{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_34680/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_34680","id":"gutenberg_34680","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34680","summary":null,"tags":["Bible -- Prophecies","Bible. Old Testament -- Prophecies","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christianity","Messiah -- Prophecies"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\nProduced by Rose Mawhorter, Jeff G. and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This\nbook was produced from scanned images of public domain\nmaterial from the Google Print project.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  THE MESSIAH\n  IN\n  MOSES AND THE PROPHETS.\n\n\n\n\n  BY\n  ELEAZAR LORD.\n\n\n\n\n  NEW-YORK:\n  CHARLES SCRIBNER, 145 NASSAU STREET.\n  1853.\n\n\n\n  Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1853, by\n\n  ELEAZAR LORD,\n\n  In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the\n  Southern District of New-York.\n\n\n\nTO THE DESCENDANTS OF ISRAEL.\n\n\nFrom the earliest periods a belief has prevailed among Jews and\nGentiles, that in one mode or another the Supreme Being has appeared\nvisibly on earth. In the Eastern World, Divine incarnations are taught\nin the Brahminical and other systems.\n\nFor the origin of such a belief we must undoubtedly recur to the Divine\nappearances recorded in Moses and the prophets. Such visible appearances\nand the doctrine of the incarnation are taught in the Hebrew as well as\nin the Christian Scriptures.\n\nIt is the object of the ensuing pages to show that He who truly became\nincarnate, and is announced as Jesus, the Christ, and also as Jehovah,\nImmanuel, _God with us_, is the same who in the Hebrew oracles is often\ncalled Jehovah and Elohim, and designated also by official titles, as\nthe Messiah, the Messenger, Adonai, the Elohe of Abraham; and that,\nunder various designations, he appeared visibly in a form like that of\nman to the Patriarchs, and to Moses, and others. In Him, in accordance\nwith their Scriptures, the descendants of Israel will at length discern\nthe True Messiah, who took man's nature, and in his stead, and as his\nsubstitute, was slain a sacrifice for sin, the Just for the unjust; who\nrose from the dead, and ascended on high in his glorified body; and who\nwill come again, visibly, to sit and rule as King on the throne of\nDavid; to destroy the great Adversary and his works; to vindicate his\nearlier administration; to accomplish the ancient predictions concerning\nthe SEED of Abraham, the land promised as an everlasting inheritance,\nand his own sacerdotal, prophetic, and regal offices; and to receive due\nhomage of the universe as Creator, Ruler, and Redeemer.\n\nOf him as Jehovah and as the Messenger, it is affirmed that he led the\nchildren of Israel out of Egypt. (See Exodus ii. and Judges i.) And,\nafter the lapse of nine hundred years, He himself proclaimed to their\ndispersed and afflicted descendants: \"Behold the days come, saith\nJehovah, that it shall no more be said, Jehovah liveth that brought up\nthe children of Israel out of the land of Egypt; but, Jehovah liveth\nthat brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north, and\nfrom all the lands whither he had driven them: and I will bring them\nagain into _their land that I gave_ _unto their fathers_. For mine eyes\nare upon all their ways: they are not hid from my face:--and they shall\nknow that my name is Jehovah.\" Jer. xvi. 14, 15, 17, 21.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nReasons for examining the Hebrew Records of the Messiah.\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nThe Messiah announced by Malachi, as Adonai, even Melach, the Messenger\nof the Covenant--His appearance to Jacob at Bethel; and to Isaiah,\nAbraham, Moses, Gideon, and others, under various designations, as\nAdonai, Melach, a Man, Jehovah Zebaoth, the Holy One, El-Shadai, &c.\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nReasons for rendering the formula \"Melach Jehovah,\" the Messenger (who\nis) Jehovah; and not _the_ Angel, or _an_ Angel _of_ the Lord.\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nVisible Appearance of the Messenger Jehovah to Hagar.\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nNo visible Divine Appearances ever made except of the Messiah, the\nMediator in all the Relations of God to the World.\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nAppearances of the Messenger Jehovah to Abraham and to Jacob.\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nReferences to various Appearances of Jehovah and Elohim to the\nPatriarchs.\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nOf the Doctrines, Worship, and Faith of those earliest mentioned in\nScripture--Reference to the History of Moses, Noah, Joshua.\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nNarrative concerning Job.\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nFurther notice of Divine Manifestations to Abraham and Jacob--Mysteriousness\nattending the Divine Appearance--The visible Form\nalways like that of Man.\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nOf the official Person and Relations of the Messiah.\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nLocal and visible Manifestations, Intercourse and Instructions, as\ncharacterizing the primeval and Mosaic Dispensations--Local Presence of\nthe Messenger Jehovah in the Tabernacle.\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nOf the Chaldee Paraphrasts--Their method of designating the Personal\nWORD or Revealer--Occasion and Necessity of it.\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nCitations from the Chaldee Paraphrases.\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\nReasons of the Failure of the modern Versions of the Scriptures to\nexhibit clearly the Hebrew designations of the Messiah--The Masoretic\nPunctuation--Reference to the term Melach and the formula Melach\nJehovah.\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\nContinuation of the subject of the preceding Chapter--Combined influence\nof Rabbinical and figurative Interpretations--German method of Hebrew\nstudy--Preposterous notion of the inadequacy of Language as a Vehicle of\nThought.\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\nRelation of the Antagonism between the Messiah and the great Adversary\nto the local, personal, and visible Manifestations of the former--Modes\nof Visibility on the part of the latter, through human agents and\nvarious instrumentalities.\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\nIllustration of the subject of the last Chapter, exhibiting the\nAntagonism as carried on by visible agencies, instrumentalities, and\nevents, in the plagues of Egypt and at the Red Sea.\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\nFurther Illustration of the Antagonism--Idolatry a Counterfeit Rival\nSystem in opposition to the Messiah and the True Worship--Its Origin and\nNature--Satan the God of it--The Tower of Babel devoted to his\nWorship--That Worship extended thence over the Earth at the Dispersion.\n\n\nCHAPTER XX.\n\nThe system of Idolatry founded on a perversion of the Doctrine of\nMediation--References to the Worshippers of Baal, Israelite and Pagan.\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI.\n\nIdolatry an imposing and delusive Counterfeit of the Revealed System, in\nrespect to the leading features of its Ritual, and the prerogatives\nascribed to the Arch-deceiver--Reference to the Symbols of the\nApocalypse.\n\n\nCHAPTER XXII.\n\nOn the question, How it has happened, since the origin of the Nicene\nCreed, that the Old Testament has been understood to ascribe the\nCreation, not to the Christ, but to the Father?\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIII.\n\nContinuation of the subject of the foregoing Chapter--Reference to the\nHeresies, respecting the Creator, of the three first and ensuing\ncenturies.\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIV.\n\nSubject of the last Chapter continued--Results of the earliest and most\nprevalent Heresies.\n\n\nCHAPTER XXV.\n\nThe great Antagonism--in what manner will it terminate?\n\n\nNOTES.\n\nA--Relating to the Exposition of the Apocalypse, by D. N. Lord.\n\nB--The primary ground of Mediation, &c.\n\n\n\n\nTHE MESSIAH\nIN\nMOSES AND THE PROPHETS.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\n    Reasons for examining the Hebrew Records of the Messiah.\n\n\nIt is said of the Messiah, in a discourse with two of his disciples,\nthat \"Beginning at Moses, and all the prophets, he expounded unto them\nin all the Scriptures, the things concerning himself.\" And subsequently:\n\"These are the words which I spake unto you while I was yet with you,\nthat all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of\nMoses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me. Then\nopened he their understandings, that they might understand the\nScriptures.\" On another occasion he said: \"Search the Scriptures; for in\nthem ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of\nme.\" And again: \"Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for\nhe wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe\nmy words?\"\n\nAt his advent he was, pursuant to a prediction of Isaiah, called\nImmanu-El, _God with us_. In conformity with another prediction, it was\nthe office of his fore-runner to prepare the way of Jehovah--_the Lord_.\nAnd an angel announced to the shepherds: \"Unto you is born a Saviour,\nwhich is Christ the Lord,\" (_Jehovah_.) \"Philip saith to Nathaniel, We\nhave found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write,\n_Jesus_ of Nazareth.\"\n\nWe should naturally infer from these passages that the delegated\nofficial Person, Jesus, the Christ, was the theme of the Old Testament\nScriptures; that his official agency and relations were there\ncontinuously and amply treated of; that his complex character, his\ndivine prerogatives, his prophetical, sacerdotal and regal offices, his\nworks as Creator, Lawgiver, and Ruler, and his relations as Covenanter\nand Redeemer, were there conspicuously set forth, and were the\nrecognized and acknowledged objects of the faith and trust of\npatriarchs, prophets, and all true worshippers.\n\nAnd such undoubtedly was the case. He was the Jehovah of the Old\nTestament; the Elohe of the patriarchs and of Israel; the Angel or\nMessenger Jehovah, the Jehovah Zebaoth, the Adonai, the Messiah of the\nancient dispensations. Under these and other designations Moses, the\npsalmists, and the prophets wrote of him; saw, acknowledged, and\nbelieved in him; worshipped and praised him in the tabernacle and\ntemple; recognized and obeyed him as their Lawgiver, and trusted in him\nas their Saviour.\n\nTheir faith rested on him as the present object of their homage and\ntrust, asserting his prerogatives, dispensing his benefits, and in all\nhis relations exerting his official agency. They regarded him not merely\nas he was typified, but as he then manifested himself and executed his\noffices. In some respects his future manifestations, and especially his\nsufferings and death for the expiation of sin, were vividly prefigured\nby typical rites, and were objects of their faith; but in other\nrespects, as their Mediator, Prophet, Lawgiver, Priest, and King, he was\nthe present object of their homage, faith, love, and obedience. The\nfaith of Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and their successors, embraced his\nperson and his official prerogatives and works, and was therefore\neffectual unto justification, precisely as that of believers under the\npresent dispensation, who are therefore described as walking in the\nsteps of that faith of Abraham which was counted for righteousness. The\nfaith which was instrumental in his justification was the exemplar alike\nof that of all believers under the ancient, and of those under the\npresent dispensation. To him the patriarchs erected altars and offered\nsacrifices and prayers, and from him received gifts and promises. To him\nthe ministerial offices and typical services of the Levitical priesthood\nhad immediate reference. In the tabernacle and temple, as Prophet,\nPriest, and King, he instructed them, prescribed their worship and\nobedience; and as their present Lawgiver and Ruler, exercised over them\nhis providential and moral government.\n\nAll this is implied, indeed, in the facts that the Church of that and\nthe present day is the same; that the method of salvation through faith\nin him was the same then as now; and that he was the Saviour and\nMediator alike them and at present: and otherwise it is not perceived\nhow an intelligible or satisfactory answer can be given to the\nquestions, How did he exercise the office of Mediator under the ancient\neconomy? What agency did he exercise towards his people? How did he\nexemplify his offices of Prophet, Priest, and King? A reference to the\ndesignations by which he was recognized, and the acts ascribed to him\nin connection with those designations, will supply the appropriate\nanswer. If it was He who appeared in a form like that of man to Abraham,\nin the plains of Mamre, walked and conversed with him as a man, and\nheard the prayers addressed directly to him on behalf of the righteous\ndwelling in Sodom; and who, under various designations, appeared in the\nsame form to Jacob, to Moses, to Balaam, to Joshua, to Gideon, to\nManoah, to David, and others; then may we safely conclude that, under\nthe like designations, he was familiarly known and worshipped throughout\nthe patriarchal and Levitical dispensations.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\n    The Messiah announced by Malachi, as Adonai, even Melach, the\n    Messenger of the Covenant--His Appearance to Jacob at Bethel;\n    and to Isaiah, Abraham, Moses, Gideon, and others, under various\n    designations, as Adonai, Melach, a Man, Jehovah Zebaoth, the\n    Holy One, El-Shaddai, &c.\n\n\nIt will be seen that the designations referred to include all those\nwhich are applied to the Divine Being: and that in numerous instances\nthey are applied interchangeably in the same passages and connections,\nin such manner as clearly to show that they identify the same Person.\nThus the words El, Elohe, Elohim, translated God; and Jah, Jehovah,\nAdon, and Adonai, translated Lord, are, separately, and also in\nconjunction with Melach, _Angel or Messenger_, and with other names of\noffice, employed to designate and identify that delegated Person who is\n\"both Lord (_Jehovah_) and Christ.\"\n\nIn demonstration of this, we may first refer to some passages in which\nthe appellative _Melach_, the primary signification of which is\n_Messenger_, occurs, as a designation of him who was sent of the Father;\nas Malachi iii. 1: \"Behold, I send my messenger, [John the Baptist,] and\nhe shall prepare the way before _me_; and _the_ Adon whom ye seek shall\nsuddenly come to his temple, even Melach, the _Messenger_, of the\nCovenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith Jehovah\nZebaoth.\" And Isaiah xl. 3, 5: \"The voice of him that crieth in the\nwilderness, Prepare ye the way of _Jehovah_, make straight in the desert\na highway for our _Elohe_.... And the glory of _Jehovah_ shall be\nrevealed, and all flesh shall see it together, for the mouth of Jehovah\nhath spoken it.\"\n\nThese prophecies are quoted by the Evangelists as identifying Jesus the\nChrist. See Matthew iii. 1-6; xi. 10; Mark i. 2-4; Luke iii. 3-6; John\ni. 6-8. They point to John as he who was spoken of by these prophets,\nand as proclaiming in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of Jehovah. He\nwhose way was prepared was therefore the _Messenger_ of the Covenant,\n_the Adon_, _the Elohim_, and the _Jehovah_--the delegated official\nPerson to whom these several designations are applied in the\npredictions. That official Person was the Revealer, as well as the\nsubject of the ancient revelations; and, as will hereafter be more\nparticularly noticed, manifested himself in different aspects and\nrelations of his official work, and in those diverse relations often\nspoke predictively (as at the close of each of the above passages) and\notherwise, to and of himself.\n\nThe same conclusions result from a passage in the narrative of Jacob's\njourney from Padan-aram to Shechem, Gen. xxxii., taken in connection\nwith the reference to it by the prophet Hosea: \"And Jacob was left\nalone; and there wrestled _a man_ with him until the breaking of the\nday.... And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel:\nfor as a prince hast thou power with Elohim and with men, and hast\nprevailed.... And he blessed him there. And Jacob called the name of the\nplace Peniel: for I have seen Elohim face to face.\" Hosea, referring to\nJacob, chap. xii., says: \"He had power with Elohim; yea, he had power\nover the angel, [_Melach, the Messenger_,] and prevailed; he wept and\nmade supplication _unto him_: he _found him_ in Beth-El, and there he\nspake with us; even Jehovah Elohe Zebaoth--Jehovah is his memorial.\"\nHere the God-man, the only Divine Person who, under the ancient or\npresent dispensation, has ever manifested himself visibly in the\nlikeness of man, is seen face to face by Jacob, and is denominated\nElohim, the Messenger, the Jehovah Elohe Zebaoth, whose peculiar\ndesignation is Jehovah. Accordingly, Hosea says of Melach, _the\nMessenger_, that Jacob made supplication _unto him_: he found _him_ in\nBeth-El, indicating that it was in the place which he named Beth-El that\nhe first recognized the official acting administrator of providence and\ngrace, the God-man, in the relations in which he then appeared to him.\nThe passage specially referred to by the prophet in relation to Beth-El\nis in Gen. xxviii., where Jacob's flight to Padan-aram, to avoid the\nwrath of Esau, is narrated. On his way he slept in the open field, and\nbeheld in a dream a ladder extending from earth to heaven. \"And behold!\nJehovah stood above it, and said, I am Jehovah Elohe of Abraham, and\nElohe of Isaac, &c. And Jacob awoke and said, Surely Jehovah is in this\nplace: ... this is the house of Elohim.\" The _Messenger_ therefore to\nwhom Jacob made supplication, and whom he first saw at Beth-El, was\nJehovah the Elohe of Abraham and Isaac, even Jehovah Elohe Zebaoth.\n\nTo show by another instance that He who in the ancient oracles is called\nAdon, Adonai, and Jehovah Zebaoth, is in the New Testament referred to\nas the Christ, Isaiah vi. may be cited. I saw, says the prophet, \"the\nAdonai sitting upon a throne.\" \"Then said I, Woe is me!... for mine eyes\nhave seen the King, Jehovah Zebaoth.\" The apostle John, chap. xii.,\nascribes what was announced at this scene to Christ, and adds: \"These\nthings said Esaias when he saw his glory and spake of him.\"\n\nWith respect to the point now particularly in view, the Scriptures\nquoted above render it certain that the Divine Person who by Malachi is\ncalled the Messenger of the Covenant, and the Adonai, and by Hosea, the\nMessenger, Elohim, and Jehovah, is identical with Jesus the Christ.\n\n\"Sometimes the same Divine appearance which at one time is called Melach\nJehovah, is afterwards called simply Jehovah, as in Gen. xvi. 7; Col. v.\n13; Exod. iii. 2; Col. iv., &c., &c. This is to be so understood that\nthe _Angel of God_ is here nothing else than the invisible Deity itself,\nwhich thus unveils itself to mortal eyes.\" And after referring to\nMicha\u00eblis and Tholuck, \"Hence Oriental translators, as Saadias,\nAbusaides, and the Chaldeo-Samaritan, wherever Jehovah himself is said\nto appear on earth, always put for the name of God, the _Angel of God_.\"\nGesenius, Lex., Art. _Melach_.\n\nIllustrations might be adduced from the New Testament to show that the\napostles understood the Messiah and the Messenger Jehovah to be the same\nPerson. Thus, Galatians iv. 14: \"Ye received me as an angel of God, even\nas Christ Jesus;\" where the rendering, in our own and other versions,\n\"_an_ angel,\" corresponds with the erroneous usage so common in the Old\nTestament. The meaning is: Ye received me with respect and confidence,\nas ye would have received the Melach, the Messenger Jehovah, even Jesus\nthe Messiah. For undoubtedly, had a created _angel_ been referred to, a\ncomparison would not have been made placing the Messiah on a level with\nhim. The instances in the New Testament in which the Angel Jehovah is\nreferred to, though unhappily not discriminated in our translation, are\nfrom the context easily distinguishable. See Acts vii. 30, 35, 38.\n\nThe word _Adonai_ occurs as a Divine designation several hundred times\nin the Old Testament, chiefly in the form indicated above, but sometimes\nsimply _Adon_. It is often employed in connections which clearly show it\nto be a personal designation of the Messiah, and which assert or imply\nhis official prerogatives, agency, or relations. It is employed\ninterchangeably with _Jehovah_, _Elohim_, and other Divine designations,\nsometimes preceding and at others following them; sometimes with, but\nmore commonly without the article.\n\nIn the second of the above forms, this word is commonly, like the\nsecular English title _lord_, applied to men in the relation of masters\nor rulers, as _Melach_ is applied to men to distinguish them officially\nas messengers. And as our own, in common with other translators, failed\nto mark the distinction between the use of the word Melach, as a\ndesignation of the Messiah, and the use of it with reference to created\nagents, human or angelic, so they seem to have regarded the words Adonai\nand Adon as importing something inferior to the Divine designations of\n_Jehovah_ and _Elohim_; which difference they indicate by uniformly\nwriting their translation of the former words in small letters, and\ntheir translation of the latter in capitals.\n\nWhatever impression or inference may result from this usage to the English\nreader, or to the Israelite who reads the original under the same views\nwhich influenced the translation, it is by no means probable that either\nof them would infer, or be struck with the impression, that _Adonai_ was a\ndistinctive and familiar title of the delegated One, the Messiah, of\ncorrelative and equivalent significance as a Divine designation with those\nwith which it is indifferently and interchangeably employed. For the\nfurther illustration of this point, therefore, the following passages are\ncited:\n\nIn Gen. xviii., we read that Jehovah appeared visibly to Abraham in the\nlikeness of man, _i. e._, in the delegated official Person, Messiah. In\nwhat is related in the narrative as having been said or done by him,\nwhile visibly present, he is called Jehovah, while Abraham, in speaking\nto him, uniformly calls him Adonai, prays to him as having power to save\nthe righteous in Sodom, and addresses him as Judge of all the earth. It\nis therefore manifest that the two designations, Jehovah and Adonai,\nidentify the same Person; that Abraham speaks to him as visibly present;\nand that his visible presence in the likeness of man determines him to\nhave been the delegated One. At the close of their interview, \"Jehovah\nwent his way, and Abraham returned to his place.\"\n\nWhen the personal WORD came to Abram, Gen. xv., saying, Fear not, I am thy\nshield, &c., Abram, replying, verse 2, calls him Adonai Jehovah, and also\nin verse 8; while in verses 4, 6, 7, and 18, he calls him Jehovah.\nInstances like that in chap. xviii., and others, would seem to indicate\nthat in cases of local visible manifestation of the personal Word,\ndesignations specially appropriate to his official character and agency\nwere suggested to the minds of the beholders. Thus Moses, Exod, iv. 10,\n\"said unto Jehovah, O Adonai.\" The Person whom he addressed was the\nMessenger Jehovah, who had appeared to him. Again, verse 13, he says: \"O\nAdonai.\" In other parts of that chapter, the same Person is called\nJehovah, Elohim, and Elohe. In Moses' song, chap. xv. 17, Jehovah (that\nis, the Messenger) and the Adonai are addressed as the same Person: \"Thou\nshalt bring them in and plant them in the mountain of thine inheritance;\nin the place, O Jehovah, which thou hast made for thee to dwell in; in the\nsanctuary, O Adonai, which thy hands have established.