ADVERTISEMENT TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. (continued 53)

Psalmody was always esteemed a considerable part of devotion, and upon that account was usually performed in the standing posture. As to the voice or pronunciation, used in singing, it was of two sorts, the plain song, and the more artificial; the plain song was only a gentle inflexion, or turn of the voice, not very different from the chanting in our cathedrals; the artificial song seems to have been a regular musical composition, like our anthems. It was no objection against the psalmody of the church, that she sometimes made use of psalms and hymns of human composition, beside those of the inspired writers. St. Augustine himself made a psalm of many parts, in imitation of the hundred and nineteenth, to preserve his people from the errors of the Donatists. St. Hilary and St. Ambrose likewise made many hymns, which were sung in their respective churches. But two corruptions crept into the psalmody, which the fathers declaim against with great zeal. The first was, the introducing secular music, or an imitation of the light airs of the theatre, in the devotions of the church. The other was, the regarding more the sweetness of the composition than the sense and meaning; thereby pleasing the ear, without raising the affections of the soul.

The use of musical instruments in singing of psalms, seems to be as ancient as psalmody itself. The first psalm we read of was sung to a timbrel, namely, that which Moses and Miriam sung after the deliverance of the children of Israel from Egypt; and afterward, at Jerusalem, when the temple was built, musical instruments were constantly used at their public services. And this has been the common practice in all ages of the church. When the use of organs was first introduced, is not certainly known; but we find, that about A. D. 660, Constantine Copronymus, emperor of Constantinople, sent a present of an organ to King Pepin of France.

798Clement Marot, groom of the bed chamber to Francis I., king of France, was the first who engaged in translating the Psalms into metre. He versified the first fifty at the instigation of Vatablus, Hebrew professor at Paris; and afterward, upon his return to Geneva, he made an acquaintance with Beza, who versified the rest, and had tunes set to them; and thus they began to be sung in private houses, and afterward were brought into the churches of the French and other countries. In imitation of this version, Sternhold, one of the grooms of the privy chamber to our King Edward VI., undertook a translation of the Psalms into metre. He went through but thirty-seven of them, the rest being soon after finished by Hopkins and others. This translation was at first discountenanced by many of the clergy, who looked upon it as done in opposition to the practice of chanting the Psalms in the cathedrals.

Early in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, metrical psalmody was introduced into this country. The new morning prayer began at St. Antholin’s, London, when a psalm was sung in the Geneva fashion, all the congregation, men, women, and boys singing together. Bishop Jewel says, that “the singing of psalms, begun in one church in London, did quickly spread itself, not only through the city, but in the neighbouring places; sometimes at Paul’s Cross six thousand people singing together.”

A curious controversy on this subject arose among the Dissenters in the end of the seventeenth century. Whether singing in public worship had been partially discontinued during the times of persecution to avoid informers, or whether the miserable manner in which it was performed gave persons a distaste to it, so it appears, that in 1691, Mr. Benjamin Keach published a tract entitled, “The Breach Repaired in God’s Worship: or, Psalms, Hymns, &c, proved to be a Holy Ordinance of Jesus Christ.” To us it may appear strange that such a point should be disputed; but Mr. Keach was obliged to labour earnestly, and with a great deal of prudence and caution, to obtain the consent of his people to sing a hymn at the conclusion of the Lord’s Supper. After six years more, they agreed to sing on the thanksgiving days; but it required still fourteen years more before he could persuade them to sing every Lord’s day; and then it was only after the last prayer, that those who chose it might withdraw without joining in it! Nor did even this satisfy these scrupulous consciences; for, after all, a separation took place, and the inharmonious seceders formed a new church in May’s Pond, where it was above twenty years longer before singing the praises of God could be endured. It is difficult at this period to believe it; but Mr. Ivimey quotes Mr. Crosby, as saying, that Mr. Keach’s was the first church in which psalm singing was introduced. This remark, however, must probably be confined to the Baptist churches. The Presbyterians, it seems, were not quite so unmusical; for the Directory of the Westminster divines distinctly stated, that “it is the duty of Christians to praise God publicly by singing of Psalms together in the congregation.” And beside the old Scotch Psalms, Dr. John Patrick, of the Charter house, made a version which was in very general use among Dissenters, Presbyterians, and Independents, before it was superseded by the far superior compositions of Dr. Watts. These Psalms, however, like those of the English and Scotch establishment, were drawled out in notes of equal length, without accent or variety. Even the introduction of the triple-time tunes, probably about the time of Dr. Watts’s psalms, gave also great offence to some people, because it marked the accent of the measure. Old Mr. Thomas Bradbury used to call this time “a long leg and a short one.” The beautiful compositions of Dr. Watts, Mr. C. Wesley, and others, have produced a considerable revolution in modern psalmody. Better versions of the Psalms, and many excellent collections of hymns, are now in use, and may be considered as highly important gifts bestowed upon the modern church of God.

