovereignty, or, in other words, to show that he has power to do it. In whatever light the subject be viewed, no fault, in any right construction, can be chargeable upon the persons so punished, or, as we may rather say, destroyed, since punishment supposes a judicial proceeding, which this act shuts out. For either the reprobates are destroyed for a pure reason of sovereignty without any reference to their sinfulness, and thus all criminality is left out of the consideration; or they are destroyed for the sin of Adam, to which they were not consenting; or for personal faults resulting from a corruption of nature which they brought into the world with them, and which God wills not to correct, and which they have no power to correct themselves. Every received notion of justice is thus violated. We grant, indeed, that some proceedings of the Almighty may appear at first irreconcilable with justice, which are not so; as that we should suffer pain and death, and be infected with a morally corrupt nature, in consequence of the transgression of our first progenitors; that children should suffer for their parents’ faults in the ordinary course of providence; and that in general calamities the comparatively innocent should suffer the same evils as the guilty. But none of these are parallel cases. For the “free gift” has come upon all men, “to justification of life,” through “the righteousness” of the second Adam, so that the terms of our probation are but changed. None are doomed to inevitable ruin, or the above words of the 819Apostle would have no meaning; and pain and death, as to all who avail themselves of the remedy, are made the instruments of a higher life, and of a superabounding of grace through Christ. The same observation may be made as to children who suffer evils for their parents’ faults. This circumstance alters the terms of their probation; but if every condition of probation leaves to men the possibility and the hope of eternal life, and the circumstances of all are balanced and weighed by Him who administers the affairs of individuals on principles, the end of which is to turn all the evils of life into spiritual and higher blessings, there is, obviously, no impeachment of justice in the circumstances of the probation assigned to any person whatever. As to the innocent suffering equally with the guilty in general calamities, the persons so suffering are but comparatively innocent, and their personal transgressions against God deserve a higher punishment than any which this life witnesses; this may also as to them be overruled for merciful purposes, and a future life presents its manifold compensations. But as to the non-elect, the whole case, in this scheme of sovereign reprobation, or sovereign preterition, is supposed to be before us. Their state is fixed, their afflictions in this life will not in any instance be overruled for ends of edification and salvation; they are left under a necessity of sinning in every condition; and a future life presents no compensation, but a fearful looking for of fiery and quenchless indignation. It is surely not possible for the ingenuity of man to reconcile this to any notion of just government which has ever obtained; and by the established notions of justice and equity in human affairs, we are taught by the Scriptures themselves to judge of the divine proceedings in all completely stated and comprehensible cases.

6. Equally impossible is it to reconcile this notion to the sincerity of God in offering salvation by Christ to all who hear the Gospel, of whom this scheme supposes the majority, or at least great numbers to be among, the reprobate. The Gospel, as we have seen, is commanded to be preached to every creature; which publication of good news to every creature is an offer of salvation to every creature, accompanied with earnest invitations to embrace it, and admonitory comminations lest any should neglect and despise it. But does it not involve a serious reflection upon the truth and sincerity of God which men ought to shudder at, to assume, that at the very time the Gospel is thus preached, no part of this good news was ever designed to benefit the majority, or any great part, of those to whom it is addressed that they to whom this love of God in Christ is proclaimed were never loved by God that he has decreed that many to whom he offers salvation, and whom he invites to receive it, shall never be saved and that he will consider their sins aggravated by rejecting that which they never could receive, and which he never designed them to receive It is no answer to this to say that we also admit that the offers of mercy are made by God to many whom he, by virtue of his prescience, knows will never receive them. We grant this; but it is enough to reply, that in this case there is no insincerity. On the Calvinian scheme the offer of salvation is made to those for whose sins Christ made no atonement; on the other, he made atonement for the sins of all. On the former, the offer is made to those whom God never designed to embrace it; on the latter to none but those whom God seriously and in truth wills that they should avail themselves of it; on one theory, the bar to the salvation of the nonelect lies in the want of a provided sacrifice for sin; on the other, it rests solely in men themselves; one consists, therefore, with a perfect sincerity of offer, the other cannot be maintained without bringing the sincerity of God into question, and fixing a stigma upon his moral truth.

7. Unconditional reprobation cannot be reconciled with that frequent declaration of Scripture, that “God is no respecter of persons.” This phrase, we grant, is not to be interpreted as though the bounties of the Almighty were dispensed in equal measures to his creatures. In the administration of favour, there is place for the exercise of that prerogative which, in a just sense, is called the sovereignty of God; but justice knows but of one rule; it is, in its nature, settled and fixed, and looks not at the person, but the case. To have respect of persons is a phrase, therefore, in Scripture, which sometimes refers to judicial proceedings, and signifies to judge from partiality and affection, and not upon the merits of the question. It is also used by St. Peter with reference to the acceptance of Cornelius: “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” Here it is clear, that to respect persons, would be to reject or accept them without regard to their moral qualities, and on some national and other prejudice or partiality which forms no moral rule of any kind. But, if the doctrine of absolute election and reprobation be true; if we are to understand that men like Jacob and Esau, in the Calvinistic construction of the passage, while in the womb of their mother, nay, from eternity, are loved and hated, elected or reprobated, before they have done “good or evil,” then it necessarily follows, that there is precisely this kind of respect of persons with God; for his acceptance or rejection of men stands on some ground of aversion or dislike, which cannot be resolved into any moral rule, and has no respect to the merits of the case itself; and if the Scripture affirms that there is no such respect of persons with God, then the doctrine which implies it is contradicted by inspired authority.