\" So, chap. xxxiv.,\nwhen Jehovah (the Messenger) descended and manifested the glory of his\nPerson to Moses, and proclaimed himself Jehovah as he passed by, Moses\nbowed and worshipped; and he said: \"If now I have found grace in thy\nsight, O Adonai, let Adonai, I pray thee, go among us.\" In like manner,\nDeut. iii. 23, 24, Moses, praying to Jehovah, addresses the Adonai: \"And I\nbesought Jehovah at that time, saying, O Adonai Jehovah.... I pray thee\nlet me go over and see the good land.\" Also, chap. ix. 26: \"I prayed\ntherefore unto Jehovah, and said, O Adonai Jehovah, destroy not thy\npeople, and thine inheritance which thou hast redeemed.\" Once more, when,\nafter the trespass of Achan, the Israelites were smitten, Joshua fell upon\nhis face before the ark of Jehovah, and said: \"Alas! O Adonai Jehovah....\nO Adonai, what shall I say,\" &c. Similar instances occur in the prayers of\nGideon, Manoah, David, and the prophets; and throughout their writings, as\nin the instances quoted, doubtless this term designates the Messenger of\nthe Covenant, the Holy One, the Christ, and whether sometimes substituted\nby copyists for the word Jehovah or not, its import is the same, as\nappears from the connections in which it occurs.\n\nAt the interview of the same Divine Person with Gideon, Judges vi., he\nis called Melach Jehovah, Jehovah, Adonai, Melach _the_ Elohim, and\nAdonai Jehovah Melach Jehovah came and sat under an oak--appeared\nvisibly--and said unto Gideon, Jehovah is with thee. Gideon replied, O\nAdonai, if Jehovah be with us, &c. Jehovah looked upon him and said, Go\nin this thy might. Gideon answered, O Adonai, wherewith shall I save\nIsrael? Jehovah said, Surely I will be with thee. Gideon prepared a\nsacrifice. Melach _the_ Elohim said, Take the flesh, &c. Melach Jehovah\ntouched the flesh with his staff. Fire rose out of the rock and consumed\nthe flesh. Melach Jehovah departed out of Gideon's sight. Gideon\nexclaimed, Alas, O Adonai Jehovah! for I have seen Melach Jehovah face\nto face. Jehovah said unto him, Peace be unto thee.\n\nThe purport of the expressions in this narrative may be more fully\nrepresented as follows: The Melach, (the Messenger,) who is Jehovah,\ncame in the form of a wayfaring man, and sat down under an oak in a\nfield where Gideon was, and said unto him, Jehovah is with thee. And\nGideon said to him, (Jehovah,) O Adonai, &c. Jehovah looked upon him and\nsaid, Go in this thy might, &c. Gideon said to him, O Adonai, wherewith\nshall I save Israel? Jehovah said to him, Surely I will be with thee.\nGideon presented a sacrifice to him. The Melach, (or Messenger,) who is\nthe true Elohim, said to Gideon, Take the flesh, &c., and lay them upon\nthis rock, and he did so. The the Melach, (or Messenger,) who is\nJehovah, put forth the end of the staff that was in his hand, and\ntouched the flesh, &c.; and there rose up fire out of the rock and\nconsumed the flesh, &c. Gideon said, Alas, O Adonai Jehovah! for I have\nseen the Melach, who is Jehovah, face to face. To which Jehovah replied,\nPeace be unto thee; fear not, &c. Then Gideon built an altar there unto\nJehovah.\n\nSo in the narrative of the visible appearance of the same Divine Person\nto Manoah and his wife, Judges xiii., where, as in the foregoing and\nother parallel instances, the term Melach distinguishes the Divine\nPerson referred to as present and seen. The Melach (who is) Jehovah\nappeared unto the woman, &c. The woman came and told her husband,\nsaying, A _man_, _the_ Elohim, came unto me, and his countenance was\nlike the countenance of the Melach (who is) _the_ Elohim, &c. Then\nManoah entreated Jehovah, and said, O Adon, let the man, _the_ Elohim\nwhich thou didst send, come again unto us.... And _the_ Elohim hearkened\nto the voice of Manoah, and the Melach, _the_ (or who is _the_) Elohim,\ncame again unto the woman as she sat in the field.... And she ran and\nsaid to her husband, Behold _the man_ hath appeared unto me that came\nunto me the other day.... And Manoah came and said unto him, Art thou\n_the man_ that spakest unto the woman? And he said, I am.... And the\nMelach (who is) Jehovah said unto Manoah, Of all that I said unto the\nwoman let her beware. And Manoah said to the Melach (who is) Jehovah, I\npray thee, let us detain thee, until we shall have made ready a kid for\nthee. And the Melach (who is) Jehovah said unto Manoah, Though thou\ndetain me, I will not eat of thy bread: and if thou wilt offer a burnt\noffering, thou must offer it unto Jehovah. For Manoah knew not that he\nwas the Melach (who is) Jehovah.... So Manoah took a kid, with a meat\noffering, and offered it upon a rock unto Jehovah. And ... it came to\npass, when the flame went up toward heaven from off the altar, that the\nMelach (who is) Jehovah ascended in the flame of the altar. And Manoah\nand his wife looked on, and fell on their faces to the ground, &c. Then\nManoah knew that he was the Melach (who is) Jehovah. And Manoah said\nunto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen Elohim. But his\nwife said unto him, If Jehovah were pleased to kill us, he would not\nhave received a burnt offering at our hands, &c. Nothing surely can be\nmore evident than that all these designations refer to the one delegated\nofficial Person--Messiah, the Messenger of the Covenant, visible in the\nform of man.\n\nBehold, _the_ Adon, Jehovah Zebaoth, doth take away from Jerusalem and\nfrom Judah the stay and the staff, &c. Isa. iii. 1.\n\nTherefore shall _the_ Adon, Adonai Zebaoth, send, &c. Isa. x. 16.\n\nBehold, _the_ Adon, Jehovah Zebaoth, shall lop the bough, &c. Isa. x.\n33.\n\nThou (Abiathar) bearest the ark of Adonai Jehovah. 1 Kings ii. 26.\n\nThou art my Elohe and my Adonai. Ps. xxxv. 23.\n\nTo Jehovah Adonai belong the issues from death. Ps. lxviii. 20.\n\nLet not them that wait on thee, O Adonai, Jehovah Zebaoth, be ashamed.\nPs. lxix. 6.\n\nThou art my hope, O Adonai Jehovah. Ps. lxxi. 5.\n\nBut do thou for me, O Jehovah Adonai, for thy name's sake. Ps. cix. 21.\n\nO Jehovah Adonai, the strength of my salvation. Ps. cxl. 7.\n\nMine eyes are unto thee, O Jehovah Adonai. Ps. cxli. 8.\n\nThe phrases \"Thus saith Adonai Jehovah Zebaoth,\" \"Adonai Jehovah,\" and\n\"Adonai Zebaoth,\" occur in very numerous instances in the prophets.\nProbably in all such formulas the sense would be more perfectly\nexpressed by interposing the words who is, or who art: as, _The_ Adon\nwho is Jehovah of hosts; _The_ Adon who is the Adonai of hosts; The ark\nof Adonai, who is Jehovah. It is evidently by way of explanation,\nillustration, and emphasis, that two or more designations are so\nconjoined.\n\nSome critics, probably from regarding the terms _Adonai_ and _Adon_ as of\ninferior significance to _Jehovah_ and _Elohim_, when employed as Divine\ndesignations, imagine that the Jewish copyists substituted the former in\nplace of the latter, or in place of _Jehovah_, to avoid the enunciation\nof that sacred name. No supposition could well be more improbable than\nthis, whether considered in relation to the subject-matter, or to the\nreason assigned for it. In relation to the subject, it would imply a\ngeneral consent among copyists, Jewish readers, priests and rabbies, and\nGentile proselytes, as to the instances in which such a surreptitious\nchange should be made, received, and sanctioned. And as to the alleged\nreason, if it was a real and sufficient reason in a single instance, or in\nmany instances, why not in all? Why suppress the fearful name, and\nsubstitute a term of inferior or doubtful import in some cases, and allow\nit to retain its place in a far greater number of cases? But the\ngroundlessness of the supposition referred to is sufficiently shown by the\nfact that, in the passages above cited, and in many others, the several\ndesignations, Adonai, Adon, Jehovah, and Elohim, are employed conjointly\nin the same sentences, with reference to the same Person, and as of\nequivalent import as Divine designations.\n\nThe same Divine Person, the Messiah, the Administrator and Revealer,\nmanifested himself to the inspired writers in various ways, and in\ndifferent aspects of his person and relations: to their faith as the\nself-existent, omnipresent Jehovah; to their senses in his complex,\nofficial person, and delegated, covenant relations, the Messenger,\nvisible in the likeness of man, Adonai, the Adon.\n\nThus Daniel, chap. x. 16, 17: \"One like the similitude of the sons of\nmen _touched my lips_; then I opened my mouth and spake, and said unto\nhim that _stood before me_, O Adonai!... how can the servant of this\nAdonai talk with this Adonai?\" And Amos, chap. vii., relates that he\n_saw the Adonai_ standing on a wall, with a plumb-line in his hand, and\nthat the Adonai spoke to and was answered by him. The context shows\nthat, though appearing visibly as a man, he exercised Divine\nprerogatives. Again, chap. ix. 1: \"I saw the Adonai _standing_ upon the\naltar.\" Afterwards he speaks as Jehovah, and, verse 16, utters the\nprediction, quoted Acts xv. 16, that, after the Gentile dispensation, \"I\nwill return and will build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen\ndown, ... and I will set it up.\"\n\nIn the first chapter of Zechariah the following Divine designations\noccur: Jehovah, Jehovah Zebaoth, Adonai, _the_ Melach, and Melach\nJehovah. The Person locally present and visible, who in the 9th verse is\ncalled Adonai and _the_ Melach, in the 11th and 12th verses Melach\nJehovah, and in the 13th, 14th, and 19th verses _the_ Melach, is in the\n8th and 10th verses called a _man_. I saw by night and behold, a man ...\namong the myrtle trees, v. 8. And the _man_ that stood among the myrtle\ntrees answered, v. 9. And they answered the Melach Jehovah that stood\namong the myrtle trees, v. 11.\n\nBut the prophet on seeing the man, v. 8, addresses him as Adonai. \"Then\nsaid I, O Adonai! what are these?\" And _the_ Melach answered, &c. v. 9.\nIn the progress of the ensuing colloquy, the visible Person, in the form\nof man, _the_ Melach, the Melach who is Jehovah, speaks to and of\nJehovah and Jehovah Zebaoth, as the Messiah did when visibly present\nincarnate in man's nature on earth; and an audible response was in like\nmanner given. See v. 10, 12, 13.\n\nIllustrations of the same usage might be adduced from almost every part\nof the Old Testament, where the Messiah, as announced by designations\npeculiar to his complex official Person and character, and as visibly\npresent, speaks to and of himself and also to and of the Father, under\ndesignations which refer only to the Divine Nature. The same is\ncustomary likewise with the prophets. Thus David, Ps. cx.: \"Jehovah (the\nFather) saith to _Adonai_, (the Messiah, as is declared in the New\nTestament,) Sit thou at my right hand,\" &c. And Ps. ii.: Why do the\nheathen rage?... and the rulers take counsel against Jehovah and against\nthe Anointed, or Messiah, v. 1, 2. The Adonai shall have them in\nderision, v. 4. I (the Messiah) will declare the decree: Jehovah hath\nsaid onto me, Thou art my Son, &c., v. 7.\n\nThe exceeding confusion which obscures our common version of Zechariah,\nand especially of the first chapter, implies that the translators did\nnot understand the designations above quoted, a _man_, _the Melach_,\n_Melach Jehovah_, and _Adonai_, as referring to one and the same person,\nnor all or any of them as referring to the official Person, Messiah.\n\nIn chapter ii., _the_ Melach is the Divine speaker throughout: \"And\nbehold _the_ Melach that talked with me (see i. 9) went forth, and\nanother angel (a messenger) went out to meet him; and HE (_the_ Melach)\nsaid unto him, (_i. e._, to the messenger,) Run,\" &c. v. 3, 4. Here,\naccording to our version, the other angel is made to direct the Melach\nwho is Jehovah (see i. 9, 11, 12) to run, &c., by the omission of the\nrelative HE, as printed in capitals above; which, it is obvious from the\noriginal, and also from the ensuing context, ought to be retained. For\nafter directing the approaching messenger to run, &c., he proceeds: \"For\nI, saith Jehovah, will be unto her, Jerusalem, a wall of fire round\nabout, and will be the glory in the midst of her:\" the reference of\nwhich is further evidence that the speaker is the Messiah, here\ndesignated _the Melach_ and _Jehovah_. The same speaker, continuing to\nthe end of the chapter, treats of the dispersion, preservation, and\nsubsequent restoration of the Israelites, and re\u00ebstablishment of\nJerusalem as his dwelling-place.\n\nThroughout the remainder of the book, the Divine Person speaking to the\nprophet is the same as the man, the Melach, the Adonai, the Melach\nJehovah, of the first chapter. He announces what is said by Jehovah, and\nJehovah Zebaoth; his rebuke of Satan, iii. 2; his promise of THE BRANCH,\nreferring to the Messiah as he was to be manifested incarnate, iii. 8,\nand vi. 12. In various places the prophet designates _the_ Melach, and\nJehovah as his Adonai, and as the Adon of the whole earth, iv. 4, 5, 13,\n14; vi. 4, 5; ix. 4. Adonai Jehovah, ix. 14, and Jehovah their Elohe,\nix. 16, x. 6, declares that the _man_ whose name is THE BRANCH shall\nbuild the temple of Jehovah, and shall sit and rule upon his throne, and\nshall be a Priest upon his throne, &c., vi. 12, 13. That it was Jehovah\nwho was prized at thirty pieces of silver, _i. e._, Jehovah says of\nhimself, as Messiah, that he was so prized, xi. 13. Represents Elohim\nand Melach Jehovah as equivalent, identifies Jehovah Zebaoth with the\nSHEPHERD, the _man_ that is his fellow, xiii. 7. Jehovah whose _feet_\nshall stand upon the mount of Olives which is before Jerusalem, xiv. 4.\nJehovah who shall be King over all the earth, xiv. 9. The King Jehovah\nZebaoth, whom all nations shall worship.\n\nThe term _Zebaoth_, Hosts, coupled with the Divine designations, points\nto the official Person, the Messiah, evidently in many, and probably in\nall instances. Thus He who, in Isaiah vi., is called Adonai, the King,\nJehovah Zebaoth, is by the apostle John referred to as the Messiah. He\nwho wrestled with Jacob as a _man_, Gen. xxxii., is called by Hosea\n(chap. xii.) the Messenger, and Jehovah Elohe Zebaoth. It was the\nMessiah who, with Moses, was with the church in the wilderness. (Acts\nvii. 38.) The Melach, or Messenger, who dwelt in the cloud and between\nthe cherubim, (Exod. xiv. 19,) over the ark of Adonai (who is) Jehovah.\n(Isa. iii. 15.) The ark of _the_ Elohim (who is) Jehovah that dwelleth\nbetween the cherubim. (1 Chron. xiii. 6.) The ark of _the_ Elohim, whose\nname is Jehovah Zebaoth. (2 Samuel vi. 2.) _The_ Adon (who is) Jehovah\nZebaoth. (Isa. iii. 1.) The Adon (who is) Adonai Zebaoth. (Isa. x. 16.)\nThe Adonai (who is) Jehovah Zebaoth. (Isa. x. 23, 24.)\n\nThis term is coupled with these designations more than three hundred\ntimes, chiefly in the prophets after the defection of the tribes to the\nworship of Baal as the Lord of the hosts of heaven, in opposition to\nJehovah Zebaoth.\n\nA personal reference to the Messiah is evidently intended in numerous\ninstances by the term rendered in our version HOLY ONE; as is often\nmanifest from its connection with other designations, and from the\npersonal acts or relations mentioned. Thus Isaiah xliii.: \"I am Jehovah,\nthy Elohe, the _Holy One_ of Israel, thy _Saviour_: I gave Egypt for thy\nransom. Fear not, for I am with thee. (v. 3.) Thus saith Jehovah, your\n_Redeemer_, [Goel,] the _Holy One_ of Israel, (v. 14,) I am Jehovah,\nyour _Holy One_, the Creator of Israel, your _King_,\" (15.) Chap. xli.\n14: \"I will help thee, saith Jehovah, thy _Redeemer_, [Goel,] the _Holy\nOne_ of Israel.\" v. 20: \"The hand of Jehovah hath done this, and the\n_Holy One_ of Israel hath created it.\" xlvii. 4: \"As for our _Redeemer_,\n[Goel,] Jehovah Zebaoth is his name, the _Holy One_ of Israel.\" xlviii.\n17: \"Thus saith Jehovah, thy _Redeemer_, [Goel,] the _Holy One_ of\nIsrael, I am Jehovah thy Elohe, which teacheth thee to profit, which\nleadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.\" xlix. 7: \"Thus saith\nJehovah, the _Redeemer_ [Goel] of Israel, his _Holy One_.\" liv. 5: \"Thy\nMaker is thy husband, Jehovah Zebaoth is his name, and thy _Redeemer_,\n[Goel,] the _Holy One_ of Israel; the Elohe of the whole earth shall he\nbe called.\" lx. 14: \"They shall call thee, The city of Jehovah, The Zion\nof the _Holy One_ of Israel.\" 2 Kings xix.: \"Whom hast thou reproached\nand blasphemed? and against whom hast thou exalted thy voice, and lifted\nup thine eyes on high? even against the _Holy One_ of Israel. By thy\nmessengers thou hast reproached Adonai.\" Ezek. xxxix. 7: \"The heathen\nshall know that I am Jehovah, the _Holy One_ in Israel.\" Ps. lxxxix. 18,\n19: \"Jehovah is our defence, and the _Holy One_ of Israel is our King.\nThen thou spakest in vision to thy _Holy One_.\"\n\nThat \"The Holy One,\" \"Jehovah,\" and \"The Messiah,\" are the same, is\ntaught in various other passages. Thus in the first instance in which\nthe title occurs, Deut. xxxiii. 8, constituting in part the blessing on\nthe sacerdotal tribe, and containing a reference to other passages: \"And\nof Levi he said, Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be with thy HOLY ONE, whom\nthou didst prove at Massah, and with whom thou didst strive at the\nwaters of Meribah.\" But He whom they proved at Massah, and with whom\nthey strove at Meribah, was Jehovah. \"And Moses called the name of the\nplace Massah, and Meribah, because of the chiding of the children of\nIsrael, and because they tempted Jehovah, saying, Is Jehovah among us or\nnot?\" Exod. xvii. 7. \"Ye shall not tempt Jehovah your Elohe, as ye\ntempted him in Massah.\" Deut. vi. 16. \"This is the water of Meribah,\nbecause the children of Israel strove with Jehovah.\" Numb. xx. 13. \"At\n... Massah ... ye provoked Jehovah to wrath.\" Deut. ix. 22. Now, we\nlearn from 1 Cor. x. and Heb. iii., compared with Ps. lxxviii., xcv.,\nand cvi., that it was the Messiah whom they tempted: \"Neither let us\ntempt Christ as some of them also tempted.\" ... \"Harden not your hearts\nas in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness, where\nyour fathers tempted me;\" that is, Christ, as the context shows.\n\n\"Thou wilt not suffer thine _Holy One_ to see corruption,\" Ps. xvi. 10;\nquoted with the context, Acts ii., as designating Christ: \"For David\nspeaketh concerning Him,\" Jesus of Nazareth, \"I foresaw the Lord always\nbefore my face.... Neither wilt thou suffer thine _Holy One_ to see\ncorruption.\" Again, Acts xiii., in proof of the resurrection of Christ\nas predicted: \"Wherefore he saith also in another Psalm, Thou shalt not\nsuffer thine _Holy One_ to see corruption.\" So the Christ is recognized\nin various other passages as the _Holy One_. \"I know thee who thou art,\nthe _Holy One_ of God.\" Mark i. 24, Luke iv. 34. \"But ye denied the\n_Holy One_ and the Just, ... and killed the Prince of Life.\" Acts iii.\n14.\n\nOf the passages, besides those above cited, in which he is identified\nwith Jehovah, the Creator, the Redeemer, Saviour, and King, a few are\nsubjoined. The remnant of Israel \"shall stay upon Jehovah, the _Holy\nOne_ of Israel.\" Isaiah x. 20. \"At that day shall a man look to his\nMaker, and his eyes shall have respect to the _Holy One_ of Israel.\"\nIbid. 17. \"Thus saith the _Holy One_ of Israel.... Thus saith Jehovah\nElohim, the _Holy One_ of Israel.\" Ibid. 30. \"The hand of Jehovah hath\ndone this, and the _Holy One_ of Israel hath created it.\" Ibid. 41.\n\"Thus saith Jehovah, the _Holy One_ of Israel, and his Maker.\" Ibid. 45.\n\nIt is thus evident that the appellations, Jehovah, Elohim, Elohe,\nJehovah Zebaoth, Redeemer, Saviour, King, Creator, Maker, the Holy One,\nand the Christ, are indifferently applied to designate one and the same\nPerson. The term Messiah, the Anointed, though familiar to the Jews of\nancient and modern times, occurs but a few times in the Hebrew\nScriptures as a designation of him. The appropriation of the term seems\nto have arisen from the custom of anointing the Levitical priests to a\nministry typical of the sacerdotal ministry of Christ, and that of\nanointing their kings to their office as typical of his regal office.\nWith reference to those priests and kings it is therefore often used;\nbut as a designation of the Christ not perhaps more than five or six\ntimes: as in 1 Sam. ii. 10, 35; Ps. ii. 2, lxxxiv. 9; Dan, ix. 25, 26.\nThe import of the phrase \"Holy One\" is so nearly similar, as very\nprobably to have been employed in place of this. This designation occurs\nin about thirty instances in the prophecies of Isaiah, and frequently\nelsewhere. Like several other appellations, it is employed exclusively\nas a designation of the Christ, and is not, like \"Messiah,\" applied to\nthose who are anointed and consecrated to typify his offices.\n\nEl-Shadai, Almighty, in like manner designates the Messiah. The\nMessenger Jehovah who appeared to Moses in the bush, and who speaking to\nhim afterwards is called Jehovah and Elohim, said, Exod. vi. 3: \"I\nappeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name\nEl-Shadai.\" \"Jacob said unto Joseph, El-Shadai appeared unto me at Luz,\n... and blessed me.\" Gen. xlviii. 3. But when he was first at Luz,\nJehovah _visibly_ appeared to him in the vision of a ladder. Gen.\nxxviii. It was an appearance doubtless of the Messenger Jehovah. And in\na subsequent instance, Gen. xxxv., the Elohim _appeared_ to him, blessed\nhim, and changed his name to Israel. \"And the Elohim said unto him, I\nam El-Shadai.... And the Elohim went up from him in the place where he\ntalked with him.\" This, therefore, was a local personal appearance of\nthe Messenger of the Covenant. _Shadai_ was a familiar designation in\nthe patriarchal period. It occurs frequently in Job. In the New\nTestament it is applied to Christ. \"I am Alpha and Omega, ... saith the\nLord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.\" Rev.\ni. 8, iv. 8, and xi. 17.\n\nA similar illustration is furnished by the designations, Mighty God,\nLiving God, God of Israel, High God, Most High God, God of heaven, Lord\nGod, and other formulas of frequent occurrence.\n\nThere are a considerable number of instances in which the Personal Word\nappears to be designated by the phrase _Dabar_ Jehovah, translated the\n_Word_ of the Lord. The \"_Dabar_ Jehovah _came_ unto Abram in a vision,\nsaying, Fear not, _I am thy shield_, &c. And Abram said, Adonai Jehovah,\nwhat will thou give me?... And behold Dabar Jehovah (came) unto him,\nsaying.\" (The word CAME in this clause is not in the original. \"Dabar\nJehovah said unto him,\" would perhaps be more correct.) \"And he [Dabar\nJehovah] brought, him forth abroad and said, Look now towards heaven....\nAnd he believed in Jehovah,\" (in the Word Jehovah, _Chaldee Par._) Gen.\nxv. Here personal acts appear to be ascribed to _Dabar_--the Word. It\nwas a person who conversed with Abram and brought him forth abroad; as\nis observed on a subsequent occasion.\n\n\"_Dabar_ Jehovah came to Jacob, saying, Israel shall be thy name.\" 1\nKings xviii. 31. But in Gen. xxxii. we read that \"there wrestled a man\nwith Jacob, and he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but\nIsrael.\" Here, then, the visible person who, in the form of man,\nwrestled with Jacob, and who is, by Hosea, chap. xii., denominated the\nMessenger and the Jehovah Zebaoth, is called _Dabar_ Jehovah, the\nPersonal Word.\n\n\"Now Dabar Jehovah came unto Jonah, ... saying, [or, and said,] Arise,\ngo to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it, for their wickedness\nis come up before me. But Jonah rose up to flee unto Tarshish from _the\npresence of_ Jehovah, and he found a ship and went down into it to go\nunto Tarshish _from the presence of_ Jehovah.\" Chap. i. \"And Dabar\nJehovah came unto Jonah the second time, saying, Arise, go unto\nNineveh.\" iii. 1, 2. These passages indicate a personal and visible\npresence. How else could Jonah attempt to conceal himself by flight? In\nthe context the Personal Word who thus came is identified with Jehovah,\nwho speaks and is addressed as one locally and visibly present.\n\n\"Now Samuel did not yet know Jehovah, neither was _Dabar_ Jehovah yet\nrevealed unto him.\" 1 Sam. iii. 7. No manifestation of the Personal Word\nhad been made to him. \"And Jehovah _appeared_ again in Shiloh: for\nJehovah revealed himself to Samuel in Shiloh by _Dabar_ Jehovah.