PSALTERY. See Music.

PTOLEMAIS. See Accho.

PUBLICAN, a collector or receiver of the Roman revenues. Judea being added to the provinces of the Roman empire, and the taxes paid by the Jews directly to the emperor, the publicans were the officers appointed to collect them. The ordinary taxes which the Romans levied in the provinces were of three sorts: 1. Customs upon goods imported and exported; which tribute was therefore called portorium, from portus, “a haven.” 2. A tax upon cattle fed in certain pastures belonging to the Roman state, the number of which being kept in writing, this tribute was called scriptura. 3. A tax upon corn, of which the government demanded a tenth part. This tribute was called decuma. These publicans are distinguished by Sigonius into three sorts or degrees,--the farmers of the revenue, their partners, and their securities; in which he follows Polybius. These are called the mancipes, socii, and prædes, who were all under the quæstore særarii, that presided over the finances at Rome. The mancipes farmed the revenue of large districts or provinces, had the oversight of the inferior publicans, received their accounts and collections, and transmitted them to the quæstores ærarii. They often let out their provinces in smaller parcels to the socii; so called, because they were admitted to a share in the contract, perhaps for the sake of more easily raising the purchase money; at least to assist in collecting the tribute. Both the mancipes and socii are therefore properly styled τελῶναι, from τελος, tributum, and ὠνέομαι, emo. They were obliged to procure prædes, or sureties, who gave security to the government for the fulfilment of the contract. The distribution of Sigonius, therefore, or rather of Polybius, is not quite exact, since there were properly but two sorts of publicans, the mancipes and the socii. The former are, probably, those whom the Greeks call ἀρχιτελώναι, chiefs of the publicans; of which sort was Zaccheus. As they were superior to the common publicans in dignity, being mostly 799of the equestrian order, so they were generally in their moral character. But as for the common publicans, the collectors or receivers, as many of the socii were, they are spoken of with great contempt, by Heathens as well as Jews; and particularly by Theocritus, who said, that “among the beasts of the wilderness, bears and lions are the most cruel; among the beasts of the city, the publican and parasite.” The reason of the general hatred to them was, doubtless, their rapine and extortion. For, having a share in the farm of the tribute, at a certain rate, they were apt to oppress the people with illegal exactions, to raise as large a fortune as they could for themselves. Beside, publicans were particularly odious to the Jews, who looked upon them to be the instruments of their subjection to the Roman emperors, to which they generally held it sinful for them to submit. They considered it as incompatible with their liberty to pay tribute to any foreign power, Luke xx, 22, &c; and those of their own nation that engaged in this employment they regarded as Heathens, Matthew xviii, 17. It is even said, that they would not allow them to enter into their temple or synagogues, nor to join in prayers, nor even allow their evidence in a court of justice on any trial; nor would they accept of their offerings in the temple.

It appears by the Gospel that there were many publicans in Judea at the time of our Saviour. Zaccheus, probably, was one of the principal receivers, since he is called the chief of the publicans, Luke xix, 2; but St. Matthew was only an inferior publican. The Jews reproached our Saviour for showing kindness to these persons, Luke vii, 34; and he himself ranks them with harlots, Matt. xxi, 31. Some of them, it should seem, had humbling views of themselves, Luke xviii, 10. Zaccheus assures our Lord, who had honoured him with a visit, that he was ready to give the half of his goods to the poor, Luke xix, 8, and to return fourfold of whatever he had unjustly acquired.

PUBLIUS, the governor of Melita, Acts xxviii, 7–9. When St. Paul was shipwrecked on this island, Publius received him and his company into his house very kindly, and treated them for three days with great humanity.