8. The doctrine of which we are showing the difficulties, brings with it the repulsive and shocking opinion of the eternal punishment of infants. Some Calvinists have, indeed, to get rid of the difficulty, or rather to put it out of sight, consigned them to annihilation; but 820of the annihilation of any human being there is no intimation in the word of God. In order, therefore, to avoid the fearful consequence of admitting the punishment of beings innocent as to all actual sin, there is no other way than to suppose all children, dying in infancy, to be an elected portion of mankind, which, however, would be a mere hypothesis brought in to serve a theory without any evidence. That some of those who, as they suppose, are under this sentence of reprobation, die in their infancy, is, probably, what most Calvinists allow; and, if their doctrine be received, cannot be denied; and it follows, therefore, that all such infants are eternally lost. Now, we know that infants are not lost, because our Lord gave it as a reason why little children ought not to be hindered from coming unto him, that “of such is the kingdom of heaven.” On which Calvin himself remarks, “In this word, ‘for of such is the kingdom of heaven,’ Christ comprehends as well little children themselves, as those who in disposition resemble them. Hac voce, tam parvulos, quam eorum similes, comprehendit.” We are assured of the salvation of infants, also, because “the free gift has come upon all men to,” in order to, “justification of life,” and because children are not capable of rejecting that blessing, and must, therefore, derive benefit from it. The point, also, on which we have just now touched, that “there is no respect of persons with God,” demonstrates it. For, as it will be acknowledged, that some children, dying in infancy, are saved, it must follow, from this principle and axiom in the divine government, that all infants are saved; for the case of all infants, as to innocence or guilt, sin or righteousness, being the same, and God as a judge, being “no respecter of persons,” but regarding only the merits of the case, he cannot make this awful distinction as to them, that one part shall be eternally saved and the other eternally lost. That doctrine, therefore, which implies the perdition of infants, cannot be congruous to the Scriptures of truth, but is utterly abhorrent to them.

Finally, not to multiply these instances of the difficulties which accompany the doctrine of absolute reprobation, or of preterition, (to use the milder term, though the argument is not in the least changed by it,) it destroys the end of punitive justice. That end can only be, to deter men from offence, and to add strength to the law of God. But if the whole body of the reprobate are left to the influence of their fallen nature without remedy, they cannot be deterred from sin by threats of inevitable punishment; nor can they ever submit to the dominion of the law of God: their doom is fixed, and threats and examples can avail nothing.

RESTITUTION, that act of justice by which we restore to our neighbour whatever we have unjustly deprived him of, Exod. xxii, 1; Luke xix, 8. Moralists observe, respecting restitution, 1. That where it can be made in kind, or the injury can be certainly valued, we are to restore the thing or the value. 2. We are bound to restore the thing with the natural increase of it, that is, to satisfy for the loss sustained in the mean time, and the gain hindered. 3. When the thing cannot be restored, and the value of it is not certain, we are to give reasonable satisfaction, according to a liberal estimation. 4. We are at least to give, by way of restitution, what the law would give; for that is generally equal, and in most cases rather favourable than rigorous. 5. A man is not only bound to make restitution for the injury he did, but for all that directly follows upon the injurious act: for the first injury being wilful, we are supposed to will all that which follows upon it.

RESURRECTION. The belief of a general resurrection of the dead, which will come to pass at the end of the world, and will be followed with an immortality either of happiness or misery, is an article of religion in common to Jews and Christians. It is very expressly taught both in the Old and New Testaments, Psalm xvi, 10; Job xix, 25, &c; Ezek. xxxvii, 1, &c; Isaiah xxvi, 19; John v, 28, 29; and to these may be added, Wisdom iii, 1, &c; iv, 15; 2 Macc. vii, 14, 23, 29, &c. At the time when our Saviour appeared in Judea, the resurrection from the dead was received as one of the principal articles of the Jewish religion by the whole body of the nation, the Sadducees excepted, Matt. xxii, 23; Luke xx, 28; Mark xii, 18; John xi, 23, 24; Acts xxiii, 6, 8. Our Saviour arose himself from the dead, to give us, in his own person, a proof, a pledge, and a pattern of our future resurrection. St. Paul, in almost all his epistles, speaks of a general resurrection, refutes those who denied or opposed it, and proves and explains it by several circumstances, Rom. vi, 5; 1 Cor. xv, 12–15; Phil. iii, 10, 11; Heb. xi, 35; 1 Thess. iv, 13–17, &c.

On this subject no point of discussion, of any importance, arises among those who admit the truth of Scripture, except as to the way in which the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is to be understood;--whether a resurrection of the substance of the body be meant, or some minute and indestructible part of it. The latter theory has been adopted for the sake of avoiding certain supposed difficulties. It cannot however fail to strike every impartial reader of the New Testament, that the doctrine of the resurrection is there taught without any nice distinctions. It is always exhibited as a miraculous work; and represents the same body which is laid in the grave as the subject of this change from death to life, by the power of Christ. Thus our Lord was raised in the same body in which he died, and his resurrection is constantly held forth as the model of ours; and the Apostle Paul expressly says, “Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body.” The only passage of Scripture which appears to favour the notion of the rising of the immortal body from some indestructible germ, is 1 Cor. xv, 35, &c: “But some men will say, How are the dead raised up, and with what body do they come Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not 821quickened except it die; and that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain,” &c. If, however, it had been the intention of the Apostle, holding this view of the case, to meet objections to the doctrine of the resurrection, grounded upon the difficulties of conceiving how the same body, in the popular sense, could be raised up in substance, we might have expected him to correct this misapprehension by declaring, that this was not the Christian doctrine; but that some small parts of the body only, bearing as little proportion to the whole as the germ of a seed to the plant, would be preserved, and be unfolded into the perfected body at the resurrection. Instead of this, he goes on immediately to remind the objector of the differences which exist between material bodies as they now exist; between the plant and the bare or naked grain; between one plant and another; between the flesh of men, of beasts, of fishes, and of birds; between celestial and terrestrial bodies; and between the lesser and greater celestial luminaries themselves. Still farther he proceeds to state the difference, not between the germ of the body to be raised, and the body given at the resurrection; but between the body itself, understood popularly, which dies, and the body which shall be raised. “It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption,” which would not be true of the supposed incorruptible and imperishable germ of this hypothesis; and can only be affirmed of the body itself, considered in substance, and, in its present state, corruptible. Farther: the question put by the objector,--“How are the dead raised up” does not refer to the modus agendi of the resurrection, or the process or manner in which the thing is to be effected, as the advocates of the germ hypothesis appear to assume. This is manifest from the answer of the Apostle, who goes on immediately to state, not in what manner the resurrection is to be effected, but what shall be the state or condition of the resurrection body; which is no answer at all to the question, if it be taken in that sense.