\" Ibid.\nv. 21. \"Then came _Dabar_ Jehovah to Samuel, saying, It repenteth me,\n&c.\" Ibid. xv. 10. \"It was charged me by _Dabar_ Jehovah.... It was said\nto me by _Dabar_ Jehovah.\" 1 Kings xiii. 9, 17. \"And Elijah came to a\ncave and lodged there; and behold, _Dabar_ Jehovah came to him, and _he_\nsaid unto him, What dost thou here, Elijah?... And _he_ said, Go forth\nand stand upon the mount _before_ Jehovah. And behold, Jehovah _passed_\nby.\" 1 Kings xix. 9, 11. \"_Dabar_ Jehovah came to Jeremiah, saying,\nBefore I formed thee, I knew thee.... Then said I, Ah, Adonai Jehovah!\nbehold I cannot speak.... Then Jehovah put forth _his hand_ and touched\nmy mouth.... Moreover, _Dabar_ Jehovah _came_ unto me, saying, [or, and\nsaid,] What seest thou?... And _Dabar_ Jehovah came unto me the second\ntime,\" &c. Jer. i.\n\nSuch are some of the instances in which this term appears to be employed\nas a personal designation. The meaning and reference of such use of it\nappear to have been familiar both to the earlier and later Jews. See the\nchapters relating to the Chaldee Paraphrases.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\n    Reasons for rendering the formula, \"Melach Jehovah,\" the\n    Messenger (who is) Jehovah; and not _the_ Angel, or _an_ Angel\n    _of_ the Lord.\n\n\nAn examination of the numerous passages in which the denominative\n_Melach_ is coupled with the name Jehovah, or Elohim, or used\ninterchangeably with those names, renders it conclusively manifest that\nin each and every instance the reference is to one and the same official\nPerson. This, however, is not entirely obvious from our common version,\nowing to the circumstance that the translators rendered the formula,\nMelach Jehovah, _the_ angel, or sometimes _an_ angel _of_ the Lord. The\nword Jehovah, in the original, never has the article; nor the word\nMelach, when coupled with Jehovah, though when employed alone to\ndesignate the same official Person, the article is sometimes prefixed,\nas in Gen. xlviii. 16: \"_The_ Melach, which redeemed me.\" The word\nElohim often has the article, and retains it in most of the instances in\nwhich the formula Melach Elohim occurs, requiring it to be read, Melach\n_the_, or who is _the_, Elohim. See some twelve instances in the book of\nEzra, and more than twenty in Nehemiah, where there was a special\noccasion to distinguish the true from the false God. In the formula,\nMelach Jehovah, there is nothing in the original to forbid the two words\nbeing considered as in apposition, and the rendering consequently _the\nMessenger Jehovah_, or the Messenger who is Jehovah. And that such\nshould be the rendering, instead of the angel or messenger _of_ Jehovah,\nis apparent from the following considerations:\n\n1st. That the Person identified by this name of office is Jehovah, as is\nshown by the use, in numerous passages, of the two names interchangeably.\nThe word Melach, it may be observed, is, when coupled with the name\nJehovah, and when used separately or interchangeably, with the same\npersonal reference, always in the singular number; and, when coupled with\nthat name, generally precedes it; by which circumstances, and the\nrelations in which it occurs separately, all confusion as to its reference\nis precluded.\n\n2d. From the consideration that this rendering corresponds with the\nofficial character of the Person designated. His office is that of a\nmessenger, sent of the Father--the Mediator, the Christ. The designation\nin question is in no instance applied to any created angel, and no doubt\nit was intended to distinguish the delegated Person from the Father who\nsent him. But to render it, the angel or messenger _of_ Jehovah,\nespecially in sentences in which the Person designated is called Melach\nJehovah, and also called Jehovah, Adonai, or Elohim, is not to\ndistinguish but to confuse.\n\n3d. This rendering comports with the official agency of the delegated\nPerson, as the creator, upholder, lawgiver, and ruler of all creatures.\nThe works ascribed to him are, in the same sentences and connections,\nascribed to Jehovah.\n\n4th. It comports with the designation by which, when he became\nincarnate, he was familiarly known, and which is translated _Lord_, as\nthe equivalent of the name _Jehovah_ in Hebrew. Thus, Luke ii. 11, he is\nannounced as the \"Saviour, which is Christ _the_ Lord.\" Campbell renders\nit, _The Lord Messiah_. The sense is the same as that of _Jehovah who is\nthe Messiah_, or the Messenger _who is_ Jehovah, or the Anointed _who\nis_ Jehovah. Again, when Thomas saw him after his resurrection, he\nexclaimed, \"My Lord and my God\"--my Jehovah and my Elohe. John xx.\n\n5th. It comports with Hebrew usage in other cases. The instances are\ncommon in which particular persons are designated by two words in\napposition, indicating different characteristics. Thus, 1 Kings iv. 1:\n\"So king Solomon was king over all Israel;\" literally, so was _the_\nking, Solomon (or, who is Solomon) king, &c. Ibid. vii. 13, 14: And\n_the_ king, Solomon, sent and fetched Hiram, son of a _woman_, a\n_widow_--_i. e._, _a woman who was a widow_; and xvii. 9, a woman (_who\nis_) a widow. Deut. xxii. 23, 28: A _damsel_, a _virgin_--_i. e._, a\ndamsel who is a virgin.\n\nWhen the article is prefixed to the word Elohim, it often and perhaps\nalways is meant expressly to distinguish the True God from the false; as\nwhen the people, seeing the triumph of Elijah over the prophets of Baal,\nexclaimed, \"Jehovah, he is _the_ Elohim:\" he, and not the pretended\nElohim of idolaters, is the true God. The import of the formula, Jehovah\nElohim, is Jehovah _the true_ Elohim, and is not clearly or fully\nexpressed by the translation _Lord God_, any more than it would be by a\nrepetition of one or the other of those words. The meaning is, _Jehovah\nwho is the true God_. So _Melach Jehovah_, the respective terms\nreferring indisputably to the same person, means, _the Messenger who is\nJehovah_.\n\nBut our translators render Melach Jehovah, the angel _of_ the Lord, as\nthough the angel was a created agent; or, as though Jehovah in this\nconnection was the Father. McCaul, in his observations on Kimchi's\ntranslation of Zechariah, defends this rendering: First, on the ground,\nthat if the words _Melach Jehovah_ are in apposition, the translation\nshould be, not, the Angel Jehovah, but _an_ angel, or _a_ Messenger\nJehovah. But, since the word Jehovah never admits the article, and since\nin the formula in question the word Melach never admits it, no reason\ncan be assigned why the rendering should not be _the_ Angel, or _the_\nMessenger Jehovah; it being admitted that one and the same Person is\nuniformly designated by this formula. On the contrary, if this objection\nwere well founded, then in rendering the word _Jehovah_, where it occurs\nalone, it should read in English, _a_ Lord, instead of _the_ Lord.\n\nMoreover, if his criticisms were well founded, such a passage as 2\nChron. xxxii. 21, where the order of the designations is _Jehovah\nMelach_, would require to be rendered, Lord of the angel, instead of\nJehovah the Messenger, or the Jehovah Messenger. The statement in the\ntext just quoted from 2 Chronicles is repeated in Isaiah xxxvii. 36,\nwhere the order of the words in question is _Melach Jehovah_. Again, the\nformula, (_the_) _Elohim Melach_, occurs in 1 Chron. xxi. 15, and also\nin that and the next verse, _Melach Jehovah_, referring to the same\nPerson.\n\n2d. He urges that if the words Melach Jehovah were to be rendered the\nAngel Jehovah, then we should expect to find the article before the word\nMelach; because, he says, the word Adon uniformly has it when employed\nto designate Jehovah. But this is a misstatement. When so employed, that\nword, in its different forms, is generally without the article; as\nJoshua iii. 11 and 13: \"The ark of the covenant of _Adon_,\" translated\n_the_ Lord, \"of all the earth.\" \"The ark of Adon Jehovah, Adon of all\nthe earth,\" rendered in our version, \"the ark of _the_ Lord, _the_ Lord\nof all the earth.\" Here the translators suppress the word Adon where it\nfirst occurs; probably assuming, as in the case of Melach above referred\nto, that it was not in apposition with the next word, Jehovah; and\nseeing that if it was not, the version must be, the Lord _of_ the Lord,\nas they rendered Melach Jehovah, the angel _of_ the Lord. But the\nreference of the word Adon being in every such connection identical with\nthat of the word Jehovah, and the two words, when conjoined, being, like\nMelach Jehovah, in apposition, the version should have been, the Lord\n(who is) Jehovah, the Lord of all the earth.\n\nAgain, 1 Kings ii. 26: \"The ark of Adon Jehovah,\" rendered, the ark of\nthe Lord God; where the two words are taken to be in apposition: and if\nthe translator felt a difficulty, he would seem to have sought to avoid\nit, as in other like instances, by an unusual version of the word\nJehovah. Again, 2 Kings xxii. 6: \"Go up, for Adon,\" rendered _the_ Lord,\n\"shall deliver it.\" And to give but one other out of very numerous\ninstances, Ps. lxviii. 20: \"Unto Jehovah Adon,\" rendered God the Lord,\n\"belong the issues from death.\" In all the foregoing and similar\ninstances the sense requires the words \"who is\" to be inserted or\nunderstood.\n\nMcCaul further observes, that the word Jehovah must sometimes be taken\nas the genitive case, and cites Mal. ii. 7: \"The priests' lips should\nkeep knowledge, and _they_ should seek the law at his mouth, [referring\nto Jehovah Zebaoth, vs. 2 and 4,] for he is _Melach_ Jehovah Zebaoth,\"\nrendered, \"the messenger _of_ the Lord of hosts.\" But he gives no reason\nwhy Melach Jehovah in this passage should not be rendered, _the_\nMessenger Jehovah, as well as in any other passage. Again, he observes,\nthat to translate the formula, Melach Jehovah, the angel Jehovah, is\nplainly against the Masoretic punctuation. But that is not conclusive;\nfor the points formed no part of the original text, and no one pretends\nthat they were inspired. The authors of that system of punctuation were\ngoverned, in their application of the points, by their theological, as\nwell as by their grammatical theory; and however grammatically correct\nthey may have been in their appropriation of them in all ordinary cases,\nin those passages of which they held an erroneous theological or\nexegetical theory, they of course arranged the points conformably, so as\nto make the text express their preconceived opinions. In relation to the\npresent instance, for example, Kimchi, as McCaul observes, \"considered\nthe Person designated the 'angel of the Lord,' as nothing more than one\nof the many angels to whom he supposes the governance of this lower\nworld is committed.\" Observations, page 9. Doubtless the authors of the\npoints held the same opinion. McCaul observes, in his introduction, that\nKimchi and other Rabbies of his day \"endeavored to get rid of the\nChristian interpretations, and to root out the Christian doctrines which\nhad descended from the ancient Jewish Church.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\n    Visible Appearance of the Messenger Jehovah to Hagar.\n\n\nThe first recorded instance of the visible appearance of the Angel or\nMessenger Jehovah, is that to Hagar, Gen. xvi., where the designation\nMelach Jehovah is repeated several times. The Messenger Jehovah found\nHagar by a fountain of water. He called her by name; directed her to\nreturn to her mistress; promised to multiply her seed exceedingly; and\ndirected her to call her son Ishmael, \"because _Jehovah_ had heard her\naffliction.\" \"And she called the name of _Jehovah_ that spake unto her,\nThou El seest me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that\nseeth me?\" The visible Person whom she saw, and who spoke to her, and\npromised what none but a Divine Person could promise, is called Melach\nJehovah, and also Jehovah, and El. He was therefore not a messenger _of_\nJehovah, or a distinct person from him, but Jehovah himself, as\nrecognized and worshipped under the several designations here applied to\nhim. Considered as the administrator of Providence, the things said and\ndone by him were in keeping with his delegated character, and with the\nacts ascribed to him on other occasions. There is a further notice of\nhis dealings with Ishmael, Gen. xxii. 17, after his expulsion, with\nHagar, from Abraham's house, and her abandonment of him in despair of\nhis life. \"And Elohim heard the voice of the lad: and Melach Elohim [in\nour version, the angel _of_ God] called to Hagar out of heaven, and said\nunto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? Fear not; for Elohim hath heard the\nvoice of the lad, where he is. Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in\nthy hand; for _I_ will make of him a great nation. And Elohim opened her\neyes, and she saw a well of water; and Elohim was with the lad,\" &c.\nHere the speaker is Melach Elohim, which designation must refer to the\nsame official Person as that of Melach Jehovah in the former instance,\nfor he personally promised the same thing; saying in the one case, \"_I_\nwill multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for\nmultitude;\" and in the other, \"_I_ will make him a great nation.\" That\nthe import and reference of the two formulas is the same, is also\nevident beyond a question from other passages, where both are\nindifferently applied to the same person; as Judges vi. 20, 21: \"And\n_Melach (the) Elohim_ said unto him, Take the flesh and the unleavened\ncakes and lay them upon this rock, and pour out the broth. And he did\nso. Then _Melach Jehovah_ put forth the end of the staff that was in his\nhand, and touched the flesh,\" &c. And again, Judges xiii. 3-9: \"And\nMelach Jehovah appeared unto the woman, and (the) Elohim hearkened to\nthe voice of Manoah, and Melach (the) Elohim came _again_ unto the\nwoman.\" The narratives in which these passages occur clearly restrict\nthe reference to one and the same Person.\n\nIn the original of these quotations, the article is prefixed to the word\nElohim, as it is also elsewhere, (underscored, or included above and\nhereafter in parenthesis,) which is by some supposed to require the\nrendering to be, as in our common version, _the angel or messenger_ of\nElohim. But this conclusion cannot be sustained: 1st, because it\nindicates something different in respect to the Person referred to from\nthe formula Melach Jehovah; and 2d, because in other instances of\nsimilar formulas the article does not occur, as in Gen. xxi. 17: \"And\nMelach Elohim called to Hagar.\" The occurrence of the article does not\ndetermine the construction. It is often redundant, and is prefixed to\nthe word Elohim where it cannot be a sign of the genitive, because not\nimmediately preceded by a noun to govern it. Thus in the passage above\nquoted from Judges xiii. we read, \"and _the_ Elohim hearkened,\" &c., the\narticle being prefixed in the original. So Gen. vi. 11: \"The earth also\nwas corrupt before _the_ Elohim.\" Gen. xvii. 18: \"And Abraham said unto\n_the_ Elohim.\" Gen. xxii. 3, 9, xxvii. 28, and many other places.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n    No visible Divine Appearances ever made except of the Messiah,\n    the Mediator in all the Relations of God to the World.\n\n\nHaving shown that the denominative Melach, when coupled with the name\nJehovah, or the name Elohim, or used interchangeably with either of\nthose or with other Divine names, is a designation of the Messiah; that\nwhen that denominative is employed interchangeably with the names\nJehovah, Elohim, or Adonai, those names designate the same official\nPerson; and that the formulas Melach Jehovah and Melach Elohim have one\nand the same personal import and reference, the way is prepared for an\nexamination of other Scriptures in which occur the same designations of\nthe delegated ONE of whom Moses and the prophets wrote, the WORD who was\nin the beginning, and by whom all things were created and are upheld.\n\nThis wonderful Person often, in the course of the ancient dispensations,\nmanifested himself visibly in the likeness of that form which in due\ntime he permanently assumed, by taking human nature into union with his\nperson. In his delegated official character, being the agent in all\nexternal and visible works and manifestations, and the medium of all\nrelations between creatures and the Self-existent, he was from the\nbeginning the image and acting representative of the invisible Deity;\ndelegated of the Father to accomplish the works which, pursuant to the\ncounsels of eternity, belong to his comprehensive administration. To\nhim, in this character and in distinction from the Father, belonged all\nvisible personal manifestations. And hence, to enforce the necessary\ndiscrimination, and prevent erroneous impressions, the Evangelist John,\nchap. i., on announcing the visible WORD, the WORD incarnate, as the\nvisible expression of the glory of the Father, says: \"No man hath seen\nGod (the Father) at any time; it is [see Campbell's version] the\nonly-begotten Son, that is in the bosom of the Father, who hath made him\nknown.\" And again, chap. vi. 45: \"Every man that hath heard and learned\nof the Father cometh unto me; not that any man hath seen the Father;\"\n(or, as rendered by Campbell,) \"not that any man, except him who is from\nGod, hath seen the Father. He, indeed, hath seen the Father,\" Again xiv.\n9: \"He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father;\" that is, hath seen the\nimage, the only visible representative of the Father. And in his first\nepistle, chap. iv: \"No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one\nanother, God dwelleth in us. And we have seen and do testify that the\nFather sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.\"\n\nThese statements preclude the supposition of any visible personal\nappearance during the preceding dispensations, excepting of the\ndelegated official Person to whom the revelation of the Invisible was\nassigned; and who when referred to as Creator is called Elohim and\nJehovah, and when referred to as the administrator of Providence, or in\nhis relations to individuals and to the house of Israel, is called\nindiscriminately by all the Divine names and titles, whether significant\nespecially of his Divine nature, or of his official person, agency or\ncharacter.\n\nIn these multiform relations he was the great theme, as he was the\nlawgiver, administrator and revealer of the ancient dispensations;\nasserting the same prerogatives and performing the same acts when\nreferred to by official titles, as when specially denominated Jehovah or\nElohim. In both cases, from the nature and historical connection of the\nacts ascribed to him, it is evident that the actor was personally one\nand the same.\n\nThe word Elohim is a general term, employed, it may be presumed,\noriginally, with reference only to the Supreme Being, but subsequently\nappropriated to imaginary deities. In the Hebrew Scriptures it occurs in\nseveral forms, as El, Elohe, Eloah, Elohim, referring sometimes to the\nDivine Being absolutely, sometimes definitely to the Father, sometimes\nto the Holy Spirit, but commonly to the Son; as is the case with\ncorresponding and equivalent designations in the New Testament. The\nradical idea of this word, in its simplest form, is, according to some\nHebrew lexicographers, that of interposer, intervener, mediator; derived\nfrom the intervention of air and light between all bodies in space, and\nindicating the universal agency of the Divine Person, primarily\ndesignated as interposer or mediator. And undoubtedly the scope of\nnumerous passages implies this special reference, though not always\napparent, without reference to other scriptures; as in Psalm xlv. 6:\n\"Thy throne, Elohim, is for ever and ever;\" and cii. 24: \"I said, El,\n[with the suffix for my, and rendered O my God,] take me not away in the\nmidst of my days: thy years are throughout all generations. Of old hast\nthou laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of\nthy hands. They shall perish,\" &c. These passages are quoted, Heb. i.,\nas having referred expressly to Christ.\n\nHengstenberg, in his Christology, p. 160, vol I., introduces his\ninvestigation respecting the character of the Angel or Messenger, in\nwhich he designs to show that the alleged essential oneness of the\nMessiah with the Jehovah does not contradict the Old Testament doctrine\nof the unity, by observing, \"that the New Testament makes us acquainted\nwith God, the Father of Jesus Christ, as a Spirit, who, being every\nwhere equally present, never manifests himself in a sensible form. But\nbesides this concealed God, it makes known to us also a revealed God,\nassociated with him by the oneness of their nature; the Son or Logos,\nwho has constantly filled up the infinite distance between the Creator\nand the creation, and been the Mediator in all the relations of God to\nthe world and the human race; who, even before he became man in the\nperson of Christ, was in all ages the light of the world, and to whom\nespecially the whole direction of the visible Theocracy belonged.\nAlthough this doctrine was first unfolded with perfect clearness in the\nNew Testament, yet we find an essential distinction between the\nunrevealed and the revealed God, even in the writings of the Old\nTestament.\"\n\nAfter examining the principal passages which speak of the Messenger or\nAngel Jehovah, and showing \"that they really contain the doctrine of a\ndistinction between the concealed and the revealed God,\" pp. 165-182, he\nthus concludes, pp. 183-187: \"We believe then that we have satisfactorily\nshown that by the Angel of Jehovah is to be understood the Revealer of\nGod, who being a partaker of his Godhead, and united with him in the same\nnature, was the mediator in all his relations, first with the patriarchs,\nand afterwards with the visible Theocracy. This Revealer of Jehovah then\nwas expected as a great Restorer in future times. This is evident from\nthose places in the Old Testament which ascribe to the Messiah Divine\nnames, attributes, and works; for if the Messiah were God, he could stand,\naccording to the whole system of the religion of the Old Testament, in no\nother relation to the Most High God than that which the Angel of Jehovah\nwas thought to sustain. Further, the passage in Malachi iii. 1 affords the\nmost distinct testimony in favor of the identity of both. There the\nMessiah bears the name of the Angel of the Covenant, either, according to\nthe general import of the term covenant, the angel who is the mediator in\nevery engagement between God and men, or, according to its special\nmeaning, the angel who established the covenant of Sinai with the people\nof Israel. From this appellation, therefore, it appears that the Messiah\nis the same as the Angel Jehovah, whose agency in giving the law at Sinai\nis not indeed expressly mentioned in the Mosaic account, but it is\nrendered sufficiently certain by analogy, and by the positive testimony of\nthe prophet. As the Angel Jehovah, in those passages where he is expressly\nnamed, bears interchangeably the names Jehovah and Elohim, so must we\noften suppose him to be intended, where Jehovah only is spoken of\nthroughout. Comp. Gen. xxxii. 24, &c., with Hosea xii. 4-6, and Exod. xx.\n3, where the angel is not mentioned, and Jehovah says, 'I am the Lord thy\nGod, who brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.' Allowing it to have\nbeen the office of the Angel Jehovah in general to act as mediator in the\ntransactions between the invisible God and men, his mediation must be\nassumed, in many instances, where it is not expressly mentioned.\" \"This\nidentity of the Angel of Jehovah and the Messiah was acknowledged also by\nthe later Jews.\" \"But what renders this identity indubitably certain is\nthe evidence of the New Testament, in which Christ appears as the Mediator\nof the Old Covenant, and every thing is attributed to him which in the Old\nTestament is spoken of Jehovah and his Revealer. According to John xii.\n41, Isaiah saw the glory of Christ and spake of him; on the other hand, in\nthe passage referred to, chap. vi., Isaiah saw the glory of Jehovah. 