PUL, king of Assyria. He came into the land of Israel in the time of Manahem, king of the ten tribes, 2 Kings xv, 19, &c, and invaded the kingdom on the other side of Jordan. But Manahem, by a present of one thousand talents of silver, prevailed on the king of Assyria, not only to withdraw his forces, but to recognize his title to the crown of Israel before he left the kingdom. This is the first time that we find any mention made of the kingdom of Assyria since the days of Nimrod; and Pul is the first monarch of that nation who invaded Israel, and began their transportation out of their own country.

PULSE, קלי, Lev. xxiii, 14; 1 Sam. xvii, 17; 2 Sam. xvii, 28; a term applied to those grains or seeds which grow in pods, as beans, peas, vetches, &c, from פול, a bean. The Vulgate renders this kali in 2 Sam. xvii, 28, frixum cicer, “parched peas.” In Daniel i, 12, 16, the word זרעים, rendered pulse, may signify seeds in general.

PUNISHMENTS OF THE HEBREWS. There were several sorts of punishments in use among the Jews which are mentioned in the Scripture. 1. The punishment of the cross. (See Cross.) 2. Suspension, Esther vii, 10; Joshua viii, 29; 2 Samuel xxi, 12. 3. Stoning. 4. Fire. This punishment was common, Gen. xxxviii, 24; Leviticus xxi, 9. 5. The rack or tympanum, mentioned Heb. xi, 35. Commentators are much divided about the meaning of this punishment; but most of them are of opinion that the bastinado, or the punishment of the stick, is intended, and that the Apostle alludes to the cruelties exercised upon old Eleazar; for, in 2 Mac. vi, 19, where his martyrdom is spoken of, it is said that he came to the tympanum. 6. The precipice, or throwing persons headlong from a rock, with a stone tied about the neck, 2 Chron. xxv, 12. 7. Decapitation, Gen. xl, 19; Judges ix, 5; 2 Kings x, 7; Matt. xiv, 8. 8. The punishment of the saw, or to be cut asunder in the middle, Heb. xi, 37. This punishment was not unknown to the Hebrews. Some think it was originally from the Persians or Chaldeans. 9. Plucking out the eyes, Exod. xxi, 24. Some think this punishment was seldom executed, but the offender was made to suffer in his property rather than in his person: yet there are some instances on record, Judges xvi, 21; 1 Sam. xi, 2; 2 Kings xxv, 7. 10. The cutting off the extremities of the feet and hands, Judges i, 5–7; 2 Sam. iv, 12.

PUR, פור, κλῆρος, signifies lot. Pur, Phur, or Purim, was a solemn feast of the Jews, instituted in memory of the lots cast by Haman, the enemy of the Jews, Esther iii, 7. These lots were cast in the first month of the year, and gave the twelfth month of the same year for the execution of Haman’s design, to destroy all the Jews in Persia. Thus the superstition of Haman, in crediting these lots, caused his own ruin, and the preservation of the Jews, who, by means of Esther, had time to avert this blow. The Jews have exactly kept this feast down to our times. See Haman, Esther, and Mordecai.