Thus, in the argument, the Apostle confines himself wholly to the possibility of the resurrection of the body in a refined and glorified state; but omits all reference to the mode in which the thing will be effected, as being out of the line of the objector’s questions, and in itself above human thought, and wholly miraculous. It is, however, clear, that when he speaks of the body, as the subject of this wondrous “change,” he speaks of it popularly, as the same body in substance, whatever changes in its qualities or figure may be impressed upon it. Great general changes it will experience, as from corruption to incorruption, from mortality to immortality; great changes of a particular kind will also take place, as its being freed from deformities and defects, and the accidental varieties produced by climate, aliments, labour, and hereditary diseases. It is also laid down by our Lord, that “in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but be like to the angels of God;” and this also implies a certain change of structure; and we may gather from the declaration of the Apostle, that though “the stomach” is now adapted “to meats, and meats to the stomach,” yet God will “destroy both it and them;” that the animal appetite for food will be removed, and the organ now adapted to that appetite will have no place in the renewed frame. But great as these changes are, the human form will be retained in its perfection, after the model of our Lord’s “glorious body,” and the substance of the matter of which it is composed will not thereby be affected. That the same body which was laid in the grave shall arise out of it, is the manifest doctrine of the Scriptures. The notion of an incorruptible germ, or that of an original and unchangeable stamen, out of which a new and glorious body, at the resurrection, is to spring, appears to have been borrowed from the speculations of some of the Jewish rabbins. But if by this hypothesis it was designed to remove the difficulty of conceiving how the scattered parts of one body could be preserved from becoming integral parts of other bodies, it supposes that the constant care of Providence is exerted to maintain the incorruptibility of those individual germs, or stamina, so as to prevent their assimilation with each other. Now, if they have this by original quality, then the same quality may just as easily be supposed to appertain to every particle which composes a human body; so that, though it be used for food, it shall not be capable of assimilation, in any circumstances, with another human body. But if these germs, or stamina, have not this quality by their original nature, they can only be prevented from assimilating with each other by that operation of God which is present to all his works, and which must always be directed to secure the execution of his own ultimate designs. If this view be adopted, then, if the resort must at last be to the superintendence of a Being of infinite power and wisdom, there is no greater difficulty in supposing that his care to secure this object may extend to a million as easily as to a hundred particles of matter. This is, in fact, the true and rational answer to the objection that the same piece of matter may happen to be a part of two or more bodies, as in the instances of men feeding upon animals which have fed upon men, and of men feeding upon one another. The question here is one which simply respects the frustrating a final purpose of the Almighty by an operation of nature. To suppose that he cannot prevent this, is to deny his power; to suppose him inattentive to it, is to suppose him indifferent to his own designs; and to assume that he employs care to prevent it, is to assume nothing greater, nothing in fact so great, as many instances of control, which are always occurring; as, for instance, the regulation of the proportion of the sexes in human births, which cannot be attributed to chance, but must either be referred to superintendence, or to some original law. Another objection to the resurrection of the 822body has been drawn from the changes of its substance during life; the answer to which is, that, allowing a frequent and total change of the substance of the body (which, however, is but an hypothesis) to take place, it affects not the doctrine of Scripture, which is, that the body which is laid in the grave shall be raised up. But then, we are told, that if our bodies have in fact undergone successive changes during life, the bodies in which we have sinned or performed rewardable actions may not be, in many instances, the same bodies as those which will be actually rewarded or punished. We answer, that rewards and punishments have their relation to the body, not so much as it is the subject but as it is the instrument of reward and punishment. It is the soul only which perceives pain or pleasure, which suffers or enjoys, and is, therefore, the only rewardable subject. Were we, therefore, to admit such corporeal mutations as are assumed in this objection, they affect not the case of our accountability. The personal identity or sameness of a rational being, as Mr. Locke has observed, consists in self-consciousness: “By this every one is to himself what he calls self, without considering whether that self be continued in the same or divers substances. It was by the same self which reflects on an action done many years ago, that the action was performed.” If there were indeed any weight in this objection, it would affect the proceedings of human criminal courts in all cases of offences committed at some distance of time; but it contradicts the common sense, because it contradicts the common consciousness and experience, of mankind.

Our Lord has assured us, that “the hour is coming in which all that are in their graves shall hear his voice, and come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” Then we shall “all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump,” and “the dead shall be raised incorruptible.” It is probable that the bodies of the righteous and the wicked, though each shall in some respects be the same as before, will each be in other respects not the same, but undergo some change conformable to the character of the individual, and suited to his future state of existence; yet both, as the passage just quoted clearly teaches, are then rendered indestructible. Respecting the good it is said, “When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, we shall appear with him in glory,” “we shall be like him; our body shall be fashioned like his glorious body;” yet, notwithstanding this, “it doth not yet fully appear what we shall be,” Col. iii, 4; 1 John iii, 2; Phil. iii, 21. This has a very obvious reason. Our present manner of knowing depends upon our present constitution, and we know not the exact relation which subsists between this constitution and the manner of being in a future world; we derive our ideas through the medium of the senses; the senses are necessarily conversant with terrestrial objects only; our language is suited to the communication of present ideas; and thus it follows that the objects of the future world may in some respects (whether few or many we cannot say) differ so extremely from terrestrial objects, that language cannot communicate to us any such ideas as would render those matters comprehensible. But language may suggest striking and pleasing analogies; and with such we are presented by the holy Apostle: “All flesh,” says he, “is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, another of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds;” and yet all these are fashioned out of the same kind of substance, mere inert matter, till God gives it life and activity. It is sown an animal body; a body which previously existed with all the organs, faculties, and propensities, requisite to procure, receive, and appropriate nutriment, as well as to perpetuate the species; but it shall be raised a spiritual body, refined from the dregs of matter, freed from the organs and senses required only in its former state, and probably possessing the remaining senses in greater perfection, together with new and more exquisite faculties, fitted for the exalted state of existence and enjoyment to which it is now rising. In the present state the organs and senses appointed to transmit the impressions of objects to the mind, have a manifest relation to the respective objects: the eye and seeing, for example, to light; the ear and hearing, to sound. In the refined and glorious state of existence to which good men are tending, where the objects which solicit attention will be infinitely more numerous, interesting, and delightful, may not the new organs, faculties, and senses, be proportionally refined, acute, susceptible, or penetrating Human industry and invention have placed us, in a manner, in new worlds; what, then, may not a spiritual body, with sharpened faculties, and the grandest possible objects of contemplation, effect in the celestial regions to which Christians are invited There the senses will no longer degrade the affections, the imagination no longer corrupt the heart; the magnificent scenery thrown open to view will animate the attention, give a glow and vigour to the sentiments; that roused attention will never tire; those glowing sentiments will never cloy; but the man, now constituted of an indestructible body, as well as of an immortal soul, may visit in eternal succession the streets of the celestial city, may “drink of the pure river of the water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God, and of the Lamb;” and dwell for ever in those abodes of harmony and peace, which, though “eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the imagination of man to conceive,” we are assured “God hath prepared for them that love him,” 1 Cor. ii, 9.