1\nCor. x. 9, it is said, 'Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also\ntempted and were destroyed of serpents.' According to this passage,\ntherefore, Christ was the leader of the Israelites through the wilderness,\nand was tempted by them. On the other hand, the Pentateuch relates that\nthey were led by the Angel Jehovah; and in Numb. xxi. 5-7, that they\ntempted Jehovah. 1 Pet. i. 10 declares that the Spirit of Christ spake by\nthe prophets: but the prophets themselves always refer to Jehovah as the\nsource of their predictions. According to Heb. xi. 26, Moses preferred\nreproach for the sake of Christ, to the treasures of Egypt: the narrative\nin Exodus informs us that he sacrificed every thing to the service of\nJehovah. According to Heb. xii. 26, at the giving of the law, the voice of\nChrist shook the earth: in Exodus this was done by Jehovah.\" \"We must in a\ncertain respect distinguish between the Angel Jehovah and the Son of God,\nand not, with the Fathers and most of the old theologians, venture to say\nthat they are perfectly identical.\" \"That the Mediator of the New\nTestament was also, as the Angel Jehovah, the Mediator in all the\nrelations of God to the people of the Old Testament, was, with the\nexception of the above named Fathers, the unanimous opinion of the ancient\nChurch.\"\n\nAfter quoting a list of authorities, he concludes: \"Let us now briefly\nsum up the result of the preceding investigation. In the prophetic\nScriptures, a divine as well as human nature is attributed to the\nMessiah; and yet every polytheistic idea is excluded by the assumption\nof his essential unity with the Most High God. It was expected that the\nAngel or Revealer of Jehovah, who had often before made himself\noccasionally visible, and acted as the Mediator between God and the\npeople, in all their transactions, would assume human nature in the\nperson of the Messiah, and redeem and bless both Jews and Gentiles.\n\n\"Here the question yet arises: If the distinction between the revealed\nand the unrevealed God was already made known under the Old Testament,\nwherein is the New Testament in this respect superior to the Old? The\npreference consists in this: Under the Old Testament the distinction was\nnecessarily kept more out of view, and hence might easily appear to be\nfounded not so much on a relation in the Godhead itself, as on a\nrelation to those to whom the revelation was made. In the Old Testament,\nthe Mediator commonly spoke and acted in the name of God, whom he\nrevealed. Nor could it be otherwise before the Logos had become flesh.\nHence the Revealer and He who was revealed in a manner lost themselves\nin each other. But under the New Testament, on the contrary, they\nappeared distinguished from each other, as Father and Son. Religion thus\ngained a two-fold advantage. It became more spiritual, and at the same\ntime more an object of sense: more spiritual, by the exclusion of those\nlimited conceptions of the spirituality, the omniscience, and the\nomnipresence of God which arose from confounding the Revealer with him\nwho was revealed; more an object of sense, because the Son of God, in\nhis life, sufferings, and death, brought the Divine Being nearer to man\nthan was possible in the transient appearances of the Angel under the\nOld Testament. But such a condescension of the Deity to fallen man is\nindispensable to his becoming like God.\"\n\nOn these passages it may be observed, that in what the author says of\nthe Mediator having \"constantly filled up the infinite distance between\nthe Creator and the creation,\" he proceeds on the common theory that the\ninvisible, the concealed God, in distinction from the personal Word, is\nthe Creator. This is inconsistent with the preceding statement, that he\nnever manifests himself in a sensible form: for He who created, upholds\nand governs, appeared personally and visibly to Abraham, Jacob, Moses\nand others, as Jehovah, gave the law at Sinai, and was the leader of\nIsrael. With respect to the distinction which he refers to as existing\nin a certain respect between the Angel of Jehovah and the Son of God, it\nis presumed that he considered the latter title as applicable to the\nsecond Person of the Trinity, eternally, and as designating that Person\nanterior to his appointment as Mediator, and without reference to his\nincarnation or his official work in any respect. The doctrine which he\nascribes to the Fathers is presumed to be, that the official Person who\nis called the Angel Jehovah, and who took on him the seed of Abraham,\nwas identically the same Person before and after the accession and union\nof man's nature to the Divine; and that he was designated as the same\nperson by the phrase, \"the Son of God.\" In the passages above quoted,\nwhere the preposition _of_ is not inserted between the words Angel and\nJehovah, the author gives the Hebrew words. When he translates them, he\ninserts the preposition.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\n    Appearances of the Messenger Jehovah to Abraham and to Jacob.\n\n\nIn the narrative of Abraham's offering of Isaac, Gen. xxii., we read\nthat \"Melach Jehovah called unto him out of heaven, and said, Lay not\nthine hand upon the lad, for _I_ know that thou fearest Elohim, seeing\nthou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from _me_. And Melach\nJehovah called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, and said, By\nmyself have I sworn, saith Jehovah, for because thou hast done this\nthing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, That in blessing I\nwill bless thee, because thou hast obeyed _my voice_.\"\n\nAt the commencement of this narrative it is said that (_the_) Elohim did\ntempt Abraham, _i. e._, try him in respect to his faith and obedience.\n\"And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest,\nand get thee into the land of Moriah, and offer him there for a burnt\noffering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. And\nAbraham went unto the place of which (_the_) Elohim had told him.\"\nThere he built an altar, and having bound Isaac he laid him on the\naltar, and took the knife to slay him; when Melach Jehovah called to\nhim, forbade the intended sacrifice, and said, I know that thou fearest\nElohim, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son from _me_. From this it is\nevident that the offering was intended to be made, and was virtually\nmade, to Melach Jehovah. For \"By faith Abraham when he was tried offered\nup Isaac; accounting that God was able to raise him up from the dead,\nfrom whence also he received him in a figure.\" Heb. xi. His faith, in\nthis extraordinary act of worship, had immediate respect to the\ndelegated Messenger Jehovah, then and ever the resurrection and the\nlife. He was the Divine speaker on the occasion, his voice it was that\nAbraham obeyed, and to him he rendered the highest acts of homage and\nobedience. It was in his official name, as well as in that of Elohim,\nthat he spoke to Abraham, and to him in all respects the scene evidently\nrefers. After offering the animal provided in place of Isaac, he\ndiscerned an import and a reference in the transaction, which were to be\nfulfilled on the same mount at a future day; and he therefore named the\nplace Jehovah-Jireh, importing that what was signified by his offering\nwould be realized and witnessed there, and giving rise to a saying\nexpressive of that result, and pointing no doubt, so explicitly as not\nto be misunderstood, to the sacrifice of Christ: namely, \"In the mount\nof Jehovah it shall be seen;\" or, according to Warburton, Book vi. sec.\n5, \"In the mount Jehovah shall be seen.\"\n\nIn the narrative of Jacob's departure from Laban, Gen. xxi., he says:\n\"Melach (the) Elohim spake unto me in a dream, and he said, I have seen\nall that Laban doeth unto thee. I am the El of Beth-El, where thou\nanointedst the pillar, and where thou vowedst a vow unto _me_.\" Here the\nMessenger Jehovah declares himself to be the God of Beth-El, and that\nthe vow made there was made to him. In chap. xxviii., where that\ntransaction is related, he is announced, not by this special name of\noffice, but by other designations, showing that in his official\ncharacter he was familiarly recognized by the various Divine names,\nwhether employed separately or conjointly. And Jacob awaked and said,\n\"Surely Jehovah is in this place; this is the house of Elohim: and Jacob\nvowed a vow, saying, If Elohim will be with me, &c., then shall Jehovah\nbe my Elohe.\"\n\nThere is in the history of Jacob another striking illustration of this\nusage. On his way from Padan-aram, after his interview with Esau, he\ncame to Shalem in the land of Canaan and pitched his tent there, and\nbuilt an altar which he called El-Elohe-Israel. Subsequently Elohim said\nunto Jacob, \"Arise, go up to Beth-El, and dwell there; and make there an\naltar unto El that appeared unto thee when thou fleddest from the face\nof Esau thy brother. Then Jacob said unto his household, Let us arise\nand go up to Beth-El, and I will make there an altar unto El who\nanswered me in the day of my distress, and was with me in the way which\nI went. So Jacob come to Beth-El, and he built there an altar, and\ncalled the place El-Beth-El, because there (the) Elohim appeared unto\nhim, when he fled from the face of his brother. And Elohim appeared unto\nJacob again; and Elohim said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall\nnot be called any more Jacob, but Isra-El shall be thy name. And Elohim\nsaid unto him, I am El-Shadai, (God Almighty.) And Elohim went up from\nhim in the place where he talked with him.\" Chap. xxxv. But He who\nvisibly appeared to, and wrestled with him on the occasion referred to,\nGen. xxxii., and whom he saw face to face, was Elohim in the likeness of\nman, and is called by Hosea Melach, the Messenger, even Jehovah Elohe of\nZebaoth.\n\nThe above-mentioned appearance of Elohim to Jacob was doubtless a\nvisible appearance, for after talking with Jacob, Elohim went up from\nhim and from the place of meeting. And it is clear that the same Person\nwho before was called a man is here called Elohim. Probably in other\ninstances, where Jehovah or Elohim is said to appear, as to Isaac, Gen.\nxxvi. 2, 24, and to Abraham and others on various occasions, were\nvisible personal appearances.\n\nAnother instance in the history of Jacob, in which the official\ndesignation Melach occurs interchangeably with Elohim, is Gen. xlviii.\n15: \"And he blessed Joseph and said, (The) Elohim, before whom my\nfathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, (the) Elohim which fed me all my\nlife long unto this day, _the Melach_ which redeemed me from all evil,\nbless the lads.\" The identity of Person here is made emphatic by the\narticle prefixed to each designation.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\n    References to various Appearances of Jehovah and Elohim to the\n    Patriarchs.\n\n\nIt is evident from the preceding illustrations that during the\npatriarchal dispensation, the personal Word, Jehovah in the delegated\ncharacter of Messiah, appeared visibly in the form of man, and was\nrecognized under official and other Divine designations, appropriated\nseparately and interchangeably to the one manifested and acting\ninterposer and agent in the works of creation, providence and\nredemption. There are in the records of that dispensation numerous\ncollateral evidences and implications to the same effect, which may be\ncomprised under what relates to personal designations and appearances,\nthe import and reference of sacrificial offerings, the places, manner,\nand immediate object of worship, prayer, faith and trust, and the\nfamiliarity of intercourse on the part of the Divine administrator of\nProvidence and guardian of his people during that economy.\n\nAs a further evidence that the instances in which it is said that Elohim\nor Jehovah _appeared_ to Abraham or others were local, personal, visible\nappearances, it may be observed that on the occasion mentioned, Gen.\nxvii., it is said that Jehovah _appeared_ to him: \"And he left off\ntalking with him, and Elohim _went up_ from Abraham;\" as in a passage\nbefore referred to, chap. xxxv., that \"Elohim appeared unto Jacob; and\nElohim _went up_ from him in the place where he talked with him.\" The\nword translated _went up_, signifies to _ascend_, _to go up_, &c., and\nis of frequent occurrence. Thus, Ps. lxviii. 18: \"Thou hast _ascended_\nup on high, thou hast led captivity,\" &c.; quoted and applied to Christ,\nEph. iv. Judges xiii. 20: \"When the flame _went up_ towards heaven from\noff the altar, Melach Jehovah _ascended_ in the flame of the altar.\"\nEzekiel xi. 23: \"And the glory of Jehovah _went up_ from the midst of\nthe city, and stood upon the mountain.\" Gen. xix. 28: \"The smoke of the\ncountry _went up_, as the smoke of a furnace.\"\n\nThe like evidence as to the local, personal presence of Jehovah on such\noccasions, results from the use of the word translated _came down_,\n_descended_, where his presence or the local exercise of his\nprerogatives is mentioned. Thus, with reference to Babel and the\ndispersion: \"Jehovah _came down_ to see the city and the tower.... So\nJehovah scattered them abroad,\" &c. Gen. xi. 5. So on the occasion of\nhis first visible appearance to Moses: \"Melach Jehovah appeared unto him\nin a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush. Moses hid his face, for\nhe was afraid to look upon Elohim. And Jehovah said, I am _come down_ to\ndeliver them,\" &c. Exod. iii. Again: \"Jehovah _came down_ upon mount\nSinai, on the top of the mount; and Jehovah called Moses up to the top\nof the mount, and Moses went up.\" Exod. xix. 20. And when Moses took the\ntwo tables of stone up to the top of Sinai, \"Jehovah _descended_ in the\ncloud and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of Jehovah.\"\nExod. xxxv. At the consecration of the seventy elders, \"Jehovah _came\ndown_ in a cloud, and spake unto Moses.\" Numbers xi. 25. At the sedition\nof Miriam and Aaron, \"Jehovah _came down_ in the pillar of the cloud,\nand stood in the door of the tabernacle, and said, Hear now my words.\"\nIbid. xii. 5. These and various other passages clearly import a personal\ndescent in a visible form; and no less clearly indicate, by the titles,\noccasions and acts narrated, that it was the delegated One, the Word, to\nwhom all such manifestations refer, conformably to the allusion to the\nascension of Christ, Ephes. iv.: \"He that _descended_ is the same also\nthat _ascended_ up far above all heavens.\"\n\nThe word translated _appeared_, in all the instances of local personal\nmanifestation, literally means _appeared visibly_, _was seen_; as Gen.\ni. 9: \"Let the dry land _appear_;\" Gen. viii. 5: \"The tops of the\nmountains _were seen_;\" and vii. 1: \"Thee have I _seen_ righteous;\" ix.\n14: \"The bow _shall be seen_;\" xxxi. 42: \"Elohim hath seen mine\naffliction;\" xlviii. 3: \"El-Shadai _appeared unto me_ at Luz;\"\nliterally, _was seen by me_. Judges xiii. 22: \"We _have seen_ Elohim.\"\nExod. xxiv. 10: \"And they saw the Elohe of Israel.\"\n\nThis will be further illustrated by reference to particular instances\nmentioned in the book of Genesis. \"And Jehovah appeared unto Abram, and\nsaid, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar\nunto Jehovah who appeared unto him.\" Chap. lxii. 7. That this was a\nvisible manifestation, is indicated not only by the obvious import of\nthe terms employed, but by Abram's building an altar, and consecrating\nthe locality as a place of worship, and of typical offerings to Jehovah.\n\nAgain, chap. xvii. 1: \"Jehovah _appeared_ to Abram, and said unto him, I\nam El-Shadai; walk before me, and be thou perfect. And Abram fell on his\nface; and Elohim talked with him, saying,\" &c. After changing his name\nto Abraham, and that of his wife to Sarah, announcing a covenant with\nhim, hearing his prayer for Ishmael, and giving sundry promises and\ndirections, \"Elohim left off talking with him, and _went up_ from\nAbraham.\" The language, and all the circumstances and details of this\ninterview, imply a local, personal, visible presence of Jehovah.\n\nThe next instance, chap. xviii., is that in which \"Jehovah _appeared_ to\nAbraham in the plains of Mamre,\" in the likeness of man; was entertained\nby him, walked and conversed with, and heard his requests in behalf of\nthe righteous in Sodom: which undoubtedly was a local, visible, personal\nappearance of Jehovah the Word.\n\nIn the 26th chapter we read that Isaac went to Gerar, \"And Jehovah\n_appeared_ unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt,\" &c. Afterwards\nhe removed to Beersheba, \"And Jehovah _appeared_ unto him, and said, I\nam the Elohe of Abraham thy father: fear not, for I am with thee,\" &c.\n\"And he builded an altar there, and called upon the name of Jehovah, and\npitched his tent there.\" At these interviews the same promises\nsubstantially respecting his descendants were made to him, that had been\nmade to Abraham, with the same introductory formula concerning the\nappearance of the Divine speaker; and considering that Isaac built an\naltar and fixed his residence at Beersheba, worshipped, doubtless\npresenting typical offerings on the altar, and consecrating that as the\nplace of his future worship in the confidence of its being thereafter a\nplace of Divine manifestation, there seems to be very ample ground to\nconclude that these were local, personal, and visible appearances,\nsimilar in their form, as they were in their object, to those vouchsafed\nto Abraham.\n\nThe first instance to be noticed in the history of Jacob, is referred to\nin chap. xlviii. 3: \"And Jacob said unto Joseph, El-Shadai _appeared_\nunto me at Luz, and blessed me,\" &c. The occasion was that of his vision\nof a ladder: \"And Jehovah stood above it and said, I am Jehovah Elohe of\nAbraham;\" see chap. xxviii. Subsequently, chap. xxxv., he was directed\nto return and reside at that place. \"Elohim said unto Jacob, Arise, go\nup to Bethel, and make there an altar unto El, that _appeared_ unto thee\nwhen thou fleddest from the face of Esau. And he built there an altar,\nand called the place El-Beth-El; because there (the) Elohim _appeared_\nunto him, when he fled,\" &c. The repetition of the word _appeared_ in\nthese passages, its implied significance as a reason for building an\naltar, the occasion referred to, and the object of speaking of it to\nJoseph, indicate a memorable personal, visible appearance at the place\nspecified.\n\n\"And Elohim _appeared_ unto Jacob again, and said unto him, I am\nEl-Shadai; and Elohim _went up_ from him in the place where he talked\nwith him,\" chap. 35: which can hardly be taken for any other than a\nlocal and visible presence.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\n    Of the Doctrines, Worship, and Faith of those earliest mentioned\n    in Scripture--Reference to the History of Moses, Noah, Joshua.\n\n\nWaiving for the present a notice of many analogous instances in other\nparts of Scripture, it may be observed that there are, in the history of\nthe patriarchs, a variety of statements and expressions which, from the\noccasions to which they relate, the connections in which they occur, or\nthe things specified, naturally imply the local personal presence of the\nDivine speaker, especially when considered in connection with the\ninstances in which it is clearly shown that he was visibly present. In\nthe course of that history there are numerous intimations that the\nworshippers of Jehovah had places appropriated to their religious\nservices, where they offered prayers and sacrifices, and where, by an\naudible voice, he held immediate and familiar converse with them. Thus\nin the first recorded instance of worship, Gen. iv., we read that Cain,\nand Abel also, \"brought an offering unto Jehovah. And Jehovah had\nrespect unto Abel and to his offering: but unto Cain and his offering he\nhad not respect; and Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. And\nJehovah said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance\nfallen?\" It is apparent from this narrative, and from their dissimilar\noccupations, that they prepared their offerings not in concert, but\nseparately from each other; that they brought them to the same place at\nthe same time; that they respectively offered them to Jehovah; and that\nhe was present in such a way as to be recognized by them, for he\nimmediately indicated to their apprehension and conviction his\nacceptance of one and rejection of the other, and spoke directly and\npointedly to Cain. After his slaughter of Abel, and probably on his\nresorting again to the place of worship and Divine manifestation,\nJehovah spoke again to him, and pronounced a curse upon him for his\ncrime; to which Cain replied, as though not unaccustomed to speak to\nJehovah, and said, among other things, as though conscious that he was\nexcommunicated and banished from the consecrated place: \"From thy _face_\nshall I be hid, and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the\nearth.... And Cain went out from the _presence_ of Jehovah.\" Strongly\nimplying that he had been accustomed to the visible presence, and had\nseen Jehovah, and that banishment from that place forbade the hope of\nsuch vision of him again.\n\nIt is evident from the details and circumstances of this scene, and\nfrom references to it in other parts of Scripture, that there was no\nwant of intelligence in either of the parties, as to the nature and\nimport of their offerings, the ritual and reference which they implied,\nor the righteous discrimination and the moral bearing and significance\nof the verdicts and consequences in their respective cases. \"Cain was of\nthe wicked one,\" a disciple and servant of the great adversary, and slew\nhis brother \"because his own works were evil and his brother's\nrighteous.\" He knew, as the questions which Jehovah addressed to him\nimply, that if he did well, if with the like faith he made an offering\nlike that of Abel, he would in like manner be accepted; and that he had\nno just ground to be angry, or even to be disappointed on being rejected\nfor taking a contrary course. But he brought--not like Abel a sin\noffering, implying a conviction and acknowledgment of his personal\nsinfulness, and of his faith in that great expiatory sacrifice to which\nhis typical offering owed all its significance--but an offering of\nfruits, an expression of acknowledgment to the Creator, which implied no\nacknowledgment on his part of his being a sinner and needing a Saviour,\nor of his having any faith in the prefigured atonement, or any\ndisposition to conform to the ritual of worship. The faith of Abel\nexhibited on this occasion was, like that of Abraham, effectual to his\njustification; a faith in the person, sacrifice, and righteousness of\nthe Divine Redeemer; and is the first on the illustrious roll recorded,\nHeb. xi. And from the nature of the case, as well as from the\nparticulars of the narrative, we must conclude that his offering was in\nall respects an example of conformity to the ritual of worship\ninstituted by Jehovah, that it comprised not merely firstlings of his\nflock, but such as had all the characteristics which are specified in\nsubsequent records; that it was made by fire on an altar, at a place\nappropriated to that object; that it was a medium of his faith and an\nexpression of his homage and obedience, solely by reason of its\nreference to the person and prefiguration of the atoning sacrifice of\nChrist; and that it was rendered to that Person then locally present, in\nthe form which he was at length permanently to assume, and in which his\nsacrifice of himself was to be made. So far at least as these\nparticulars are concerned, the ritual and rationale of the worship\nprescribed does not appear to have been changed during the patriarchial\ndispensation, nor in that which ensued, though in the Mosaic ritual many\ndetails were added on the basis of those originally prescribed. The\nmethod of acceptable worship, the immediate object of homage, and the\nfaith which was unto salvation, continued the same; and it is clear from\nthe narratives in various instances, that burnt offerings, typical\nsacrifices, were made to the delegated one, personating the promised\nSeed, under the designation of Jehovah, or Melach Jehovah, when he was\nlocally and visibly present.