PURGATORY, a place in which, according to the church of Rome, the just, who depart out of this life, are supposed to expiate certain offences which do not merit eternal damnation. Broughton has endeavoured to prove that this notion has been held by Pagans, Jews, and Mohammedans, as well as by Christians; and that in the days of the Maccabees, the Jews believed that sin might be expiated by sacrifice after the death of the sinner. The arguments advanced for purgatory by the papists are these: Every sin, how slight soever, though no more than an idle word, as it is an offence to God, deserves punishment from him, and will be punished by him hereafter, if not cancelled by repentance here. 2. Such small sins do not deserve eternal punishment. 3. Few depart this life so pure as to be totally exempt 800from spots of this nature, and from every kind of debt due to God’s justice. 4. Therefore, few will escape without suffering something from his justice for such debts as they have carried with them out of this world, according to the rule of divine justice, by which he treats every soul hereafter according to his works, and according to the state in which he finds it in death. From these positions, which the papist considers as so many self-evident truths, he infers that there must be some third place of punishment; for since the infinite holiness of God can admit nothing into heaven that is not clean and pure from all sin, both great and small, and his infinite justice can permit none to receive the reward of bliss, who as yet are not out of debt, but have something in justice to suffer, there must, of necessity, be some place or state, where souls departing this life, pardoned as to the eternal guilt of sin, yet obnoxious to some temporal penalty, or with the guilt of some venial faults, are purged and purified before their admittance into heaven. And this is what he is taught concerning purgatory; though he know not where it is, of what nature the pains are, or how long each soul is detained there, yet he believes that those who are in this place are relieved by the prayers of their fellow members here on earth, as also by alms and masses offered up to God for their souls. And as for such as have no relations or friends to pray for them, or give alms to procure masses for their relief, they are not neglected by the church, which makes a general commemoration of all the faithful departed, in every mass, and in every one of the canonical hours of the divine office. Beside the above arguments, the following passages are alleged as proofs: 2 Macc. xii, 43–45; Matt. xii, 31, 32; 1 Cor. iii, 15; 1 Peter iii, 19. But it may be observed, 1. That the books of Maccabees have no evidence of inspiration, therefore quotations from them are not to be regarded. 2. If they were, the texts referred to would rather prove that there is no such place as purgatory, since Judas did not expect the souls departed to reap any benefit from the sin-offering till the resurrection. The texts quoted from the Scriptures have no reference to the doctrine, as may be seen by consulting the context, and any just commentator upon it. 3. The Scriptures, in general, speak of departed souls going immediately, at death, to a fixed state of happiness or misery, and give us no idea of purgatory, Isaiah lvii, 2; Rev. xiv, 13; Luke xvi, 22; 2 Cor. v, 8. 4. It is derogatory from the doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ. If Christ died for us, and redeemed us from sin and hell, as the Scripture speaks, then the idea of farther meritorious suffering detracts from the perfection of his sacrifice, and places merit still in the creature; a doctrine exactly opposite to the Scriptures.

PURITANS. In England, the term Puritans was applied to those who wished for a farther degree of reformation in the church than was adopted by Queen Elizabeth; and a purer form, not of faith, but of discipline and worship. It was a common name given to all who, from conscientious motives, though on different grounds, disapproved of the established religion, from the reformation under Elizabeth, to the Act of Uniformity in 1662. From that time to the revolution in 1688, as many as refused to comply with the established worship, (among whom were about two thousand clergymen, and perhaps five hundred thousand people,) were denominated Nonconformists. From the passing of the Act of Toleration on the accession of William and Mary, the name of Nonconformists was changed to that of Protestant Dissenters. Prior to the grand rebellion in 1640, the Puritans were, almost without exception, Episcopalians; but after the famous “League and Covenant” of those turbulent times the greater part of them became Presbyterians. Some, however, were Independents, and some Baptists. The objections of the latter were more fundamental; they disapproved of all national churches, as such, and disavowed the authority of human legislation in matters of faith and worship. The persecutions carried on against the Puritans during the reigns of Elizabeth and the Stuarts served to lay the foundation of a new empire, and eventually a vast republic, in the western world. Thither, as into a wilderness, they fled from the face of their persecutors; and, being protected in the free exercise of their religion, continued to increase, until at length they became an independent nation. The different principles, however, on which they had originally divided from the church establishment at home, operated in a way that might have been expected, when they came to the possession of the civil power abroad. Those who formed the colony of Massachusetts having never relinquished the principle of a national church, and of the power of the civil magistrate in matters of faith and worship, were less tolerant than those who settled at New Plymouth, at Rhode Island, and Providence Plantations. The very men who had just escaped the persecutions of the English prelates, now, in their turn, persecuted others who dissented from them; until, at length, the liberal system of toleration established in the parent country at the revolution, extended to the colonies, and in a good measure put an end to these censurable proceedings.