REUBEN, Tribe of. This tribe, having much cattle, solicited and obtained from Moses possessions east of the Jordan; by which river it was separated from the main body of Israel: it was, in consequence, exposed to various inroads and oppressions from which the western tribes were free; and it was among 823the first carried into captivity by Tiglath pileser, 1 Chron. v, 26.

REVELATION, or APOCALYPSIS, is the name given to a canonical book of the New Testament. See Apocalypse.

RHODES, an island lying south of the province of Caria, in Lesser Asia, and, among the Asiatic islands, is accounted for dignity next to Cyprus and Lesbos. It is pleasant and healthful, and was anciently celebrated for the skill of its inhabitants in navigation, but most, for its prodigious statue of brass consecrated to the sun, and called the Colossus. This statue was seventy cubits high, and bestrode the mouth of the harbour, so that ships could sail between its legs, and it was accounted one of the seven wonders of the world. St. Paul, on his way to Jerusalem, A. D. 58, went from Miletus to Coos, from Coos to Rhodes, and from thence to Patara, in Lycia, Acts xxi, 1.

RIGHTEOUSNESS, justice, holiness. The righteousness of God is the essential perfection of his nature; sometimes it is put for his justice. The righteousness of Christ denotes, not only his absolute perfection, but, is taken for his perfect obedience unto death, and his suffering the penalty of the law in our stead. The righteousness of the law is that obedience which the law requires. The righteousness of faith is the justification which is received by faith.

RIMMON. See Naaman.

RINGS. The antiquity of rings appears from Scripture and from profane authors. Judah left his ring with Tamar, Gen. xxxviii, 18. When Pharaoh committed the government of Egypt to Joseph, he took his ring from his finger and gave it to Joseph, Gen. xli, 42. After the victory of the Israelites over the Midianites, they offered to the Lord the rings, the bracelets, and the golden necklaces, taken from the enemy, Num. xxxi, 50. The Israelitish women wore rings, not only on their fingers, but also in their nostrils and their ears. St. James distinguishes a man of wealth and dignity by the ring of gold on his finger, James ii, 2. At the return of the prodigal son, his father orders him to be dressed in a new suit of clothes, and to have a ring put on his finger, Luke xv, 22. When God threatened Jeconiah with the utmost effects of his anger, he tells him, that though he were the signet or ring on his finger, yet he should be torn off, Jer. xxii, 24. The ring was used chiefly to seal with, and Scripture generally assigns it to princes and great persons; as the king of Egypt, Joseph, Ahaz, Jezebel, King Ahasuerus, his favourite Haman, Mordecai, King Darius, 1 Kings xxi, 8; Esther iii, 10, &c; Dan. vi, 17. The patents and orders of these princes were sealed with their rings or signets, an impression from which was their confirmation. The ring was one mark of sovereign authority. Pharaoh gave his ring to Joseph, as a token of authority. When Alexander the Great gave his ring to Perdiccas, this was understood as nominating him his successor.

RIVER. The Hebrews give the name of “the river,” without any addition, sometimes to the Nile, sometimes to the Euphrates, and sometimes to Jordan. It is the tenor of the discourse that must determine the sense of this vague and uncertain way of speaking. They give also the name of river to brooks and rivulets that are not considerable. The name of river is sometimes given to the sea, Hab. iii, 8; Psalm lxxviii, 16. It is also used as a symbol for plenty, Job xxix, 6; Psalm xxxvi, 8.

ROCK. Palestine, being a mountainous country, had also many rocks, which formed a part of the country’s defence; for in time of danger the people retired to them, and found a refuge against any sudden irruption of the enemy. The Benjamites took shelter in the rock Rimmon, Judges xx, 47. Samson kept garrison in the rock of Etham, Judges xv, 8. David found shelter in the rocks of Maon, Engedi, &c, 1 Sam. xxii, 1; xxiii, 25, 28; xxiv, 2–5. Jerom says that the southern parts of Judea were full of caves under ground, and of caverns in the mountains, to which the people retired in time of danger. The Kenites dwelt in the hollow places of the rocks, Num. xxiv, 21. Even at this day the villages of this country are subterraneous, or in the rocks. Josephus in several places speaks of hollow rocks, where thieves and robbers had their haunts; and travellers still find a great number of them in Palestine, and in the adjoining provinces. Toward Lebanon, the mountains are high, but covered in many places with as much earth as fits them for cultivation. Among the crags of the rocks, the beautiful and far-famed cedar waves its lofty top, and extends its powerful arms, surrounded by the fir and the oak, the fig and the vine. On the road to Jerusalem, the mountains are not so lofty nor so rugged, but become fitter for tillage. They rise again to the south-east of Mount Carmel; are covered with woods, and afford very picturesque views; but advancing toward Judea, they lose their verdure, the valleys become narrow, dry, and stony, and terminate at the Dead Sea in a pile of desolate rocks, precipices, and caverns. These vast excavations, some of which will contain fifteen hundred men, are the grottoes of Engedi, which have been a refuge to the oppressed or the discontented in all ages. Westward of Jordan and the lake Asphaltites, another chain of rocks, still loftier and more rugged, presents a yet more gloomy aspect, and announces the distant entrance of the desert, and the termination of the habitable regions.

The name of rock is also given to God, by way of metaphor, because God is the strength, the refuge, and defence of Israel, as those places were to the people who resided among them, Psalm xviii, 2, 31; xxxi, 2, 3; Deut. xxxii, 15, 18, 30, 31; Psalm lxi, 2, &c.