\n\nIt is to be considered that Moses wrote about 2500 years after the\ncreation; that the children of Israel had retained the language and\ncustoms of their ancestors, so as to render it superfluous to\nparticularize either the religious or civil institutions of earlier\ntimes, any farther than was necessary to the personal narratives or\nhistorical notices of individuals and families. They understood and\npractised what had been handed down from the beginning through Noah,\nAbraham, Jacob, and others, and though to some extent infected with the\nidolatrous spirit of the Egyptians, were familiar with the ritual, the\nsacrifices and offerings, and other institutions of the revealed system\nof religion. Moreover, all that concerned their religious doctrines and\nrites was, under his ministry, renewed, and with new revelations and\nordinances set forth in writing for their instruction, and that of their\nsuccessors. Hence the scanty, and for the most part merely incidental,\nmention of things of that nature in his retrospective history. It by no\nmeans follows from the brevity and infrequency of his notices, that such\nmen as Abel, Enoch, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Job, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,\nwhose united lives extended from the first institution of religious\nrites down to the settlement of Israel in Egypt, had not a clear and\ncomprehensive knowledge of all the leading truths and essential\ndoctrines of revealed religion, which were known to Moses or any of his\nsuccessors prior to the advent of Christ. On the contrary, judging from\nthe characters and relations which they sustained, the personal converse\nwith Jehovah which most of them are recorded to have had, and the\nreferences made to several of them in the prophets and in the New\nTestament, we must conclude that they had such knowledge. They received\ninstruction directly from the Great Revealer. Most of them were, at\ntimes, inspired, and prophesied. And one might as well conclude that\nSolomon did not understand even the simplest forms of numerical\ncomputation, because mathematics are not mentioned among the subjects\nupon which he spoke or wrote, as to conclude, because so little is\nrecorded of them in detail by Moses, that these men of world-wide\ncelebrity for their religious faith and practice, and their eminence as\nprinces and heads of nations, did not understand the doctrines and the\nfaith which they professed, and for which they are set forth as examples\nto Christian believers under the present dispensation.\n\nThe possession of such knowledge on their part, and the reality of the\nlocal presence and often the visible appearance of the Messiah, the\nMessenger Jehovah, may be illustrated by reference to the personal\nhistory of Moses, Noah, and Joshua, and to the use of terms by them and\nby other sacred writers.\n\nAfter the children of Israel had sojourned in Egypt about four hundred\nyears, Moses was called to conduct them to the land of promise. By\noppressive laws and rigorous exactions under a new dynasty of kings\ntowards the close of the period of their bondage, they were greatly\ndepressed. At the birth of Moses, however, there were those who had\nfaith, and the knowledge of the true religion was by no means generally\neffaced. In the exercise of faith his parents concealed him three\nmonths. \"The children of Israel sighed by reason of their bondage, and\nthey cried, and their cry came up unto _the_ Elohim by reason of the\nbondage. And Elohim heard their groaning, and Elohim remembered his\ncovenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob; and Elohim looked\nupon the children of Israel, and Elohim had respect unto them.\" Exod.\nii. The people generally, it would seem, cried to the Elohe of their\nfathers for relief, and were heard and regarded.\n\nThough from childhood to the age of forty Moses was one of the family\nand court of Pharaoh, and probably, therefore, could have had no\npeculiar advantages of instruction in the true religion, he nevertheless\nhad such knowledge and experience of it, that \"by faith, when he was\ncome to years, he refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;\nchoosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to\nenjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the reproach of\nChrist greater riches than the treasures of Egypt: for he had respect\nunto the recompense of the reward.\" Heb. xi.\n\nIn this brief testimony concerning him, we clearly recognize the faith\nof Abraham, and of the prophets and martyrs of later times. He made no\ncompromises with the honors, riches, or pleasures of the world, but\nrenounced them. He sought not to serve two masters. He clearly discerned\nwhat distinguished the people of God from idolaters and unbelievers, and\nwas well aware of the afflictions and trials which were consequent on\ntheir faith, and their allegiance and obedience to the Messiah, the\nDivine Mediator, the Messenger Jehovah, the Christ. In the certain\nprospect of affliction, reproaches, and sufferings, he chose publicly to\nmanifest his faith and allegiance by his conduct. He forsook the court\nof Pharaoh, renounced the pleasures of sin and the riches of Egypt, and\nwelcomed the cross.\n\nIn the family of Jethro, the priest of Midian, he probably found true\nworshippers, and met with nothing detrimental to his sentiments; and by\nthe scene in which the Messenger Jehovah visibly appeared to him,\ndoubtless his faith was so confirmed, and his knowledge increased, as to\nqualify him for the extraordinary services to which he was called. Hence\nwe further read of him that, after the miracles and plagues by which\nPharaoh was at length made to yield, \"By faith he forsook Egypt, not\nfearing the wrath of the king.... And by faith he kept the passover and\nthe sprinkling of blood.\" Heb. xi.\n\nNow it is in the light of his character as thus referred to--of his\nknowledge and experience of the true religion as held by the people of\nGod then and in earlier times--of his faith in the person and\nmediatorial work of the Messiah--that we are to regard him as the writer\nof the primeval and patriarchal history; and if it is evident that he\nrecognized the Messiah in the person of the Messenger Jehovah, and that\nin all his subsequent narratives he designated the same official person\nby the terms Jehovah, Elohim, and Elohe, as well as by the terms\nMessenger, Adon, and Adonai, then it is safe to conclude that he\nintended to designate the same Person by the same terms in the earlier\nhistory.\n\nAt the period of the legation of Moses, the word Elohim was in familiar\nuse in Egypt and among the Israelites as the designation of the object\nof religious homage; very probably it was the only name of God known to\nthe people generally. Moses accordingly, in the first two chapters of\nExodus, which probably were written before the book of Genesis, employs\nthat name only. The third chapter opens with the announcement of the\nMessenger Jehovah appearing in the bush, and in its progress applies to\nhim indifferently the names Elohim and Jehovah; and in the fourth and\nensuing chapters, the same, and Adonai and El-Shadai, but most\nfrequently Jehovah.\n\nIf now we suppose the book of Genesis to have been written by him after\nthe events in Egypt, at the Red Sea, and at mount Sinai, and the setting\nup of the tabernacle, (which occurred about twelve months after the\nexodus,) where the people, though generally familiar only with the name\nElohim, must have become in some degree used to the name Jehovah, we may\nperhaps discern a fitness and beauty in the first announcements of the\nCreator in Genesis; where, in the first chapter and the first three\nverses of the second, the name Elohim only is used; in the second, from\nthe fourth verse, the name Jehovah Elohim, and in the ensuing chapters\nthese names separately and conjointly, and various other designations,\nas Melach Jehovah, Adonai, and El-Shadai. In numerous instances the\n_article_ is prefixed to the name Elohim, as if emphatically to\ndesignate the God of Israel, the Creator, as _the_ true Elohim, in\ndistinction from the false god of idolaters.\n\nBy this method he recalled, and re\u00ebstablished in the minds of the\npeople, all the Divine designations known to the patriarchs of preceding\nages, and their reference and applicability as designations to the one\nmediatorial Person; rendering it plain that _the_ Elohim of the\nIsraelites in Egypt, and of the first chapter of Genesis, was identical\nwith Jehovah, Melach the Messenger, Adonai, &c. In this view the\nresemblance of the first verses of the Gospel of John is noticeable,\nconsidering that it was his object to identify the Christ, as he\nappeared visibly incarnate, with Elohim the Creator announced in the\nfirst verses of Genesis.\n\nLet it then be observed that in the narrative, Exod. iii. and iv., it is\nevident that one Divine personage only is referred to and designated by\nthe several titles which are employed. That Divine personage appeared to\nMoses in the established or visible glory, the bright cloud-like\nenvelope so familiar afterwards on mount Sinai and in the tabernacle.\nMoses, recording this appearance, says, \"The Messenger Jehovah appeared\nto him.\" This was a person bearing an official title--one sent--the\nMessenger of the Covenant, for whose appearance incarnate John Baptist\nwas to prepare the way, Mal. iii. Moses turned to behold the sight. And\nwhen Jehovah, he who appeared in the visible glory, the Messenger, saw\nthat he turned aside to see, Elohim, that is, the person in the visible\nShaking, \"called unto him out of the midst of the bush, ... and said, I\nam the Elohe of thy father, the Elohe of Abraham, the Elohe of Isaac,\nand the Elohe of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to\nlook upon Elohim;\" that is, upon the ineffable glory of the Person, the\nMessenger Jehovah, the Elohim, who thus visibly appeared to him. \"And\nJehovah said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are\nin Egypt, and have heard their cry, ... and _I am come down_ to deliver\nthem:\" come down as a Person, so as to be locally and visibly present.\nThe Elohim to whom the children of Israel cried, (chap. ii.,) and who\nheard their cry, is, on his first appearing visibly, called the\nMessenger Jehovah, and here announces himself to be Jehovah who had\nheard their cry and come down to deliver them. So surely therefore as\nthese acts of seeing the affliction of the people, hearing their cry,\ncoming down, and speaking to Moses, are the acts of a Person, this\nnarrative and these several designations relate to one and the same\nPerson; and this Person is shown to be the Messiah by his official\ntitle.\n\nIt being thus manifest that, as a Person locally and visibly appearing,\nthese several designations were equally applicable to him, Moses in the\nnext ensuing verses calls him Elohim, and asks by what name he shall\ndesignate him to the children of Israel. It is to be observed that there\nis no record of any visible appearance of the Messenger Jehovah prior to\nthis since the days of Jacob; and it is probable that the names Jehovah\nand Messenger Jehovah, though known to the true worshippers, were not\nfamiliar to the people generally. But these designations being peculiar,\nand more distinguishing than that of Elohim, which was in common use\namong idolaters, were now to be proclaimed and brought into familiar\nuse. \"And Elohim said unto Moses, I am that I am; and he said, Thus\nshalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you:\"\nexpressions equivalent to those of John, \"In him was life,\" \"I am he\nthat liveth;\" that is, the self-existent. \"And Elohim said moreover\nunto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah\nElohe of your fathers, the Elohe of Abraham, the Elohe of Isaac, and the\nElohe of Jacob, hath sent me unto you.... Go and gather the elders of\nIsrael together, and say unto them, Jehovah Elohe of your fathers, the\nElohe of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, _appeared_ unto me, saying, I\nhave surely visited you and seen that which is done to you in Egypt.\"\nBut it was the Messenger Jehovah who _appeared_ to him, and speaking\nfrom the midst of the bush said, \"I am the Elohe of thy father, the\nElohe of Abraham, the Elohe of Isaac, and the Elohe of Jacob.... I have\nsurely seen the affliction of _my people_ which are in Egypt, and have\nheard their cry.\"\n\nAgain: \"The elders of Israel shall hearken to thy voice, and thou shalt\ncome, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye\nshall say unto him, Jehovah Elohe of the Hebrews hath _met_ with us....\nAnd now let us go that we may sacrifice to Jehovah our Elohe.\" Jehovah\nElohe of the Hebrews, and the Angel Jehovah who appeared to Moses, is\ntherefore one and the same Person. The Messenger Jehovah, the Person who\nlocally and visibly met with Moses, was the Elohe of the patriarchial\ndispensation.\n\nIn what follows, chap. iv., for the encouragement and confirmation of\nMoses, the power of working miracles is imparted to him by Jehovah, that\nthe people might \"believe that Jehovah Elohe of their fathers, the Elohe\nof Abraham, and the Elohe of Isaac, and the Elohe of Jacob, hath\nappeared unto thee.\" By thus demonstrating the reality of the\nappearance, he would no less conclusively show that the appearance of\nthe Messenger Jehovah was no other than the appearance locally and\npersonally of the Elohe of their fathers.\n\nJehovah, still conversing with Moses, said, (verse 11,) \"Who hath made\nman's mouth, or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the\nblind? Have not I, Jehovah? Now therefore go, and I will be with thy\nmouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say.\" Here the same Person, the\nMessenger, asserts the prerogatives of Creator, and the office of\nprophet or teacher. When Moses and Aaron had gathered the elders of\nIsrael, \"Aaron spake all the words which Jehovah had spoken unto Moses,\nand did the signs in the sight of the people. And the people believed;\nand when they heard that Jehovah,\" that is, the Messenger, \"had visited\nthe children of Israel, and that he had looked upon their afflictions,\"\nwhich the Messenger asserted of himself, \"then they bowed their heads\nand worshipped.\"\n\nIn the progress of the narrative, and throughout the writings of Moses,\nthe use of the same Divine appellations as in chap. iii. and iv.,\nindifferently and interchangeably, with reference to the same acts,\nleaves no room to doubt but that the same Divine personage is uniformly\nreferred to. Generally, that Person is called Jehovah when he speaks to\nMoses. When he appears visibly, as in the cloudy pillar, he is called\nthe Messenger Jehovah. When his attributes or relations, as in covenant,\nare referred to, he is called the Elohe. In all cases alike he is the\nofficial Person, the Messiah, the Messenger of the Covenant. Hence\nStephen, Acts vii., referring to the whole period of Moses' intercourse\nwith him, says, \"This Moses is he that was in the church in the\nwilderness with _the Messenger_ which spake to him in the mount Sinai,\nand with our fathers, who received the lively oracles to give unto us.\"\nThus it was the Messenger who spoke to Moses and to the elders and\npeople at mount Sinai, though he is there called Jehovah and Elohim.\n\"And Jehovah said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud,\nthat the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for\never.... And Jehovah came down upon mount Sinai on the top of the\nmount.... And Elohim spake all these words, saying, I am Jehovah thy\nElohe, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, &c.... And the\npeople [at the close of the scene] said unto Moses, Speak thou with us,\nand we will hear, but let not Elohim speak with us lest we die.\" Exod.\nxix., xx. Here the several Divine appellations are by Moses employed to\ndesignate the Person whom Stephen calls the Messenger. And Moses, Deut.\nv., says, \"Jehovah talked with you face to face in the mount, out of the\nmidst of the fire.\"\n\nOnce more, Exod. xiv. 19, Moses, speaking of the passage of the\nIsraelites through the sea, says, \"The Messenger Elohim, which went\nbefore the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar\nof the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them: and it\ncame between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel, and it\nwas a cloud and darkness to them, but it gave light by night to these.\"\nHere the same Person who is elsewhere called the Messenger Jehovah, is\ncalled the Messenger Elohim. This Person, and his change of position,\nare distinguished from the cloudy pillar, and its removal from the front\nto the rear of the camp. The Divine acts which ensued are ascribed to\nJehovah; among which we are told that \"Jehovah looked unto the host of\nthe Egyptians _through the pillar of fire and of the cloud_, and\ntroubled the host of the Egyptians.\" But it was the Messenger who was in\nthe pillar of fire, (the Shekina,) and who therefore looked through the\npillar of cloud which had been interposed between him and the\nEgyptians.\n\nSuppose the Israelites under Moses to have had a knowledge, by previous\nrevelations, of the truth concerning the person and work of Christ, and\nthe way of salvation through him. In that case, such revelations not being\ncommitted to writing prior to Moses, but having been matter of oral\ninstruction, were significantly expressed in an outward and visible manner\nby typical sacrifices, and other religious rites and prescriptions. By\ncomplying with these rites, the devout Israelite expressed his faith in\nthe revealed truths which they were employed to recall and commemorate.\nThe visible types were illustrative of revealed truths already known. They\nwere not the medium of a revelation, but a medium through which faith in\nan existing revelation and obedience to it were expressed. Their office\nwas not prophetic, but illustrative.\n\nThus, when under the Levitical economy the high priest, duly prepared\nand arrayed, entered the most holy place, his official person and acts\nconstituted a striking visible emblem of certain truths concerning the\nMessiah's person and sacerdotal work. Beholding that visible token and\nillustration of these truths, the believer's faith was called into\nexercise. So when the priest offered a sacrifice of atonement and\nsprinkled the blood, burnt incense, or performed any other official act;\nand when the worshipper laid his hand on the head of the animal to be\nsacrificed, celebrated the paschal supper, or complied in any other\nrespect with the prescribed ritual.\n\nThis method of worship and obedience through significant tokens and\nvisible emblems, and types illustrative of known truths, was instituted\nsoon after the fall, and suited in all respects the economy of outward\nand visible manifestation which prevailed down to the advent of Christ.\nThus Abel, the patriarchs and prophets, worshipped, and thus Simeon and\nAnna at the time of the incarnation.\n\nOf the patriarch Noah we read, Genesis vi.-ix., that he found grace in\nthe eyes of Jehovah; that he was a righteous man; that he walked with\n(the) Elohim; that Elohim repeatedly spoke to him, directed him to build\nan ark, and prescribed the form of it, forewarned him of the deluge and\nof its object, directed him to enter the ark, and shut him in; that he\ndid according to all that Jehovah commanded him; that Elohim directed\nhim to go forth from the ark; that he built an altar unto Jehovah, took\nof animals denominated clean, and offered burnt offerings on the altar,\nand was accepted; that Elohim blessed Noah and his sons, prescribed\ncertain laws to be observed thereafter, and announced a covenant of\nwhich the rainbow was made a perpetual token.\n\nIn all these communications, the form of address is like that of a\nperson locally and visibly present: \"I, even I, _do bring_ a flood of\nwaters upon the earth to destroy all flesh.... But with thee will I\nestablish my covenant.... _Come_ thou and all thy house into the ark;\nfor thee have I seen righteous _before me_, in this generation....\nElohim spake unto Noah and to his sons with him, saying, I, behold, I\nestablish my covenant with you and with your seed after you.\" And when\nNoah offered burnt offerings on the altar, \"Jehovah smelled a sweet\nsavor.\" From all which, and the occasion and nature of the things said\nand done, and a comparison of this with the occasions of local\nappearance to Abraham and others, which are declared to have been\nvisible, we may without presumption conclude that He who spake to Noah\nwas present in a visible form. That he was one of the most eminent and\nmost favored of those with whom Jehovah conversed, whose righteousness\nhe attested, and to whom he assigned the most important services, and\nimparted the highest gifts, is shown by his being named first of the\nthree, who, by their pre\u00ebminent righteousness, might, if present, be\nexpected by the captive Israelites to shield them from exterminating\njudgments. \"Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in the\nland, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness,\nsaith Jehovah Elohim.\" Ezekiel xiv. And if there was, in the course of\nthe patriarchial or Levitical dispensations, any occasion on which the\nnature and magnitude of the events were reasons for the local and\nvisible presence of Jehovah, surely that of the judicial destruction of\nthe whole race, excepting Noah and his family, may be assumed to have\nbeen such.\n\nThe word translated altar is from a root which signifies _to kill_, _to\nslaughter_ animals _for sacrifice_, _to sacrifice_; also _a sacrifice,_\nthe _victim_, or _thing_, _sacrificed_; and in the form translated\n_altar_ it denotes the place or instrument of sacrifice, on which the\nslaughtered victim (wholly or in part) was consumed by fire, and the\nblood poured out or sprinkled. See Levit. viii. 21, 24, xvii. 6, and\nelsewhere. Accordingly, to build an altar unto Jehovah, was to erect a\nstructure on which to offer to him slaughtered animals, to be consumed\n(probably in all instances of acceptable worship) by fire caused\nimmediately by him. Such altars were, in many instances, and probably in\nall, erected by his direction, and at places specified by him, and they\nwere places of customary worship and of Divine manifestation. It would\ntherefore be incongruous and preposterous to suppose that the\nworshippers did not understand the doctrines and typical references\ninvolved in the system, as well as the ritual forms and observances.\n\nThe altar of burnt offerings, above referred to as the instrument of\nsacrifice by the shedding of blood, was typical of the cross as the\ninstrument on which our Lord offered himself a sacrifice; and to this\nundoubtedly the true worshippers had reference, which implies a right\napprehension of his person and office, as well as of the necessity and\nefficacy of his expiatory death, and its relation to the justification\nand acceptance of believers. His personal presence, in a form adapted to\nsuggest such apprehensions, would seem to have been as necessary, when\ntypical offerings were made by Abel, Noah, and others, during the\npatriarchial dispensation, as when made in the tabernacle and temple,\nwhere he was present in the visible Shekina, as is hereafter to be more\nparticularly noticed. At present it may suffice to observe, that since\nhe is declared to have been present in the likeness of man, and as the\nMelach Jehovah, on some occasions when burnt offerings were offered to\nhim with his sanction and acceptance, as in that relating to Isaac in\nthe history of Abraham, that of his appearance to Manoah, and that to\nGideon, it may reasonably be inferred that his personal presence was\nequally requisite on all occasions of similar offerings.\n\nThe local personal presence of Jehovah in the form in which he was often\nvisible is implied and affirmed in passages like the following:\n\nWhen the children of Israel at Rephidim murmured against Moses because\nthey had no water, Jehovah directed Moses to advance with the people\nand the elders, and said, \"Behold, _I will stand before thee_ upon the\nrock in Horeb, and thou shalt smite the rock,\" &c. \"And Moses called the\nname of the place Massah, &c., because of the chiding of the children of\nIsrael, and because they tempted Jehovah, saying, Is Jehovah among us or\nnot?