PURPLE, ארגמן, Exodus xxv, 4, &c; ϖορφύρα, Mark xv, 17, 20; Luke xvi, 19; John xix, 2, 5; Rev. xvii, 4; xviii, 12, 16. This is supposed to be the very precious colour extracted from the purpura or murex, a species of shell fish; and the same with the famous Tyrian dye, so costly, and so much celebrated in antiquity. The purple dye is called in 1 Macc. iv, 23, “purple of the sea,” or sea purple; it being the blood or juice of a turbinated shell fish, which the Jews call חלזון. (See Scarlet.) Among the blessings pronounced by Moses upon the tribes of Israel, those of Zebulun and Issachar are, “They shall suck of the abundance of the seas, and of the treasures hid in the sand,” Deut. xxxiii, 19. Jonathan Ben Uzziel explains the latter clause thus: “From the sand are produced looking glasses, and glass in general; the 801treasures, the method of finding and working which, was revealed to these tribes.” Several ancient writers inform us, that there were havens in the coasts of the Zebulunites, in which the sand proper for making glass was found. The words of Tacitus are remarkable: “Et Belus amnis Judaico mari illabitur, circa ejus os lectæ arenæ admixto nitro in vitrum excoquuntur.” “The river Belus falls into the Jewish sea, about whose mouth those sands mixed with nitre are collected, out of which glass is formed.” But it seems much more natural to explain “the treasures hid in the sand,” of those highly valuable murices and purpuræ which were found on the sea coast, near the country of Zebulun and Issachar, and of which those tribes partook in common with their Heathen neighbours of Tyre, who rendered the curious dyes made from those shell fish so famous among the Romans by the names of Sarranum ostrum, Tyrii colores. In reference to the purple vestment, Luke xvi, 19, it may be observed that this was not appropriately a royal robe. In the earlier times it was the dress of any of high rank. Thus all the courtiers were styled by the historians purpurati. This colour is more properly crimson than purple; for the LXX., Josephus, and Philo, constantly use ϖορφύραν to express the Hebrew ארגמן, by which the Talmudists understood crimson; and that this Hebrew word expressed, not the Tyrian purple, but that brought to the city from another country, appears from Ezek. xxvii, 7. The purple robe put on our Saviour, John xix, 2, 5, is explained by a Roman custom, the dressing of a person in the robes of state, as the investiture of office. Hence the robe brought by Herod’s or the Roman soldiers, scoffingly, was as though it had been the pictæ vestes usually sent by the Roman senate. In Acts xvi, 14, Lydia is said to be “a seller of purple.” Mr. Harmer styles purple the most sublime of all earthly colours, having the gaudiness of red, of which it retains a shade, softened with the gravity of blue.

PUTEOLI, so called from its baths of hot water, a city of Campania, in Italy; now called Pozzuoli, in a province of the kingdom of Naples, called Terra di Lavoro, and about eight miles from Naples. St. Paul stayed a week with the Christians of this place, in his journey as a prisoner to Rome, Acts xxviii, 13. The Alexandrian merchant vessels preferred Puteoli to all the harbours in Italy, and here they deposited their rich freights. They conducted the ships adorned with wreaths and festive garments, in the form of a fleet, one after another, into the harbour, where they were received with the greatest demonstrations of friendship. Such was the case with the sale of Alexandrian commodities throughout Italy. According to the course then pursued, the vessel in which St. Paul sailed went direct into this harbour.

QUAIL, שלו, Exod. xvi, 13; Num. xi, 31, 32; Psalm cv, 10; a bird of the gallinaceous kind. Hasselquist, mentioning the quail of the larger kind, says, “It is of the size of the turtle dove. I have met with it in the wilderness of Palestine, near the shores of the Dead Sea and the Jordan, between Jordan and Jericho, and in the deserts of Arabia Petrea. If the food of the Israelites was a bird, this is certainly it; being so common in the places through which they passed.” It is said that God gave quails to his people in the wilderness upon two occasions: first, within a few days after they had passed the Red Sea, Exod. xvi, 3–13. The second time was at the encampment at the place called in Hebrew, Kibroth-hataavah, the graves of lust, Num. xi, 32; Psalm cv, 40. Both of these happened in the spring, when the quails passed from Asia into Europe. They are then to be found in great quantities upon the coast of the Red Sea and Mediterranean. God caused a wind to arise that drove them within and about the camp of the Israelites; and it is in this that the miracle consists, that they were brought so seasonably to this place, and in so great number as to furnish food for above a million of persons for more than a month. The Hebrew word shalav signifies “a quail,” by the agreement of the ancient interpreters. And the Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic languages call them nearly by the same name. The Septuagint, Symmachus, and most of commentators, both ancient and modern, understand it in the same manner; and with them agree Philo, Josephus, Apollinaris, and the rabbins; but Ludolphus has endeavoured to prove that a species of locust is spoken of by Moses. Dr. Shaw answers, that the holy psalmist, in describing this particular food of the Israelites, by calling the animals feathered fowls, entirely confutes this supposition. And it should be recollected, that this miracle was performed in compliance with the wish of the people that they might have flesh to eat.