ROD. This word is used sometimes for the branches of a tree: “And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree,” Gen. xxx, 37; sometimes for a staff or wand: “And thou shalt take this rod in thine hand, wherewith thou shalt do signs. 824And Moses took the rod of God in his hand,” Exod. iv, 17, 20; or for a shepherd’s crook: “And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod; the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord,” Lev. xxvii, 32; or for a rod, properly so called, which God makes use of to correct men: “If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men,” 2 Sam. vii, 14. “Let him take his rod away from me,” Job ix, 34. The empire of the Messiah is sometimes represented by a rod of iron, to show its power and its might, Psalm ii, 9; Rev. ii, 27; xii, 5; xix, 15. Rod is sometimes put to signify a tribe or a people: “Remember thy congregation which thou hast purchased of old, the rod of thine inheritance which thou hast redeemed,” Psalm lxxiv, 2. “Israel is the rod of his inheritance,” Jer. x, 16. The rod of Aaron is the staff commonly used by the high priest. This is the rod that budded and blossomed like an almond tree, Num. xvii. See Aaron.

ROMAN CATHOLICS, or members of the church of Rome, otherwise called papists, from the pope being considered by them as the supreme head of the universal church, the successor of St. Peter, and the fountain of theological truth and ecclesiastical honours. He keeps his court in great state at the palace of the Vatican, and is attended by seventy cardinals as his privy counsellors, in imitation of the seventy disciples of our Lord. The pope’s authority in other kingdoms is merely spiritual, but in Italy he is a temporal sovereign, Louis XVIII. and the allies having, in 1814, restored him to his throne, and to those temporalities of which he was deprived by Buonaparte and the French revolution. On resuming his government, Pope Pius VII. soon restored the order of Jesuits and the inquisition; so that the Roman Catholic religion is now reinstated in its ancient splendour and authority. The principal dogmas of this religion are as follows: 1. That St. Peter was deputed by Christ to be his vicar, and the head of the catholic church; and that the bishops of Rome, being his successors, have the same apostolical authority; for our Saviour declares, in Matt. xvi, 18, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church;” by which rock they understand St. Peter himself, as the name signifies, and not his confession, as the Protestants explain it. And a succession in the church being now supposed necessary under the New Testament, as Aaron had his succession under the old dispensation, which was a figure of the new, this succession can now, they contend, be shown only in the chair of St. Peter at Rome, where it is asserted he presided twenty-five years previous to his death; therefore, the bishops of Rome are his true successors. 2. That the Roman Catholic church is the mother and mistress of all churches, and cannot possibly err in matters of faith; for the church has the promise of the Spirit of God to lead it into all truth, John xvi, 13; “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” Matt. xvi, 18. Christ also, who is himself the truth, has promised to the pastors and teachers of the church to be with them “always, even to the end of the world,” Matt. xxviii, 20. “It is from the testimony and authority of the church, therefore,” say they, “that we receive the Scriptures as the word of God.” 3. That the Scriptures thus received on the authority of the church are not sufficient to our faith without apostolical traditions, which are of equal authority with the Scriptures; for St. Peter assures us, that in St. Paul’s epistles there “are some things hard to be understood, which they who are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction,” 2 Peter iii, 16. We are directed by St. Paul to “stand fast, and hold the traditions which we have been taught, whether by word or by epistle,” 2 Thess. ii, 15. 4. That seven sacraments were instituted by Jesus Christ, namely, baptism, confirmation, eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony; and that they confer grace. To prove that confirmation, or imposition of hands, is a sacrament, they quote Acts viii, 17: “They,” the Apostles, “laid their hands on them,” believers, “and they received the Holy Ghost.” Penance is a sacrament in which the sins we commit after baptism, duly repented of, and confessed to a priest, are forgiven; and which they think was instituted by Christ himself when he breathed upon his Apostles after his resurrection, and said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose sins ye remit, are remitted; and whose sins ye retain, are retained,” John xx, 23. In favour of extreme unction, or anointing the sick with oil, they argue from James i, 14, 15, which is thus rendered in the Vulgate: “Is any sick among you Let him call for the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil,” &c. The sacrament of holy orders is inferred from 1 Tim. iv, 14: “Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on the hands of the presbytery,” or priesthood, as they render it. That marriage is a sacrament, they think evident from Ephes. v, 32: “This is a great mystery,” representing the mystical union of Christ and his church. “Matrimony,” say they, “is here the sign of a holy thing, and therefore it is a sacrament.” Notwithstanding this, they enjoin celibacy upon the clergy, because they do not think it proper that those who, by their office and function, ought to be wholly devoted to God, should be diverted from those duties by the distractions of a married life, 1 Cor. vii, 32, 33. 5. That in the mass, or public service, there is offered unto God a true and propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and dead; and that in the sacrament of the eucharist, under the forms of bread and wine, are really and substantially present the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is a conversion made of the whole substance of the bread into his body, and of the wine into his blood, which is called transubstantiation; according to our Lord’s words to 825his disciples, “This is my body,” &c, Matt. xxvi, 26; wherefore it becomes with them an object of adoration. Farther: it is a matter of discipline, not of doctrine, in the Roman church, that the laity receive the eucharist in one kind, that is, in bread only. This sacrifice of the mass was, they think, predicted by the Prophet Malachi, i, 11, who says, “In every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering.” 6. That there is a purgatory; and that souls kept prisoners there do receive help by the suffrages of the faithful. For it is said, in 1 Cor. iii, 15, “If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire;” which they understand of the flames of purgatory. They also believe that souls are released from purgatory by the prayers and alms which are offered for them, principally by the holy sacrifice of the mass. They call purgatory a middle state of souls, into which those enter who depart this life in God’s grace; yet not without some less stains of guilt, which retard them from entering heaven, where nothing unclean can enter. 7. That the saints reigning with Christ (and especially the blessed virgin) are to be honoured and invoked; that they offer prayers unto God for us; and that their relics are to be had in veneration. These honours, however, are not divine, but relative, and redound to the divine glory, Rev. v, 8; viii, 4, &c. 8. That the image of Christ, of the blessed virgin, the mother of God, and of other saints, ought to be retained in churches, and honour and veneration ought to be given unto them. And as the images of cherubims were allowed in the temples, so images should be placed in churches, and had in veneration. 9. That the power of indulgences was left by Christ to the church, and that the use of them is very beneficial to Christian people; according to Matt. xvi, 19: “I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” By indulgences they do not mean leave to commit sin, nor pardon for sins to come; but only releasing, by the power of the keys committed to the church, the debt of temporal punishment which may remain due upon account of our sins, after the sins themselves, as to their guilt and eternal punishment, have been already remitted through repentance and confession, and by virtue of the merit of Christ, and of all the saints. By their indulgences they assert that they apply to their souls the merits of Christ, and of the saints and martyrs through him.