\" Exod. xvii. 7; _i. e._, is he personally and locally present or\nnot?\n\nAfter the apostasy manifested in making a molten calf, Jehovah said to\nMoses, Depart with the people, &c., and I will send _an_ angel before\nthee; for I will not go up in the midst of thee, lest I consume thee,\n&c. Moses having removed the tabernacle out of the camp, the cloudy\npillar _descended and stood_ at the door of the tabernacle; and Jehovah\ntalked with Moses. And Jehovah spake unto Moses face to face, as a man\nspeaketh unto his friend. Moses having expressed his great anxiety at\nthe proposed substitution of _an_ angel, and prayed for further\ninstruction, Jehovah said, \"My presence shall go with thee;\" and he\nsaid, \"If thy presence [_i. e._, thou, thyself] go not with me, carry us\nnot up hence. For wherein shall it be known here that I and thy people\nhave found grace in _thy_ sight? Is it not in that _thou goest with us_?\nSo shall we be separated, I and thy people, from all the people that are\nupon the face of the earth.\" Moses, for further assurance, desired to\nsee the splendor of Jehovah's person, and, in a modified degree, his\nrequest was granted. Jehovah descended--his glory passed by, &c. Exod.\nxxxiii. 34. This whole scene implies his local personal presence, in\ndistinction from his universal, invisible presence.\n\nThe visible Deity is intended in all such phrases as, \"before the Lord,\"\n\"being seen,\" \"going with,\" \"among you,\" \"in the midst of you,\" &c., a\nlocal reference being manifest.\n\n\"Ye have despised Jehovah which is among you.\" Numb. xi. 20.\n\nThe Egyptians \"have heard that thou, Jehovah, art among this people;\nthat thou, Jehovah, art seen face to face; and that thy cloud standeth\nover them; and that thou goest before them by day-time in a pillar of a\ncloud, and in a pillar of fire by night.\" Numb. xiv. 14. Thus Moses\nargued to avert the destruction threatened on occasion of the murmuring\nat the report of the spies. The passage clearly imports that it was\nJehovah himself who was seen face to face, and who went in the cloud.\n\nSo when a portion of the people resolved presumptuously to proceed,\nMoses says, Go not up, for Jehovah is not among you. Numb. xiv. 42;\nDeut. i. 42.\n\n\"The Lord thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp.\" Deut. xxiii. 14.\n\nIn the future misery and desolation of the people they will say, \"Are\nnot these evils come upon us because our God is not among us?\" Deut.\nxxxi. 17.\n\nWhen the Israelites were about to cross the Jordan to Jericho, Joshua,\nreferring to the miracle by which they were to pass over dry-shod, says,\n\"Hereby ye shall know that the living God is among you.\"\n\nMoses is directed to exclude lepers, \"that they defile not the camp in\nthe midst of which I dwell.\" Numb. v. 3.\n\n\"The sons of God came to present themselves _before_ Jehovah; and Satan\ncame also amongst them.\" Job i. 6. The context shows that a local\npersonal presence is intended.\n\n\"God is in the midst of her, she shall not be moved.\" Ps. xlvi. 5.\n\"Great is the Holy One in the midst of thee.\" Isa. xii. 6. \"I am God and\nnot man, the Holy One in the midst of thee.\" Hosea xi. 9. \"Thou, O\nJehovah, art in the midst of us; leave us not.\" Jer. xiv. 9.\n\nJoel, predicting the millennium, says, ii. 27, \"Ye shall know that I am\nin the midst of Israel, and that I am the Lord your God, and none else.\"\nSee Zeph. iii. 15-17: \"The King of Israel, even Jehovah, is in the midst\nof thee; thou shalt not see evil any more. The Lord thy God in the midst\nof thee is mighty.\" And Zech. ii. 5, x. 11, and viii. 3: \"For I, saith\nJehovah, will be the glory in the midst of her. Lo, I come, and I will\ndwell in the midst of thee, saith Jehovah. And many nations, &c. Thus\nsaith Jehovah, I am _returned_ unto Zion, and will dwell in the midst of\nJerusalem; and Jerusalem shall be called, A city of truth; and the\nmountain of the Lord of Hosts, The holy mountain.\"\n\nJesus himself stood in the midst, &c. Luke xxiv. 36, John, &c. In the\nmidst of the seven candlesticks. Rev. i. 13; ii. 1. In the midst of the\nthrone stood a Lamb. Rev. v. 6.\n\nThe angel Jehovah appeared in a flame of fire out of the midst of a\nbush. Exod. iii. 2. Jehovah spake out of the midst of the fire. Deut.\niv. 12.\n\n\"Jehovah said unto Moses, Lo, _I come_ to thee in a thick cloud, that\nthe people may _hear_ when I speak with thee. Be ready, ... for the\nthird day Jehovah will _come down_ in the _sight_ of all the people upon\nmount Sinai.... And on the third day, in the morning, there were\nthunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount.... And Moses\nbrought forth the people out of the camp to _meet with the Elohim_; and\nthey stood at the nether part of the mount. And mount Sinai was\naltogether on a smoke, because Jehovah _descended_ upon it in fire....\nAnd ... Moses spake, and (_the_) Elohim answered him by a voice. And\nJehovah _came down_ upon mount Sinai, on the top of the mount; and\nJehovah called Moses up to the top of the mount; and Moses went up....\nAnd Elohim spake, saying, I am Jehovah, thy Elohe.... Thou shalt have no\nother Elohim before me.\" Exod. xix., xx.\n\nIf the acts here attributed to Moses are literally described, so also\nare those of Jehovah. If Moses literally went up to the top of the\nmount, the narrative no less plainly avers that Jehovah came down to the\ntop of Sinai. He came down visibly--in the sight of the people; was\npersonally and locally present.\n\nOn another occasion, chap. xxiv., he said unto Moses, \"_Come up unto\nJehovah_, thou and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders,\nand worship ye _afar off_; and Moses alone shall _come near Jehovah_,\nbut they _shall not come nigh_.... Then went up Moses and Aaron, Nadab\nand Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; and they _saw the Elohe\nof Israel_, and there was under _his feet_ as it were a paved work....\nThey _saw (the) Elohim_, and did eat and drink.\"\n\nNo terms could well express more distinctly a personal appearance, in\nthe form seen by Abraham and others. His person was manifest to their\nsenses. They ate and drank in his presence, who in the same form partook\nof a repast with the patriarch, and walked and conversed with him as one\nhuman person does with another.\n\n\"Jehovah called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud.... And Moses\nwent into the midst of the cloud.\" Exod. xxvi. 16, 18. The cloud then\nwas such that Moses could subsist in and be enveloped by it.\n\n\"And Jehovah said, I will _appear_ in the cloud upon the mercy-seat.\"\nLevit. xvi. 2. In this and similar instances a local personal appearance\nis evidently intended. No such phraseology would be suited to indicate\nthe omnipresence, or merely the spiritual presence of Jehovah. See Deut.\nxxxi. 15.\n\n\"And the cloud of Jehovah was upon them by day when they went out of the\ncamp. And it came to pass when the ark set forward that Moses said,\n_Rise up_, Jehovah, and let thine enemies be scattered, and let them\nthat hate thee flee before thee. And when it rested, he said, _Return_,\nO Jehovah, unto the many thousands of Israel.\" Numb. x. 35, 36.\n\nOn these occasions the cloud visibly rose above the tabernacle, and\nadvanced before the children of Israel; and again descended and rested\non the tabernacle. The address of Moses seems unintelligible, unless\nJehovah was personally present.\n\n\"And Jehovah _came down_ in the pillar of the cloud and stood in the\ndoor of the tabernacle.... And he said, With Moses will _I speak mouth\nto mouth, even apparently_; ... and _the similitude of Jehovah shall he\nbehold_.\" Numb. xii. Surely a local personal presence is here intended.\n\n\"At the door of the tabernacle _before_ Jehovah, I will meet you, to\nspeak there unto thee; and there I will meet with the children of\nIsrael; and the tabernacle shall be sanctified by my glory; and I will\n_dwell among_ the children of Israel, and will be their Elohim. And they\nshall know that I am Jehovah their Elohe, that brought them forth out of\nthe land of Egypt that I may _dwell among them_.\" Exod. xxix. 42-46.\n\"Defile not the land which ye shall inhabit, wherein I dwell: for I\nJehovah dwell among the children of Israel.\" Numb. xxxv. 34. \"I have not\ndwelt in any house since the time that I brought up the children of\nIsrael out of Egypt, even to this day, but have walked in a tent and in\na tabernacle. In all the places wherein I have walked with the children\nof Israel,\" &c. 2 Sam. vii., and 1 Chron. xvii.\n\nSo of the phrases, \"dwelleth between the cherubim,\" \"sitteth between the\ncherubim,\" and the like, which imply the local personal presence of\nJehovah.\n\nThe local presence and agency of the Messenger Jehovah, as Captain of\nhis hosts, and dictator to Joshua of all the steps taken by him in the\nconquest and destruction of the Canaanites, is clearly indicated\nthroughout the book of Joshua.\n\nJoshua had, for forty years in the wilderness, as minister to Moses,\nbeen familiar with the personal presence, the agency, the miraculous\npower, and the voice of the Messenger, in the tabernacle, in the pillar\nof cloud by day and of fire by night, on mount Sinai, and on many\npeculiar and special occasions.\n\nHis name properly signifies _Saviour_. The Hebrew word Jehoshua is\nequivalent to the Greek name Jesus, or Saviour.\n\nOn the occurrence of the war with Amalek, shortly after the passage of\nthe Red Sea, Joshua was appointed by Moses to command the army of the\nIsraelites. He led out the chosen men of war, while Moses, Aaron, and\nHur took their station on a neighboring hill, where Moses held up the\nrod of God, as a token that all the success under Joshua, in the\ndestruction of the Amalekites, was owing to the superior power of\nJehovah exerted specially on the occasion. When Moses held up his hand,\nIsrael prevailed; and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed.\n\nThe battle being ended by the discomfiture of Amalek and his people,\nJehovah said unto Moses, \"Write this for a memorial, and rehearse it in\nthe ears of Joshua, That I will utterly put out the remembrance of\nAmalek from under heaven. And Moses built an altar, and called the name\nof it Jehovah Nissi,\" _i. e._, the Lord my banner. Exod. xvii.\n\nThus the supremacy and leadership of Jehovah was fully acknowledged. It\nwas his war, executed under the lieutenancy of Joshua, in accordance\nwith the specific directions given to Moses, and in the exercise of\nfaith in the will of Jehovah, as indicated by tokens of his appointment.\n\nOn the occasion of the giving of the tables of stone, Joshua accompanied\nMoses, as his minister, into the mount of God. There they tarried forty\ndays, while \"the sight of the glory of Jehovah was like devouring fire\non the top of the mount, in the eyes of the children of Israel.\" The\ndirections concerning the construction of the tabernacle were given on\nthat occasion. Exod. xxiv. When they descended from the mount, Joshua\nseems first to have heard the shouting of the people before the molten\nimage they had made. Exod. xxxii.\n\nIn the progress of the events which succeeded this defection, the cloudy\npillar--the Shekina--descended from Sinai, and stood at the door of the\ntabernacle, and Jehovah talked with Moses. \"And Jehovah spake unto Moses\nface to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And Moses turned again\ninto the camp, but his minister Joshua departed not out of the\ntabernacle.\" He, therefore, doubtless heard and saw the same as Moses.\nIbid. xxxiii.\n\nHe was one of those sent to examine and report concerning the land of\nCanaan, Numb. xiii.; on which occasion, Moses changed his name from\nOshea to Jehoshua. Ten of those sent were unfaithful. The joint report\nof Joshua and Caleb was true and faithful. The ten were destroyed by a\nplague; the two were protected and preserved. Ibid. xiv.\n\nJoshua was specially set apart as the successor of Moses, and\nconsecrated by the laying on of Moses' hands, in the presence of the\nhigh priest and the congregation. Numb. xxvii. He, with the high priest,\nwas appointed to divide the land. Ibid. xxxiv. When Moses was forbidden\nto enter the good land, he was notified that his minister Joshua would\nlead the children of Israel thither, and commanded to encourage him.\nDeut. i. 38. This he did, Deut. iii., and more emphatically, chap.\nxxxi., when in the presence of all Israel he encouraged him, and cited\nthe predictions concerning his causing the people to inherit the land;\nadding, \"And Jehovah, he it is that doth go _before thee_; he will be\n_with thee_; he will not fail thee, nor forsake thee; fear not, neither\nbe dismayed.\"\n\nOn the death of Moses, we read that \"Joshua, the son of Nun, was full of\nthe spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands upon him; and the\nchildren of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as Jehovah commanded\nMoses.\" Deut. xxxiv.\n\nNotwithstanding all this training, discipline, and intimate fellowship\nwith Moses for forty years, and the premonitions, designations and\npredictions of him, as leader of Israel in place of Moses; yet such was\nthe sacredness and specialty of the relation in which he was to\nofficiate, that Jehovah spake unto Joshua, charged him with the duties\nhe was to perform, and promised him victory and complete success, in\ncase of his fidelity. \"As I was with Moses, so _I will be with thee_. I\nwill not fail nor forsake thee. Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and\nof a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord\nthy God _is with thee_ whithersoever thou goest.\" Josh. i.\n\nJoshua was to act only upon the authority expressly delegated to him,\nand in the strictest subordination to the directions previously given to\nMoses, and those which Jehovah now and from time to time announced to\nhim. The circumstances, like those which attended Moses at the\ncommencement and throughout his official life, required an assured and\nunwavering faith in the declared purposes, the promises, the presence\nand power of Jehovah the Elohe of Israel, the king, preserver, teacher,\nand guide of his people.\n\nThere was, no doubt, a degree of mysteriousness connected with the\npersonal and local manifestations of Jehovah, which rendered an\nunwavering faith constantly requisite. The minds of men, no less at that\nthan at other periods, were most readily and strongly affected by\nvisible and familiar objects. The chief incitements to idolatry were\nvisible, and such as were supposed to be easily comprehended. The fears\nof men, founded in their consciousness of guilt and ignorance, had\nreference naturally to things invisible and mysterious. The conscious\ndepravity, corruption, blindness and ill-desert of men, in contrast with\nthe perfect holiness, righteousness, impartiality, and other perfections\nof Jehovah, could not but excite their natural inclination to exclude\nhim from their thoughts, instead of loving and confiding in him, and\nrealizing his presence by faith.\n\nWhether for these or other reasons, a strong, constant, unwavering faith\nin the person and the perfections, prerogatives and works of Jehovah,\nwas not uniformly exhibited even by the patriarchs and prophets of the\nancient dispensation. That dispensation was specially characterized as\none of outward and visible manifestations, miraculous interpositions,\nand audible revelations; yet in the most signal instances of strong\nfaith as occasioning it, some special and overpowering manifestation of\nJehovah was vouchsafed. Thus Abraham, on the occasion of entering into\nand ratifying the covenant concerning the everlasting inheritance of the\npromised land by his posterity, through Christ as his Seed; the Shekina\nvisibly appeared, passed between the pieces of the sacrifice, and\nprobably consumed them. And again, prior to the destruction of Sodom,\nwhen that event was revealed, and the earlier promises were renewed to\nhim, Jehovah appeared in the form of man, and conversed and walked with\nhim.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\n    Narrative concerning Job.\n\n\nIn the narrative concerning Job, who is supposed to have lived in the\nage preceding that of Abraham, we read, chapter i., that he from time to\ntime offered burnt offerings continually; and that \"there was a day when\nthe sons of (the) Elohim came to present themselves before Jehovah, and\nSatan came also among them. And Jehovah said unto Satan, Whence comest\nthou?--And Satan went forth from the presence of Jehovah.\" A statement\nin the same words is made in relation to another day, chapter ii.; from\nwhich passages it appears that Job, as priest of his family, offered\ntypical sacrifices according to the custom of that age; and that there\nwas a place to which the true worshippers came to present themselves\nbefore Jehovah--a place doubtless of customary resort for worship, and,\nfrom the analogy of the patriarchal history, of visible manifestation.\nThey came there to present themselves before Jehovah, implying that he\nwas personally and locally present; which is also strongly implied in\nthe statement, on both occasions, that Satan went forth from _the\npresence_ of Jehovah. That adversary and accuser of the sons of Elohim\nwas literally present, and it is not perceived how he could be said to\ngo forth from the spiritual presence of Jehovah. It is probable that he\nwas not visible to the worshippers, and that neither the words addressed\nto him, nor his replies, were audible to them. But those words proceeded\nfrom Him from whose presence he went forth.\n\nHowever this may be, it is evident from subsequent passages that Job had\nclear apprehensions of the person and office of the Redeemer, and\nrecognized him as Jehovah in the administration of providence. To that\nofficial person he doubtless refers under the designation _Shadai_,\ntranslated Almighty, which he employs more than thirty times; which\nappears from Exod. vi. to have been familiar to the patriarchs, and\nwhich, from a comparison of passages from the Old and New Testaments,\nsignified the same divine Person as Melach Jehovah. In one instance only\nhe employs the term Adonai as a Divine designation--namely, in the\npassage concerning Wisdom, chap. xxviii.: \"Elohim understandeth the way\nthereof. When he made a decree for the rain, then did he see it. And\nunto man he said, Behold the fear of Adonai, that is wisdom.\" In chapter\nxix. he refers to the same Person under an official designation of\nfrequent occurrence. \"I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall\nstand at the latter day upon the earth; and ... in my flesh shall I see\nEloah.\" The word _Goel_, translated _Redeemer_, is employed with the\nsame reference in the following among other passages. \"Melach the\nMessenger, which _redeemed_ me from all evil.\" Gen. xlviii. \"Let the\nwords of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy\nsight, O Jehovah, my strength and my _Redeemer_.\" Ps. xix. \"And they\nremembered that Elohim was their rock, and El, their _Redeemer_.\" Ps.\nlxxviii. \"Thus saith Jehovah your _Redeemer_, and the Holy One of\nIsrael.\" Isa. xliii. 14. \"Thus saith Jehovah, the King of Israel, and\nhis _Redeemer_, Jehovah Zebaoth.\" Ibid. xliv. 6. \"Thus saith Jehovah thy\n_Redeemer_, and he that formed thee, I am Jehovah that maketh all\nthings, that stretcheth forth the heavens alone,\" &c. Isa. xliv. 24.\n\"All flesh shall know that I Jehovah am thy Saviour, and thy\n_Redeemer_, the Mighty One of Jacob.\" Isa. xlix. 26.\n\nThe original word, as a verb, signifies to redeem, to ransom; and as a\nnoun, a kinsman, blood relation, one having a right, or to whom it\npertained, to redeem; redeemer, kinsman-redeemer. Hence, when employed\nas in the passages above cited, it includes a reference to the complex\nperson of Christ, and to Eloah in human nature, as spoken of\nprospectively by Job.\n\nAt the close of his appointed trial, when the integrity of Job had been\nvindicated, and the imputations and predictions of the adversary confuted,\na different and more glorious manifestation of Jehovah was made to him, a\nmanifestation adapted and designed--like that to Ezekiel, chap. i., in the\nlikeness of _a man_ on a throne in the midst of fire and cloud, moving as\nin a whirlwind, and like that to Isaiah, chap. vi., and that to the\ndisciples on the holy mount--to impart to him new and more exalted\napprehensions of the perfections, prerogatives, and works of Jehovah; to\nfit the humbled and penitent beholder for the gifts and honors he was to\nreceive, the duties he was to perform, and the conspicuous station he was\nto occupy as one whose righteousness had been publicly tried and divinely\nattested. \"Jehovah answered Job out of _the whirlwind_, and said, Where\nwast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?\" &c.; adding a\nprolonged detail of his works of creation and providence, and contrasting\nthe ignorance and nothingness of man with the operations of his wisdom and\npower. Job answered: \"Behold, I am vile, what shall I answer thee? I will\nlay my hand upon my mouth.\" He confesses his sinfulness, the ignorance and\nerrors which had marked his replies to his friends, and adds: \"I have\nheard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now mine eye seeth thee.\nWherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.\" He saw him in\nthat ineffable and, to mortals, all but insupportable splendor of glory,\nwhich caused such an impression of his deity and his holiness, as in\ncontrast to make him conscious of his own vileness as a sinner, and induce\nin him the utmost self-abasement; as in the parallel instance of Ezekiel,\nit is said that \"he fell upon his face;\" and in that of Isaiah, that he\nexclaimed, on seeing Adonai Jehovah Zebaoth, \"Woe is me! for I am undone,\nbecause I am a man of unclean lips;\" and of Daniel, in an analogous\ninstance of his vision of the same glorified Person in the likeness of\nman, chap. x., that he fell with his face to the ground, that there\nremained no strength in him, that his comeliness was turned into\ncorruption. So at the Transfiguration on the mount, the disciples fell on\ntheir faces and were sore afraid. Paul, on witnessing a like personal\nmanifestation, fell to the earth; and John, in Patmos, seeing that\nglorified Person, fell at his feet as dead.\n\nThere was prevalent, at a very early period, a sentiment that to see God\nwould occasion or be followed by the death of the beholder; which\nprobably arose, not from simple appearances in the likeness of man, on\noccasions which called for no exhibitions of Divine majesty and glory,\nbut from manifestations of overpowering, insupportable radiance,\ncomparable only to that of lightning, or that of the unclouded sun. Such\na manifestation we may well suppose to have been made on the expulsion\nof Adam from Eden, in conjunction with the cherubic forms, as in\nrepeated instances afterwards. It was demanded by the occasion and the\nend to be accomplished. There were sword-like flames, or lightnings, as\nwhen Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet with (the)\nElohim, when he descended on mount Sinai; and they, terrified by the\nlightnings, said, \"Let not Elohim speak with us, lest we die;\" and as in\nthe vision of Ezekiel, \"out of the fire went forth lightning.\" So when\nthe seventy elders ascended mount Sinai with Moses, \"and saw the Elohe\nof Israel, the sight of the glory of Jehovah was like devouring fire.\"\n\nThe sentiment or apprehension above referred to is indicated by Jacob,\nafter wrestling with the Messenger Jehovah: \"I have seen Elohim face to\nface, and _my life is preserved_.\" Also in the words addressed to Gideon\nafter he had exclaimed, \"Alas, O Adonai Jehovah! for because I have seen\nthe Messenger Jehovah face to face. And Jehovah said unto him, Fear not,\nthou shalt not die.\" And, \"Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely\ndie, because we have seen Elohim.\" Such an inference is very likely to\nhave been drawn from the declaration of Jehovah to Moses, Exod. xxxiii.