QUAKERS. See Friends.

QUESTIONS. Among the ancients no pastime was more common than that of proposing and answering difficult questions. The person who solved the question was honoured with a reward; he who failed in the attempt suffered a certain punishment; both the rewards and penalties were varied according to the disposition of the company. That the custom of proposing riddles was very ancient, and derived from the eastern nations, appears from the story of Samson, in the book of Judges, who proposed one to the Philistines at his nuptial feast. Nor were these questions confined to entertainments, but, in the primitive times, were proposed on other occasions, by those who desired to make proof of another’s wisdom and learning. Agreeably to this custom, the queen of Sheba came to prove Solomon with hard questions, 1 Kings x, 1.

QUIETISTS, the disciples of Michael de Molinos, a Spanish priest, who flourished in the seventeenth century, and wrote a book called “The Spiritual Guide.” He had many disciples in Spain, Italy, France, and the Netherlands. Some pretend that he borrowed his principles from the Spanish Illuminati; 802and M. Gregoire will have it that they came originally from the Persian Soofees; while others no less confidently derive them from the Greek Hesycasts. The Quietists, however, deduce their principles from the Scriptures. They argue thus: “The Apostle tells us, that ‘the Spirit makes intercession for’ or in ‘us.’ Now if the Spirit pray in us, we must resign ourselves to his impulses, by remaining in a state of absolute rest, or quietude, till we attain the perfection of the unitive life,” a life of union with, and, as it should seem, of absorption in, the Deity. They contend, that true religion consists in the present calm and tranquillity of a mind removed from all external and finite things, and centered in God; and in such a pure love of the supreme Being, as is independent of all prospect of interest or reward. To prove that our love to the Deity must be disinterested, they allege, that the Lord hath made all things for himself, as saith the Scripture; and it is for his glory that he wills our happiness. To conform, therefore, to the great end of our creation, we must prefer God to ourselves, and not desire our own happiness but for his glory; otherwise we shall go contrary to his order. As the perfections of the Deity are intrinsically amiable, it is our glory and perfection to go out of ourselves, to be lost and absorbed in the pure love of infinite beauty. Madam Guion, a woman of fashion in France, born 1648, becoming pious, was a warm advocate of these principles. She asserted, that the means of arriving at this perfect love, are prayer and the self-denial enjoined in the Gospel. Prayer she defines to be the entire bent of the soul toward its divine origin. Some of her pious canticles were translated by the poet Cowper, and represent her sentiments to the best advantage. Fenelon, the amiable archbishop of Cambray, also favoured these sentiments in his celebrated publication, entitled, “The Maxims of the Saints.” The distinguishing tenet in his theology was the doctrine of the disinterested love of God for his own excellencies, independent of his relative benevolence: an important feature also in the system of Madam Guion, who, with the good archbishop, was persecuted by the pope and by Bossuet. See Mystics.

RAB. The title rabbi, with several others from the same root, רבב, 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 כל-רב ביתו, which we render “all the officers of his house.” In Jeremiah xli, 1, we read of the ורּי המלך, “the princes of the king.” In Job xxxii, 9, it is said, that the רבים, 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 רבים. 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,” καθηγητὴς, 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, עורב, 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; κόραξ, 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.

Lo, the young ravens, from their nest exiled,

On hunger’s wing attempt the aerial wild!

Who leads their wanderings, and their feast supplies?

To God ascend their importuning cries.

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, Ὁι μεν κορακες των τετελευτηκοτων τους οφθαλμους λυμαινονται, “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 ἐχθρὸς 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 Θεῷ, to God, can only be governed by the verb ἀποκατάλλαξῃ, 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 καταλλάττειν and καταλλαγὴ, “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 λυτρόω, to redeem, and ἀπολύτρωσις, redemption, are, both in Greek writers and in the New Testament, used for the act of setting free a captive, by paying λυτρον, 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 λύτρον 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 λύτρον, the redemption price, which λύτρον 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 τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτους, that bought them;” and St. Paul, in the passage above cited, says, “Ye are bought with a price, ἠγόρασθητε;” which price is expressly said by St. John to be the blood of Christ: “Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God (ἠγόρασας, 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.“