The ceremonies of this church are numerous and splendid, as, 1. They make use of the sign of the cross in all their sacraments, to give us to understand, that they have their whole force and efficacy from the cross. 2. Sprinkling of the holy water by the priest on solemn days is used likewise by every one going in or coming out of church. 3. The ceremony of blessing bells is, by the Catholics, called christening them; because the name of some saint is ascribed to them, by virtue of whose invocation they are presented, in order that they may obtain his favour and protection. 4. They always bow at the name of Jesus, (which is also done as regularly in the church of England,) and they found the practice on Phil. ii, 10: “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow.” 5. They keep a number of lamps and wax candles continually burning before the shrines and images of the saints. 6. They make use of incense, and have lighted candles upon the altar at the celebration of the mass. 7. The practice of washing the poor’s feet, in imitation of our Lord’s washing the feet of his disciples, is solemnized on Holy Thursday by all the princes of the Romish religion in Europe. The church of Rome also professes to keep the fast of Lent with great strictness, and observes a much greater number both of feasts and festivals than the church of England.

The church of Rome assumes the title of Catholic, or universal, as answering to that article in the Apostles’ Creed, “I believe in the holy Catholic church.” The above is perhaps a sufficient account of the Roman Catholic faith; but as the creed of Pope Pius IV. is universally admitted to be the true standard of that faith, it would be decidedly wrong to conclude without inserting it. Mr. Butler says it contains a succinct and explicit summary of the canons of the council of Trent, and was published in the form of a papal bull, in 1564. He adds, “It is received throughout the whole Roman Catholic church; every one who is admitted into that church, publicly reads and professes his assent to it.” This document commences with reciting the Nicene Creed, which, as it is admitted by the Protestant church of England, and inserted in the Common Prayer Book, need not be here repeated. It then proceeds with the twelve following articles, in addition to those of the Apostles’ Creed, which they also reckon twelve: “13. I most firmly admit and embrace apostolical and ecclesiastical traditions, and all other constitutions and observances of the same church. I also admit the sacred Scriptures according to the sense which the holy mother church has held, and does hold, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; nor will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the fathers. 14. I profess also that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the new law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and for the salvation of mankind, (though all are not necessary for every one,) namely, baptism, confirmation, eucharist, penance, extreme unction, order, and matrimony; and that they confer grace; and of these, baptism, confirmation, and order cannot be reiterated without sacrilege. 15. I also receive and admit the ceremonies of the Catholic church, received and approved in the solemn administration of all the above said sacraments. 16. I receive and embrace all and every one of the things which have been defined and declared in the holy council of Trent, concerning original sin and justification. 17. I profess, likewise, that in the mass, is offered 826to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that in the most holy sacrament of the eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, which conversion the Catholic church calls transubstantiation. 18. I confess, also, that under either kind alone, Christ whole and entire, and a true sacrament, is received. 19. I constantly hold that there is a purgatory, and that the souls detained therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful. 20. Likewise, that the saints reigning together with Christ are to be honoured and invocated; that they offer prayers to God for us, and that their relics are to be venerated. 21. I most firmly assert, that the images of Christ, and of the mother of Christ, ever a virgin, and also of the other saints, are to be had and retained, and that due honour and veneration are to be given to them. 22. I also affirm, that the power of indulgences was left by Christ in the church, and that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian people. 23. I acknowledge the holy Catholic and apostolic Roman church, the mother and mistress of all churches; and I promise and swear true obedience to the bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter, prince of the Apostles, and vicar of Jesus Christ. 24. I also profess, and undoubtedly receive, all other things, delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred canons and general councils, and particularly by the holy council of Trent; and likewise, I also condemn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto; and all heresies whatsoever, condemned and anathematized by the church. This true catholic faith, out of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess, and truly hold, I, N., promise, vow, and swear most constantly to hold and profess the same, whole and entire, with God’s assistance, to the end of my life. Amen.”

Such is the avowed and accredited faith of the church of Rome; but it seems a most extraordinary circumstance, that, while this church has so enlarged the creed, it has reduced the number of the commandments, omitting altogether the second, “Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image,” &c, Exod. xx, 3–6; as if the Catholics were conscious it could by no means be reconciled with the twenty-first article of the above recited creed. And then, to prevent alarm, as every body must know there should be ten commandments, the last is divided into two, to make up the number. This is said to have been done, even before the Reformation. It was done in the French National Catechism, published in 1806, and sanctioned by Pope Pius VII., by the archbishop of Paris, and by the Emperor Napoleon. It is remarkable, also, that in Dr. Chalenor’s “Garden of the Soul,” printed in London by Coglan, in 1787, in a form of self-examination for the penitent upon each commandment, there is no reference to the one omitted; nor is there any reference to it in Bossuet’s famous “Exposition of the Doctrines of the Catholic Church,” when treating upon images, and the manner in which they are directed to be honoured. Lastly, in Butler’s Catechism, the eighth edition, printed at Dublin in 1811, and sanctioned by four Roman Catholic archbishops, the commandments stand literally as follows: “1. I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt have no strange gods before me. 2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. 3. Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day. 4. Honour thy father and thy mother. 5. Thou shalt not kill. 6. Thou shalt not commit adultery. 7. Thou shalt not steal. 8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. 9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife. 10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s goods.” Here it may be added, that by omitting the second command, the others are numbered differently from what they are by us. Thus, the third is brought in for the second, the fourth is made the third, &c, till they come to the last which is divided in two, for the purpose above mentioned. The gross and antiscriptural errors, leading to superstition, idolatry, and many other evils, which are contained in the peculiarities of the papistical faith, are abundantly pointed out and refuted by the leading Protestant writers.