\n20: \"Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man _see me_ and\nlive;\" that is, _see me_ unveiled by the human form, or by a dark or\nluminous cloud-like envelope, as in the burning bush, on mount Sinai,\nand in the tabernacle; for in these modes of appearance Moses had\nrepeatedly seen him, and in the chapter above referred to, vs. 9, we\nread that, \"As Moses entered into the tabernacle, the cloudy pillar\ndescended and stood at the door of the tabernacle; and Jehovah spake\nunto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.\" But, owing\nto the defection of Aaron and the people in making and worshipping a\nmolten image, he had, to the consternation of Moses, intimated a purpose\nto withdraw from among them; and after he had, upon the earnest entreaty\nof Moses, signified that his presence should continue with them, Moses,\nin his anxiety and perturbation, and perhaps fearing that he would not\nvisibly manifest himself, (see vs. 16,) besought that he would show him\nhis glory, the unclouded glory of his person. This was denied, as\ncertain to be fatal. But as far as he could endure the sight and live,\nthe request was granted. \"And Jehovah descended in the cloud and stood\nwith him there, and proclaimed the name of Jehovah. And Moses made haste\nand bowed his head toward the earth, and worshipped.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\n    Further notice of Divine Manifestations to Abraham and\n    Jacob--Mysteriousness attending the Divine Appearances--The\n    visible Form always like that of Man.\n\n\nIn resuming the notice of expressions and statements in the history of\nthe patriarchs, which imply the local and visible presence of Jehovah,\nthe first to be referred to is in Gen. xii.: \"Now Jehovah had said unto\nAbram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy\nfather's house, unto a land that I will show thee; and I will make of\nthee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great, and\nthou shalt be a blessing, and in thee\"--thy SEED, which is Christ, Gal.\niii. 16--\"shall all the families of the earth be blessed. So Abram\ndeparted, as Jehovah had spoken unto him. And Abram was seventy and five\nyears old when he departed out of Haran ... to go into the land of\nCanaan.\" He had, some time before this, migrated with Terah his father\nfrom Ur of the Chaldees to Haran, as is related chap. xi. 31. That\nremoval, by which probably he was separated from idolatrous neighbors,\nis thus referred to, chap. xv. 7: \"And Jehovah said unto him, I am\nJehovah that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this\nland to inherit it.\" And again, Nehemiah ix. 7: \"Thou art Jehovah (the)\nElohim, who didst choose Abram, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of\nthe Chaldees.\" From those references it is apparent that he was chosen,\ncalled, and received immediate personal communications from Jehovah,\nwhom he afterwards saw in the form of man, and knew as El-Shadai,\nJehovah, Adonai Jehovah, and Melach Jehovah.\n\nHaving arrived at the plain of Moreh, in the land of Canaan, \"Jehovah\n_appeared_ unto Abram and said, Unto thy SEED will I give this land: and\nthere builded he an altar unto Jehovah who _appeared_ unto him.\"\nConsidering the reiterated statement in this brief passage that Jehovah\n_appeared_ to Abram; that the occasion was that of the first formal\nannouncement of the great promise of that dispensation to which all\nsubsequent revelations, covenants and promises to Abraham relate; that\non the most explicit renewal of this promise, chap. xxii. 18, Melach\nJehovah is the speaker; and that Abram signalized the occasion of this\nfirst announcement by erecting an altar to Jehovah, and doubtless\noffering burnt offerings thereon, there seems sufficient ground to\nconclude that this was an instance of local visible presence.\n\nAbram next removed to a mount east of Beth-El, \"and there he builded an\naltar unto Jehovah, and called upon the name of Jehovah.\" Chap. xii. 8.\nOn the occurrence of a famine he went down to Egypt, whence he returned\nto Beth-El, \"unto the place of the altar which he had made there at the\nfirst, and there Abram called on the name of Jehovah.\" xiii. 4. These\npassages indicate his custom of offering typical sacrifices, and calling\non the name of Jehovah at the place set apart, for the time being, to\nthat purpose; and from the nature of the case, and its analogy to other\nrecorded instances (as Gen. xxxii. 13) of such offerings to Melach\nJehovah, there is no ground to suppose that the same official Person was\nnot the immediate object of homage in the present instance.\n\nSo of the ensuing narrative, Gen. xiii. 14-18: \"And Jehovah said unto\nAbram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes,\nand look from the place where thou art, northward and southward and\neastward and westward; for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I\ngive it, and to thy seed for ever.\" \"Then Abram removed his tent, and\ncame and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, and built there an altar unto\nJehovah.\"\n\nIn chapter xv. we read that \"The _Word_ of (rather _who is_) Jehovah\n_came_ unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram; I am thy shield\nand thy exceeding great reward. And Abram said, Adonai Jehovah, what\nwilt thou give me, &c. And behold, the _Word_ (who is) Jehovah _came_\nunto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; ... and _He_ brought him\nforth abroad and said, Look now toward heaven and tell the stars, if\nthou be able to number them; and He said unto him, So shall thy seed be.\nAnd he believed in Jehovah, and He counted it to him for righteousness.\nAnd he said unto Him, Adonai Jehovah, whereby shall I know that I shall\ninherit it?\" In this narrative the Personal Word appears to be\ndesignated by a term equivalent to Logos, as applied in the first\nchapter of John, namely, _Dabar_, importing the same as the Chaldee term\n_Memra_, frequently inserted with the same personal reference by the\nChaldee paraphrasts. The Dabar (who is) Jehovah _came_ unto Abram,\nsaying, ... He brought him forth abroad, and said, &c. These are\npersonal acts, not to be affirmed of an audible voice. They imply the\nlocal presence of the speaker, whom Abram addresses as Adonai Jehovah.\nThroughout the chapter he is the speaker. Abram's faith in him as\nJehovah is unto righteousness. In this, as in some instances hereafter\nto be noticed, the sense and construction of the passage seem to require\nthat the term translated _Word_ should be considered a personal\ndesignation, having the same relation to the term Jehovah as Adon,\nAdonai, and Melach.\n\nOn the occasion of changing the patriarch's name to Abraham, and that of\nhis wife to Sarah, chap. xvii., \"Jehovah _appeared_ to Abram, and said\nunto him, I am El-Shadai; walk before me, and be thou perfect.... And\nAbram fell on his face, and Elohim talked with him.\" vs. 1, 3; and vs.\n19, 22: \"Elohim said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed....\nAnd Elohim went up from Abraham.\" Here the phraseology in each of the\nclauses quoted implies a local personal presence of Jehovah. That it was\na visible appearance is further implied in the next chapter, where, in\nthe narrative of his appearance in the likeness of man, he refers to\nthis promise of a son as having been made by him, vs. 10; and to remove\nthe doubts of both Abraham and Sarah, he adds: \"Is any thing too hard\nfor Jehovah? At the time appointed _I will return_ unto thee, according\nto the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.\"\n\nOf the appearance last referred to, chap. xviii., when, in the form of a\nwayfaring man, he partook of the repast prepared by Abraham, spoke\nconcerning Sarah, walked towards Sodom, disclosed his purpose of\ndestroying that place, and heard Abraham's request on behalf of the\nrighteous, there can be no question of its having been local and\nvisible. It is noticeable that the narrative of this manifestation is\nintroduced by the same formula as others which include no express\nindications of his visibility. Thus, vs. 1: \"And Jehovah _appeared_\nunto Abraham in the plains of Mamre.\" In the progress of the narrative,\nthe Divine visitant is called a man, Jehovah, and Adonai, and at its\nclose it is said that \"Jehovah went his way\"--literally, \"walked\naway\"--as \"soon as he had left communing with Abraham, and Abraham\nreturned to his place.\" In the next chapter, which relates the\ndestruction of Sodom, the same Person is called Jehovah and Elohim.\n\"Abraham gat up early in the morning to the place where he stood before\n_Jehovah_\"--that is, before the visible Person in the likeness of man,\nto whom he addressed his prayers for the righteous. \"And it came to pass\nwhen _Elohim_ destroyed the cities of the plain, that _Elohim_\nremembered Abraham.\"\n\nWhen the time had arrived for Jacob to withdraw from Laban, \"Jehovah\nsaid unto him, Return unto the land of thy fathers.\" Gen. xxxi. 3.\nReferring to this, vs. 7, he says: \"The Elohe of my father hath been\nwith me.\" After relating to his family something of the treatment he had\nreceived from Laban, and of the special favor of Elohim to him, he\nrecurs to the command above quoted, vs. 11-13: \"And Melach (the) Elohim\nspake unto me in a dream and said, I am the El of Beth-El, where thou\nanointedst the pillar, and where thou vowedst a vow unto me. Now arise,\nget thee out from this land, and return unto the land of thy kindred....\nAnd Rachel and Leah answered, ... Now, whatsoever Elohim hath said unto\nthee, do.\" The statements in the two clauses first above cited evidently\nrefer to the same occasion as those which follow; and therefore the\nElohe of his father, who had been with him, was Melach, the Messenger\nElohim who spoke to him, vs. 11, and who doubtless appeared to him to be\npresent, in a form with which he was familiar. This is further implied\nin the words at the close of his remonstrance with Laban, vs. 42:\n\"Except the Elohe of my father, the Elohe of Abraham, and the Fear of\nIsaac had been with me, surely thou hadst sent me away now empty. Elohim\nhath seen my affliction, and the labor of my hands, and rebuked thee\nyesternight.\"\n\nThe familiarity of Jacob with the visible presence of Jehovah is\nindicated by his expression when, to his surprise and joy, Esau met him\nwith a kindness and cordiality which showed that he no longer harbored\nany ill-will towards him. Jacob urged him to receive his present, and\nsaid: \"I have seen thy _face_, as though it had been the _face_ of\nElohim, and thou wast pleased with me,\" chap. xxxiii. 10; implying that\nthis personal interview and manifestation of favor produced an effect\nupon his feelings resembling that of visible Divine manifestations, to\nwhich he was accustomed; a signal instance of which had just occurred,\nchap. xxxii., when \"he saw Elohim face to face.\"\n\nDoubtless there was a degree of mysteriousness inseparable from those\nappearances of the Divine Person, arising, however, not from their\ninfrequency, for they seldom seem to have occasioned surprise, but\nrather from the different forms of manifestation, the different degrees\nof visibility; a consciousness that He who was sometimes visibly present\nwas, when unseen, not absent; not less cognizant of their thoughts and\nactions, nor less their preserver and defender. They knew that he could,\nat pleasure, render himself visible in the simple form of man, in a\nvision, in a dense or a luminous cloud, in the colors of the precious\ngems and minerals, and in the insupportable splendors of the solar and\nelectric fires. They knew that he was of purer eyes than to behold\niniquity with any allowance, and were conscious of their defilement and\nill-desert. Their faith reposed on him, unseen as well as manifest; and\nwhen he was locally present to their senses, it was necessary to exclude\nor modify their accustomed discrimination between spiritual and\nphysical, invisible and visible conditions and modes of being.\n\nThere must have been, besides a familiarity with the fact of his visible\nappearances, a well-established association of authorized and\nintelligent convictions in their minds respecting his official person\nand character, the nature of his Agency, his mediatorial relations,\nwhich assumed a covenant or stipulated relationship of man with the\nDeity in his Person, and harmonized the Divine in his manifestations\nwith the human in his visible form, all which necessarily involved more\nor less of the mysterious and unknown. Yet they well understood the\ntokens which identified him, and, if not exhibited in the first moments\nof his appearance, recognized them as soon as given, and promptly\nrendered him the homage, addressed him by the titles, and ascribed to\nhim the prerogatives and works of the Creator, Proprietor, Ruler and\nRedeemer of the world.\n\nBut he was not at all times visible. The patriarchs lived by faith as well\nfor the most part of their days and years, perhaps, with respect to him\npersonally, as with respect to the future issues of his interpositions and\nadministration. They could not see him at their pleasure, even when his\nwords or acts indicated that he was locally near them. \"Lo, he goeth by\nme,\" saith Job, \"and I see him not: he passeth on, also, but I perceive\nhim not. Behold, I go forward, but he is not there; and backward, but I\ncannot perceive him: on the left hand, where he doth work, but I cannot\nbehold him; he hideth himself on the right hand, that I cannot see him;\nbut he knoweth the way that I take: when he hath tried me, I shall come\nforth as gold.\"\n\nIt would seem to have been by an effect wrought in them, both when awake\nand when asleep, that he, and also that created spiritual beings, when\nlocally present, became visible or manifest to their consciousness. In\nseveral instances the eyes of the beholders are said to be opened, not\nto behold objects ordinarily visible, but objects which, though present,\nit was not, without that operation, their privilege to see. Thus, in the\nnarrative of Balaam, \"the Messenger Jehovah stood in the way as an\nadversary against him,\" and repeatedly checked his progress, while to\nhim invisible. At length, \"Jehovah opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw\nthe Messenger Jehovah standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his\nhand,\" &c. So in the case of the servant of Elisha: \"Jehovah opened the\neyes of the young man, and he saw, and behold, the mountain was full of\nhorses and chariots of fire, round about Elisha.\" And of the disciples\non the way to Emmaus in company with the risen Saviour, it is said,\n\"their eyes were holden that they should not know him;\" and at length\n\"their eyes were opened, and they knew him, and he vanished out of their\nsight.\"\n\nConsidering that in all ages and countries the minds of men have been\nstartled and thrown off their balance by the supposed apparition of\nspirits, real or imaginary, angelic or human, from the invisible world,\nwhether in material or in impalpable forms, and have regarded them as\ninscrutably mysterious and appalling, the fact that such impressions of\nsurprise and dread were not commonly occasioned, or are so slightly\nindicated, when the Messenger Jehovah was unexpectedly and visibly\nrecognized, strongly implies that the beholders were familiar not only\nwith the reality and the modes of his appearance, but with his official\nPerson, character and relations.\n\nThe statements and intimations contained in the Holy Scriptures\nconcerning the celestial beings comprehensively called angels, warrant\nthe conclusion, that the faculties by which they perceive external\nobjects are analogous to those of man. They see and hear, and are seen\nand heard, in a way similar to that of the bodied human race. They have\nthe faculty of becoming visible to men, and when visible, they have, in\nall recorded instances, the human form. It is obvious that, in order to\nbe discernible by the human eye, they must have a specific form; and\naccordingly, both with reference to the Messenger who is Jehovah, and to\nthe created angels, such is the case in each and every instance of\nvisibility. Thus in the case of the three who, in the form of men,\nappeared to Abraham, prior to the destruction of Sodom. In form, the\nthree appeared alike, and the two were distinguished from the ONE only\nby the circumstances which ensued.\n\nTo created angels appearing visibly in this manner, it is clear that the\nsame laws of optics and acoustics are available as to men, only in a far\nhigher degree. That they saw objects which are naturally visible to men\nas clearly as men see them, and heard sounds and voices audible to them\nas distinctly as they, is evident from every narrative in which such\nthings are mentioned or implied. But their power of visual and auricular\nperception is not restricted as in the human race. From the nature of\nthe organism in which the spirit of man resides, his natural power in\nthese relations is very limited. In the instance of vision, however, his\nnatural power may, in conformity with the ordinary laws of vision, be,\nby the appliances of art, immeasurably increased. Telescopes and\nmicroscopes are but additions to the natural organ. In angels that organ\nmay naturally as far transcend the optical power of human skill and\nscience, as the latter exceeds the unaided power of vision in man.\nMoreover, to spirits inhabiting angelic organisms, things which\ncircumscribe human vision probably constitute no obstructions. Material\nbodies which to the human eye are opaque, may to them be as transparent\nas crystal or the atmosphere to man. The degree of light necessary to\ntheir vision of objects may be as nothing compared with that required by\nthe human eye; and distance, so wonderfully obviated by the effect of\noptical instruments, may be, and undoubtedly is, proportionally, as\nnothing to them.\n\nNow, since those beings have a distinct, personal, visible form--visible\nto the unaided human eye on the occasion of their appearance in the\nearlier and at the opening of the present dispensation, as at the\nannunciation and the resurrection--and since their visual perceptions\ncorrespond to our law of optics, it is to be inferred that they see each\nother and all external objects in the same way as they saw men; and\ndoubtless the like, both with respect to the mode and the degree or\nextent of perception, may be safely inferred in relation to their\nhearing and feeling.\n\nWhatever else may be true of the organisms in which they dwell, enough\nis revealed to justify the conclusion, that, being in their attributes\nas spirits like the spirits of men, they exercise their faculties\nthrough the instrumentality of those organisms in the same way as men\nthrough theirs. Thus it is certain that by means of those visible forms\nthey exercise physical power. The two angels who came in the form of men\nto Lot in Sodom, \"_put forth their hands and pulled Lot into the house\nto them_, and shut to the door. And _the men_ said unto Lot, Hast thou\nhere any besides?... And while he lingered, the _men_ laid hold upon his\nhand, ... and they brought him forth and set him without the city.\" Gen.\nxix.\n\nThe established form, then, in which, from the beginning, spiritual\nbeings have visibly appeared, was conformable to that assigned to the\nhuman race; insomuch that such beings were never otherwise discernible\nto the human eye. That form was assumed, with man's nature, by the\nMessiah when he became incarnate; and there is therefore nothing\nincongruous or inherently improbable in the supposition of his having\nappeared visibly in the likeness of that form at earlier periods, as the\nScriptures clearly teach. It is not more unlikely that in those earlier\nappearances, on occasions when no Divine effulgence was exhibited, his\nvisible appearance should be like that of angelic messengers, than that\ntheirs should be like that of man, or that his should be so when\nliterally incarnate. And if the Deity has ever appeared visibly to man,\nit was indubitably to the patriarchs and prophets as the Messiah, under\nthe designations and on the occasions heretofore referred to, and\npublicly in Judea at the period of his literal incarnation.\n\nConsistently with these views, the Scriptures, in speaking of him in the\nvarious aspects and relations in which he appeared, employ terms which\nare appropriate to one with attributes and modes of visible action like\nthose of man; of his head, face, eyes, hands, feet; of his sitting down,\nrising up, standing, walking, working, resting, hearing, speaking, and\nthe like. As leader and defender of his people, \"Jehovah is _a man_ [is\nlike a man] of war, Jehovah is his name.\" Exod. xv. 3. \"And Jehovah\n_went_ [walked] his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham.\"\nGen. xviii. 33. \"Jehovah _looked_ unto the host of the Egyptians through\nthe pillar of fire and of the cloud.\" Exod. xiv. Moses and the elders\nascended mount Sinai, \"and they saw the Elohe of Israel; and there was\nunder _his feet_ as it were a paved work of sapphire; ... and upon the\nnobles (Moses and the elders) he laid not his _hand:_ ... they saw _the_\nElohim, and did eat and drink.\" Exod. xxiv. \"And Jehovah _descended_ in\nthe cloud and _stood_ with Moses, and proclaimed the name of Jehovah.\nAnd Jehovah _passed_ by _before him_, and proclaimed, Jehovah, El,\nmerciful and gracious. And Moses said, If now I have found grace in thy\nsight, O Adonai, let Adonai, I pray thee, _go_ amongst us, and pardon\nour iniquity and our sin.\" Exod. xxxiv. \"Melach Jehovah _stood_ in the\nway for an adversary against Balaam.... Jehovah opened the eyes of\nBalaam, and he saw Melach Jehovah _standing_ in the way, and his sword\ndrawn in his hand.\" Numb. xxiii. \"And Joshua looked, and behold, there\n_stood_ a _man_ over against him with his sword drawn in his _hand_....\nAnd he said, As captain of the host of Jehovah am I now come.... And the\ncaptain of the host of Jehovah _said_ unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from\noff thy foot, for the place whereon thou standest is holy.\" Josh. v.\n\"Melach Jehovah _came_ up from Gilgal [the place where the ark, the ark\nof the Adon of all the earth, then rested] to Bochim, and said, _I_ made\nyou to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you into the land which _I_\ngave unto your fathers, and _I said_, I will never break my covenant\nwith you.\" Judges ii. \"Thus saith Jehovah, Elohe of Israel, I brought\nyou up from Egypt, and _I said_ unto you, I am Jehovah your Elohe.\"\n\"And Melach Jehovah _came and sat_ under an oak, and said unto Gideon,\nJehovah is with thee. And Melach _the_ Elohim _said_ unto him, Take the\nflesh and the unleavened cakes and lay them upon this rock. And Melach\nJehovah _put forth_ the end of the staff that was in his _hand_, and\ntouched the flesh and the unleavened cakes.\" Judges v. \"The _eye_ of\nJehovah is upon them that fear him.\" Ps. xxxiii. 18. \"The _eyes_ of\nJehovah thy Elohe are always upon it [the land].\" Deut. xi. \"The _eyes_\nof Jehovah are upon the righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry.\nThe _face_ of Jehovah is against them that do evil. Melach Jehovah\n_encampeth_ round about them that fear him, and delivereth them. They\ncry, and Jehovah _heareth_ them.\" Ps. xxxiv. \"Melach Jehovah _touched_\nElijah, and said, Arise and eat.\" 1 Kings xix.\n\nThe preceding observations concerning the faculties of angels suggest\nthe relation to their acquisition of knowledge of the visible persons,\nobjects and events within their view on earth, and the congruity of that\nrelation with the visibility of the God-man, Messiah, Mediator, Ruler,\nand Revealer.\n\nSuppose the celestial hosts, with the visual powers and the freedom from\nthe conditions of distance above intimated, from the moment of their\ncreation in the full maturity of their faculties and of their\nendowments, except in respect to the knowledge to be derived from the\nevolution and progress of events, to have seen each other, and the\nvisible objects of their own and other spheres; to have seen, among the\nearliest of events, the rebellion and dejection from their ranks of an\narchangel, with numerous adherents, followed by the apostasy and\ndegradation of the progenitors of the human race; and, in connection\ntherewith, to have seen the Personal Word walking in Eden, to have\nheard his voice, and thenceforth to have observed the acts and events\nconnected with our race. It is plain that if they see and hear in\nconformity with the same laws as men, and acquire knowledge by so seeing\nand hearing, then it was necessary to them, as well as to man, that all\nthe agents in the scene should be visible, and that their voices should\nbe audible.