ROMANS, Epistle to the. This epistle was written from Corinth, A. D. 58, being the fourth year of the Emperor Nero, just before St. Paul set out for Jerusalem with the contributions which the Christians of Macedonia and Achaia had made for the relief of their poor brethren in Judea, Acts xx, 1; Rom. xv, 25, 26. It was transcribed or written as St. Paul dictated it, by Tertius; and the person who conveyed it to Rome was Phœbe, a deaconess of the church of Cenchrea, which was the eastern port of the city of Corinth, Rom. xvi, 1, 22. It is addressed to the church at Rome, which consisted partly of Jewish and partly of Heathen converts; and throughout the epistle it is evident that the Apostle has regard to both these descriptions of Christians. St. Paul, when he wrote this epistle had not been at Rome, Rom. i, 13; xv, 23; but he had heard an account of the state of the church in that city from Aquila and Priscilla, two Christians who were banished from thence by the edict of Claudius, and with whom he lived during his first visit to Corinth. Whether any other Apostle had at this time preached the Gospel at Rome, cannot now be ascertained. Among those who witnessed the effect of the first effusion of the Holy Ghost are mentioned “strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,” Acts ii, 10; that is, persons of the Jewish religion, who usually resided at Rome, but who had come to Jerusalem to be present at the feast of pentecost. It is highly probable that these men, upon their return home, proclaimed the Gospel of Christ; and we may farther suppose that many Christians who had been converted at other places afterward 827settled at Rome, and were the cause of others embracing the Gospel. But, by whatever means Christianity had been introduced into Rome, it seems to have flourished there in great purity; for we learn from the beginning of this epistle that the faith of the Roman Christians was at this time much celebrated, Rom. i, 8. To confirm them in that faith, and to guard them against the errors of Judaizing Christians, was the object of this letter, in which St. Paul takes occasion to enlarge upon the nature of the Mosaic institution; to explain the fundamental principles and doctrines of Christianity; and to show that the whole human race, formerly divided into Jews and Gentiles, were now to be admitted into the religion of Jesus, indiscriminately, and free from every other obligation. The Apostle, after expressing his affection to the Roman Christians, and asserting that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to all who believe, takes a comprehensive view of the conduct and condition of men under the different dispensations of Providence; he shows that all mankind, both Jews and Gentiles, were equally “under sin,” and liable to the wrath and punishment of God; that therefore there was a necessity for a universal propitiation and redemption, which were now offered to the whole race of men, without any preference or exception, by the mercy of him who is the God of the Gentiles as well as of the Jews; that faith in Jesus Christ, the universal Redeemer, was the only means of obtaining this salvation, which the deeds of the law were wholly incompetent to procure; that as the sins of the whole world originated from the disobedience of Adam, so the justification from those sins was to be derived from the obedience of Christ; that all distinction between Jew and Gentile was now abolished, and the ceremonial law entirely abrogated; that the unbelieving Jews would be excluded from the benefits of the Gospel, while the believing Gentiles would be partakers of them; and that this rejection of the Jews, and call of the Gentiles, were predicted by the Jewish Prophets Hosea and Isaiah. He then points out the superiority of the Christian over the Jewish religion, and earnestly exhorts the Romans to abandon every species of wickedness, and to practise the duties of righteousness and holiness, which were now enjoined upon higher sanctions, and enforced by more powerful motives. In the latter part of the epistle, St. Paul gives some practical instructions, and recommends some particular virtues; and he concludes with a salutation and a doxology. This epistle is most valuable, on account of the arguments and truths which it contains, relative to the necessity, nature, and universality of the Gospel dispensation.

ROOFS. The letting down of the paralytic through the roof of the house where Jesus was, is satisfactorily explained by the following extract from Shaw’s Travels: “The houses throughout the east are low, having generally a ground floor only, or one upper story, and flat-roofed, the roof being covered with a strong coat of plaster of terrace. They are built round a paved court, into which the entrance from the street is through a gateway or passage room furnished with benches, and sufficiently large to be used for receiving visits or transacting business. The stairs which lead to the roof are never placed on the outside of the house in the street, but usually in the gateway, or passage room to the court, sometimes at the entrance within the court. This court is now called, in Arabic, el woost, or ‘the middle of the house,’ literally answering to t µs of St. Luke, v, 19. It is customary to fix cords from the parapet walls, Deut. xxii, 8, of the flat roofs across this court, and upon them to expand a veil or covering, as a shelter from the heat. In this area, probably, our Saviour taught. The paralytic was brought on to the roof by making a way through the crowd to the stairs in the gateway, or by the terraces of the adjoining houses. They rolled back the veil, and let the sick man down over the parapet of the roof into the area or court of the house, before Jesus.” The windows of the eastern houses being chiefly within, facing the court, in order to see what was going on without in the streets of the city, the only way was to run up to the flat roof. Hence the frequent expression in Scripture, when allusion is made to sudden tumults and calamities, to get up to “the house top.” See Houses.

ROSE, , Cant., ii, 1; Isaiah xxxv, 1. The rose, so much and so often sung by the poets of Persia, Arabia, Greece, and Rome, is, indeed, the pride of the garden for elegance of form, for glow of colour, and fragrance of smell. Tournefort mentions fifty-three kinds, of which the Damascus rose, and the rose of Sharon, are the finest. The beauty of these flowers is too well known to be insisted on; and they are at this day much admired in the east, where they are extremely fragrant. In what esteem the rose was among the Greeks, may be learned from the fifth and fifty-third odes of Anacreon. Among the ancients it occupied a conspicuous place in every chaplet; it was a principal ornament in every festive meeting, and at every solemn sacrifice; and the comparisons in Ecclesiasticus xxiv, 14, and l, 8, show that the Jews were likewise much delighted with it. The rose bud, or opening rose, seems in particular a favourite ornament. The Jewish sensualists, in Wisdom ii, 8, are introduced saying, “Let us fill ourselves with costly wine and ointments; and let no flower of the spring pass by us. Let us crown ourselves with rose buds before they are withered.”

ROSH. The Hebrew speaks of a people called Rosh, Ezek. xxxviii, 2, 3. “The orientals hold,”hold,” says D’Herbelot, “that Japheth had a son called Rous, not mentioned by Moses, who peopled Russia, that is, Muscovy.” We question not but Rosh, or Ros, signifies Russia, or the people that dwell on the Araxes, called Rosch by the inhabitants; which was the habitation of the Scythians. It deserves notice, that the LXX. render the passage in Ezekiel, G, ta , es, a Tß, Gog, 828the chief of Ros, Mesoch, and Thobel; and Jerom, not absolutely to reject this name, inserts both renderings: Gog, terram Magog, principem capitis (sive Ros) Mosoch, et Thubal. Symmachus and Theodotion also perceived Ros to be in this place the name of a people; and this is now the prevailing judgment of interpreters. Bochart, about A. D. 1640, contended that Russia was the nation meant by the term Ros; and this opinion is supported by the testimony of various Greek writers, who describe “the Ros as a Scythian nation, bordering on the northern Taurus.” Mosok, or Mesech, appears to be the same as the Moskwa, or Moscow, of the moderns; and we know, that not only is this the name of the city, but also of the river on which it stands. See Gog.

RUBY, a beautiful gem, whose colour is red, with an admixture of purple, and is, in its most perfect state, a gem of extreme value. In hardness it is equal to the sapphire, and second only to the diamond. It is mentioned in Job xxviii, 18, and Prov. viii, 11, &c.

RUE, a, Luke xi, 42, a small shrubby plant, common in gardens. It has a strong, unpleasant smell, and a bitterish, penetrating taste.

RUSH, , Exodus ii, 3; Job viii, 11; Isaiah xviii, 2; xxxv, 7; a plant growing in the water at the sides of rivers, and in marshy grounds.

RUSSIAN CHURCH. The Russians, like other nations, were originally Pagans, and worshipped fire, which they considered as the cause of thunder, under the name of Perun, and the earth under the name Volata; at the same time having some notions of a future state of rewards and punishments. Christianity was first professed by the Princess Olga, who was baptized at Constantinople. She recommended it to her grandson Vladimir, on whose baptism, in 988, it was adopted by the nation generally; and from that time the Greek church has been the established religion throughout Russia, and Greek literature greatly encouraged. During the middle ages, however, the doctrine of transubstantiation, and some other popish peculiarities, were covertly introduced; and, by the irruption of the Mongol Tartars, in the fifteenth century, a stop was put to learning and civilization for full two centuries; but, on the accession of the present dynasty in 1613, civilization and Christianity were restored, and schools established for the education of the clergy. The Russian clergy are divided into regular and secular; the former are all monks, and the latter are the parochial clergy. The superior clergy are called archires; but the title of metropolitan, or bishop, is personal, and not properly attached to the see, as in the western church. Next after the archires rank the black clergy, including the chiefs of monasteries and convents, and after them the monks. The secular priests are called the white clergy, including the protoires, or proto-popes, priests, and deacons, together with the readers and sacristans. These amounted, in 1805, throughout the empire, to ninety-eight thousand seven hundred and twenty-six. The white clergy must be married before they can be ordained, but must not marry a second time; they are at liberty then to enter among the black clergy, and a way is thus opened for their accession to the higher orders. The whole empire is divided into thirty-six diocesses, or eparchies, in which are four hundred and eighty-three cathedrals, and twenty-six thousand, five hundred and ninety-eight churches. The churches are divided into three parts. 1. The altar, where stands the holy table, crucifix, &c, which is separated from the body of the church by a large screen, on which are painted our Saviour, the virgin, the Apostles, and other saints. Upon a platform before this are placed the readers and singers, and here the preacher generally stands behind a movable desk. 2. The nave, or body of the church, which may be called the inner court. 3. The trapeza, or outer court. The two last are designed for the congregation, but neither have any seats. The walls of the church are highly embellished with Scripture paintings, ornamented with gold, silver, and precious stones, but no images.

The church service is contained in twenty-four volumes, folio, in the Slavonian language, which is not well understood by the common people. Parts of the Scriptures are read in the service; but few, even of the ecclesiastics, possess a complete Bible. The patriarch of Russia was formerly almost equal in authority with the czar himself; but Peter the Great, on the death of the patriarch in 1700, abolished his office, and appointed an exarch. In 1721 he abolished this office also, and appointed a “holy legislative synod” for the government of the church, at the head of which is always placed a layman of rank and eminence. The monastic life was once so prevalent in this country, that there were four hundred and seventy-nine convents for men, and seventy-four for women, in which there were about seventy thousand monks and nuns, &c; but this kind of life was so much discouraged by Peter the Great and the Empress Catherine, that the religious are now reduced to about five thousand monks and seventeen hundred nuns. Great part of their revenues has also been alienated, and appropriated to the support of hospitals and houses for the poor.

RUTH. The book of Ruth is so called from the name of the person, a native of Moab, whose history it contains. It may be considered as a supplement to the book of Judges, to which it was joined in the Hebrew canon, and the latter part of which it greatly resembles, being a detached story belonging to the same period. Ruth had a son called Obed, who was the grandfather of David, which circumstance probably occasioned her history to be written, as the genealogy of David, from Pharez, the son of Judah, from whom the Messiah was to spring, is here given; and some commentators have thought, that the descent of our Saviour from Ruth, a Gentile woman, was an intimation of the comprehensive nature of the Christian dispensation. We are no where informed 829when Ruth lived; but as King David was her great-grandson, we may place her history about B. C. 1250. This book was certainly written after the birth of David, and probably by the Prophet Samuel, though some have attributed it to Hezekiah, and others to Ezra. The story related in this book is extremely interesting; the widowed distress of Naomi, her affectionate concern for her daughters, the reluctant departure of Orpah, the dutiful attachment of Ruth, and the sorrowful return to Bethlehem, are very beautifully told. The simplicity of manners, likewise, which is shown in Ruth’s industry and attention to Naomi; the elegant charity of Boaz; and his acknowledgment of his kindred with Ruth, afford a pleasing contrast to the turbulent scenes described in the book of the Judges. The respect, likewise, which the Israelites paid to the law of Moses, and their observance of ancient customs, are represented in a very lively and animated manner, Ruth iv. It is a pleasing digression from the general thread of the sacred history.

SABAOTH, or rather Zabaoth, a Hebrew word, signifying hosts or armies, , Jehovah Sabaoth, The Lord of Hosts. By this phrase we may understand the host of heaven, or the angels and ministers of the Lord; or the stars and planets, which, as an army ranged in battle array, perform the will of God; or, lastly, the people of the Lord, both of the old and new covenant, which is truly a great army, of which God is the Lord and commander.