\n\nThe object, on the occasions referred to, was to instruct and influence,\nby visible and tangible realities presented to the senses. To suppose\nsome of the agents and acts to have been what they are declared to be,\nand others to have been illusions, unreal, imaginary, is to defeat the\nobject of them, divest them of all certainty, and justify the same\ninference with respect to the human as to the celestial agents. In\nnumerous instances it is evident that the power of vision in men was so\nenlarged, that they beheld objects not ordinarily visible to them. Had\nthat augmented power continued, those objects would have continued to be\nvisible, and so far from being less, would have been more free from\nillusion and uncertainty; and it is absurd, and contrary to all analogy,\nto suppose that it did not render their vision as certain, and their\ninference from it as just, in respect to every person and object\napprehended by it, as in respect to any one of them. And if, as in the\ncase of the three who appeared to Abraham, and in other cases, they did\nnot see the persons in the likeness of men whom they are declared to\nhave seen, then we have no ground of certainty that they themselves were\npresent, or acted the parts ascribed to them.\n\nIt is observed above that in every instance of the personal manifestation\nof the Messenger Jehovah under the ancient dispensations, he was\ndistinctly recognized in the likeness of man. On many occasions he is\nexpressly called a man; and in various instances acts peculiar to a man\nare ascribed to him. Thus, at his appearance to Abraham in the plain of\nMamre, to Jacob at Peni-El, to Joshua, to Manoah, to Ezekiel, to Daniel,\nto Amos, and to Zechariah, he is expressly called a man; in Eden and in\nthe plain of Mamre he walked and spoke as a man; to Moses he spake face to\nface, as a man speaketh with his friend, and of him it was said, \"the\nsimilitude of Jehovah shall he behold;\" to Balaam, Joshua, and David, he\nappeared with a drawn sword in his hand; when accepting the offering of\nGideon, he put forth the staff that was in his hand, and touched the\nsacrifice; he \"touched Elijah, and said, Arise and eat.\" Again, in the\ninstances in which it is said that he appeared to Abraham and others,\nwithout specifying that his person was visible, and in those in which it\nis said that he came, or that the Word of the Lord came, to Abraham,\nMoses, Samuel, David, and the prophets, the things said and done are, as\nto matter and manner, in respect to the persons addressed or spoken of,\nreference to circumstances of time and place, particularity of directions\nand details, similar to those in which he visibly appeared as man.\n\nIn the minds of the patriarchs and prophets, therefore, the human\nlikeness in which he visibly appeared was intimately and familiarly\nassociated with his person. When they thought of him, they thought of\nhim in that form, and accordingly his visible appearance in that form\noccasioned little or no surprise. They knew, it may well be believed,\nfrom and after the first appearance or announcement of the Messiah in\nEden, that human nature and the human form were appointed and essential\nconditions of his complex official person and his sacerdotal work.\nEvery typical sacrifice, the piacular shedding of blood, the altar\ntypifying the cross, the burnt offering, the paschal lamb, every net of\nworship founded on the revealed doctrine of mediation, implied this\ndistinctive apprehension of his person as Mediator. To suppose that\npatriarchs and prophets to whom he appeared in this manner, and whom he\ninspired to teach others, did not know and recognize him in his true\ncharacter, is not less derogatory to him than to them; and to suppose\nthat those who earliest offered typical sacrifices did not as truly and\nadequately understand what belonged to his personal and official\ncharacter as those who succeeded, is to nullify their worship and their\nfaith, and to treat the system as a device of sinful and ignorant men,\nrather than as divinely revealed and sanctioned.\n\nBut the Divine Mediator being thus clearly and familiarly known from the\nfirst beginning of the race, as to the constitution of his complex\nofficial person, his delegated character, his sacerdotal and mediatory\nwork; this knowledge being common to all true worshippers, and being\nillustrated and confirmed to others by local visible appearances of the\nPersonal Word, by oral instructions from inspired men, and by the\nexternal institutions, rites and forms of the true worship; it is\nobvious how, and with what facility, the adverse party, the worshippers\nof Baal after the deluge, obtained their antagonist counterfeit notions\nof the incarnation of their rival god, and afterwards of other spiritual\nbeings and disembodied intelligences; of a shekina of visible glory as\nthe residence or tabernacle of Baal; of mediation, oracular responses,\naltars, sacrifices, incense, &c. To suppose that any one of these things\nwas originally conceived and invented by the natural reason of man, is\nat once to yield the question between revealed religion and the\ncompetency of fallen man to devise one which should obtain the undivided\nsuffrage of nine tenths of the human race from age to age. The utter\nabsurdity of such a supposition is shown by the fact that all the\ndifferent nations and tribes of idolaters have, from the earliest\nrecords and traditions of their history, held essentially the same ideas\nupon these and kindred subjects. In the history of some countries,\nindeed, as in that of India, Thibet and China, the notion of the\nincarnation, and of repeated incarnations, of their false god is more\nconspicuous than in that of others. But the notion that the shedding of\nblood would procure the remission of sin, that the piacular sacrifices\nmust be offered on an altar and burnt with fire, that the firstlings of\nthe flock must be sacrificed, and that incense must be burned by\nconsecrated priests, has prevailed among all pagan nations and tribes,\nwith or without letters, in all climates, and in all ages, and if not\nderived from the descendants of Noah at the dispersion, we must, by\nascribing the invention to each distinct community for itself, imagine a\ngreater miracle than that of the inspiration of true prophets.\n\nThe revolt of the arch-apostate, with his angels and the head of the\nhuman race, was an open renunciation of allegiance to Jehovah as\nCreator, Lawgiver and Ruler, from which a total and ceaseless alienation\nand opposition ensued, which, but for his redemptive work, would have\nsubverted and defeated his design as Creator. To counteract and overcome\nthat revolt required his humiliation unto death. Prior to that event,\nhis opposers denied his prerogatives and rights as Creator, Lawgiver and\nRuler, and arrogated them for creatures. The antagonist system of\nrivalship and homage was exhibited in the face of the universe in the\nforms of political tyranny and idolatry. To re\u00e4ssert and exhibit to the\nwhole universe his claims, after his humiliation, he rose from the\ngrave, ascended on high, was invested with all power in heaven and\nearth, and in his glorified and visible person as God-man was recognized\nas swaying the sceptre of universal empire.\n\nHis claims and prerogatives as Creator, Upholder and Ruler being thus\nmanifested and established, and the efficacy of his vicarious death\nbeing at the same time demonstrated by the conversion and salvation of\nmultitudes from age to age, he will at length return to the earth to\nconsummate his victory over all adversaries, to remove the curse and\nrestore the earth to its primeval state, assume his visible regal sway,\nand establish his everlasting kingdom.\n\nThe union, as appointed and fixed in the order of events, of the Divine\nand human natures in the Person of the God-man, was a primary condition\nin the great scheme of Divine works and manifestations. That union is,\naccordingly, implied in all the designations, whether prophetic or\notherwise, of the Anointed, or official Person; the Logos, who was in\nthe beginning; the Christ, who was before all things. On the basis of\nthis union of the second Person of the Godhead with human nature,\nrendering him capable of subordinate relations and agencies, the works\nof creation, providence and grace were delegated to him by the Father.\n\nSuch a provision in the constitution of his official person, in order to\nthe subordinate relations, delegated agencies, and visible manifestations,\ninvolved in his undertaking, would seem manifestly necessary. Apart from\nthat provision, he was in all respects equal with the Father; and in\nrespect to his person, therefore, some special ground of subordination,\nin order to the delegation to him of such works in such relations with\nman, and with material and visible things, would seem to be necessary.\nAgain, the works delegated to him, and for which he was sent of the\nFather, all of them in some relations, and many of them absolutely,\nimplied and required this union of the human nature with his person.\nAccordingly, in this delegated, subordinate official Person, he was\nforeordained before the foundation of the world, and had glory with the\nFather before the world was.\n\nBy him and for him, in his official person and delegated character, are\nall things. By him and for his pleasure they were created. He upholds\nall things, and by him all things consist.\n\nHis undertaking included the works of creation, providence and\nredemption; the physical and moral government of the world, and the\nmanifestation of the Divine perfections to all intelligent creatures.\n\nIn the execution of his undertaking, local and visible manifestations of\nhis person and of his official prerogatives and acts were indispensable,\nin the relations he was to sustain as Lawgiver and Ruler, Prophet and\nPriest. His undertaking comprised a succession of acts and dispensations,\nand of corresponding changes in the manner of his agency, the nature of\nhis manifestations, and the immediate objects of his administration. In\nthese respects the progress of his work is indicated in the revelation he\nhas made in the Holy Scriptures, in which his person and his acts appear,\nfrom stage to stage, in different aspects. He speaks of himself, and is\nspoken of by the inspired writers, sometimes with reference only to his\nDivine, and at other times with reference only to his human nature. On\nsome occasions acts are ascribed to him which are proper to him only as\nDivine; and on other occasions such as could be affirmed of him only as\nhuman; as in one case, the act of creation, and in the other, the act of\nwalking.\n\nIt is in this complex person that he is primarily the object of all our\nknowledge of the Deity as revealed in the Scriptures. He is the image,\nthe visible manifestation of the invisible God, whom no man hath seen or\ncan see. He in this person hath declared, manifested the Father; no less\nunder the earliest, than under the present dispensation.\n\nAccordingly, though distinguished by Moses in the beginning of his\nnarrative by designations which specially relate to the Divine nature in\nhis person, acts are ascribed to him which denote his complex official\nperson; such as walking in the garden of Eden, and conversing face to\nface with Adam. As his official work is in Scripture referred to as one\ncomprehensive undertaking, though involving a long succession of acts\nand events, so his official person is ever referred to as the same,\nthough in the succession many events preceded that of his taking man's\nnature into union with that person. By appointment and covenant,\nvirtually and officially he was the same from the beginning; and on that\nground, and because his expiatory death in man's nature was essential to\nhis undertaking as a whole, and its effect as necessary to the earliest\nas to any succeeding portion of man's race, he is spoken of as \"slain\nfrom the foundation of the world.\"\n\nHad no apostasy of man taken place, we are warranted in believing that\nhe would have continued that local, visible presence and intercourse\nwith Adam and his descendants which characterized the earliest period of\ntheir existence. For as Creator of all things he was the Heir and Lord\nof all, and would have been Lawgiver and King of the race, the medium of\ntheir relations to God and of their homage, as he is to be hereafter at\nthe restitution of all things to their primeval condition, when all the\nevil consequences of the fall shall have been superseded, death itself\ndestroyed, and the earth delivered from the curse and restored to its\noriginal perfection.\n\nBut no such course of things could have been possible had the earth, at\nthe epoch of man's creation, been in its present imperfect condition,\nthe scene of disease and death. Nor can there, if it was at the outset\nso imperfect and so fraught with physical evils, be a restoration of it\nhereafter to its pristine state. If it is to be renovated, remodelled,\nnew-made, it is because it has been degraded from its primeval\ncondition. If it is to be restored by the instrumentality of fire, that\nis to happen as the counterpart of its destruction by water. If its\nrenovation is to be one of the consequences and concomitants of his\nperfect triumph over the evils of the apostasy, its subjection to its\npresent state is no less certainly a consequence of the apostasy.\n\nIn view of this scheme and course of administration, we may perhaps\ndiscern some of the reasons why this earth and the human race were\nselected.\n\nWe may suppose that of all the orders of intelligent creatures, man,\nwith his material body, is the least exalted, and for that reason, in\nsuch a course of manifestation to all orders, alliance with his nature\nwould be selected.\n\nThe visibility required in such a scheme would require union with a\nvisible body.\n\nSo far as we have reason to conclude, no other race of intelligent\ncreatures is multiplied by succession. That peculiarity of the human\nrace rendered it practicable for the Creator to take the human nature\ninto union with his person; and it likewise allows of a perpetual\nincrease of the subjects of his grace and of his kingdom, after the\nruins of the fall shall have been overcome, and the sovereignty of the\nrest of the universe, preserved and confirmed in holiness, shall have\nbeen surrendered to the Father.\n\nProbably the preservation of the rest of the universe from defection is\namong the results of his expiation of sin, his ascension incarnate to\nheaven, his reign there till his second advent, and his victory over\nSatan and all opposition. That being accomplished, he resumes and\nprosecutes his original purpose as visible Head and King of the human\nrace.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\n    Of the official Person and Relations of the Messiah.\n\n\nThe term Jehovah, though employed interchangeably with the other Divine\ndesignations, is in one respect peculiar. It is never used with\nreference to any other than the Divine Being. Hence it is by many\nregarded as a proper name. It is however replaced in the New Testament\nby an appellative.\n\nGesenius, who regards this as a proper name, and the word Elohim as an\nappellative, refers to the \"Seventy\" as uniformly prefixing the definite\narticle to the word which they substitute for Jehovah; making the\nversion, as in the English, _The_ Lord. He considers the formulas, \"I\nshall be what I am,\" and \"which is, and which was, and which is to\ncome,\" as expressing the meaning of this name, by which the being\ndesignated was to be distinctively recognized, remembered, and\nacknowledged for ever, according to the declarations: \"This is my name\nfor ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations;\" and \"this is my\nname for ever: so shall ye name me throughout all generations.\"\n\nBut, as has been shown, this name is employed both separately and\nconjointly, with strictly official designations, to identify the second\nPerson of the Trinity in his delegated character and work; who in the\nNew Testament is announced as Jehovah, Immanu-El, Jesus, the Christ.\n\nThe subsistence of three distinct co\u00ebqual Persons in the Godhead is\neternal. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are, as persons,\nco\u00ebternal, co\u00ebqual, and alike infinitely removed from all possibility of\nchange. Whatever change has taken place with respect to them must\ntherefore be merely relative, and have reference to their respective\nagencies, and to the works of creation, providence, and grace. They are\naccordingly revealed to us in connection with those works, and in the\nrelations which they sustain to them, and to each other in connection\nwith them; and pursuant to the economy or covenant in which those\nrelations and works are founded, the designations by which they are\nrespectively made known are _official_ designations, or employed with a\npersonal and official reference. The Father is first, the fountain of\nauthority, and delegates the Son. The Son is second, and is subordinate\nto the Father. The Holy Spirit is third, and is subordinate to the\nFather and the Son. The Father sends the Son to accomplish the works\nassigned to him. The Son reveals the Father, and executes his will. The\nHoly Spirit does the will of the Father and the Son. It is in these\nrelations that the respective Persons are worshipped, and not jointly or\nin unity. The Father is worshipped through the Son as the medium of\naccess and homage. The Father and Son respectively are worshipped\nthrough the gracious indwelling influence of the Holy Spirit.\n\nThese relations of the respective Persons are therefore official, and\nmust be referred to as originating in the covenant, in which the whole\nscheme of agency and manifestation in the works of creation, providence,\nand redemption, was founded. No such relations are to be conceived of as\nexisting eternally; for in their nature the respective Persons are\nco\u00ebqual. Subordination must have been voluntarily assumed for special\npurposes and agencies which required it. When creatures were to be\nbrought into existence, relations not previously existing were\nrequisite; and as those relations to creatures required various agencies\nof the respective Persons, new relations between them were requisite;\nand these, being founded in compact, are properly termed _official_.\nAccordingly, all Divine acts towards creatures are personal acts of the\nFather, the Son, or the Holy Spirit. They act not as a unity in respect\nto creatures.\n\nHence all the acts of the Son in the works of creation, providence, and\nredemption, are ascribed to him in one and the same official Person and\ndelegated character, by whatever designations he may, in relation to\nthose works, be referred to; and it was accordingly in that character\nthat he appeared personally and visibly in the ancient dispensations;\nassumed the human form, walked, conversed, and performed various actions\nproper only to one in that form. The nature of his delegated\nundertaking, and the objects of those dispensations, required such\nlocal manifestations of his person and visible agency, and also that he\nshould speak to and of himself in the different aspects in which he then\nappeared, and in which he exercised his prophetic office, in relation to\nhis future coming and his sacerdotal work. Thus he speaks of himself as\nthe Seed of the Woman, the Son of David, the King, the Saviour, the\nAnointed, the Messenger, the Redeemer, the Holy One, the Branch, the\nShepherd, Immanuel.\n\nThis may be illustrated by referring to the New Testament, and\nconsidering that the Divine and human natures being united in the Person\nof the incarnate Word, whatever is true of either of those natures in\nthat union, is affirmed of him as a Person; and for aught that appears,\nwhatever is affirmed of his Divine nature in that Person is affirmed of\nhim in his official character, whether with reference to his pre\u00ebxistent\nor to his incarnate state. Many things are said of him which are\npredicable of his human nature only, but which nevertheless could not be\nsaid if he was not both God and man in one Person. Thus it is said, that\nhe died for our sins--and that he rose for our justification. Other\nthings are said of the same Person, which are predicable only of his\nDivine Nature; as that he came down from heaven, that he came forth from\nGod, and that he was in the beginning. Hence the propriety with which in\nboth the Old and New Testaments the various Divine names and titles are\napplied to him, to designate the One Anointed, delegated--Person.\n\nSince writing this work, the author has read the treatise of Dr. Isaac\nWatts, entitled, \"The Glory of Christ as God-Man,\" in which he describes\nthe visible appearances of Christ before his incarnation, inquires into\nthe extensive powers of his human nature in its present glorified state,\nand endeavors to explain and illustrate the Scriptures which relate to\nthose appearances, and to the Person who under various divine names and\nofficial designations visibly appeared, by supposing that the human soul\nof Christ was created prior to the creation of the world, and\nthenceforth, being united to the Second Person of the Godhead, appeared\nand acted, visibly and otherwise, in all that related to this world.\nThere being no question but that the mediatorial Person created the\nworld, appeared visibly, and conducted the administration of the Old\nTestament dispensations, there is, as might be anticipated, a degree of\nplausibility in the reasonings and illustrations of this venerated\nauthor. But many grave and unanswerable objections to his peculiar views\npresent themselves. It is not perceived that the supposition of the\npre\u00ebxistence of the human soul of Christ is either sustained by the\nScriptures, or has in any respect, as a means of explanation, any\nadvantage as compared with the view taken in this work, viz: that,\npursuant to a covenant between the Persons of the Godhead, the Second\nPerson assumed the official character and relations which are peculiar\nto him as Mediator; those, viz: in which he executed the works of\ncreation and providence, and manifested himself under various Divine\nnames and official designations, as Jehovah, Elohim, the Messenger, the\nMessiah; the official personal actor and revealer. To his Person in this\nofficial character and agency the human nature was in due time united,\nso as to include two natures in his one Person. But since the delegated\nofficial Person, into union with which the human nature was taken,\npre\u00ebxisted, and as a Person was the same before as after the\nincarnation, the acts of that Person in the delegated official\ncharacter and relations above referred to, were to the same effect, and\ninvolved essentially the same conditions before as after the advent.\nSince he undoubtedly acted as Mediator in the ancient dispensations, we\nmust, in reference to his agency then, ascribe to him what peculiarly\nconstituted and ever pre\u00ebminently distinguishes that character, viz: its\nbeing the delegated official character of a Divine Person. Regarded in\nthat light, there seems no more difficulty in ascribing visible\nappearances and other acts suitable to his office in his relations to\nmen, prior to the assumption of human nature into union with his Person,\nthan after that union. The relations of his Person, in his delegated\nofficial character, to creatures and material things, were the result,\nnot of the incarnation, nor of any occurrence after the commencement of\nhis delegated, subordinate, mediatorial work, but of his appointment to\nthat work, and must be regarded as co\u00ebval with that appointment. They\nwere the relations of the official, mediatorial Person; and for aught\nthat appears or is conceivable, rendered visible personal appearances in\nthe likeness of man, and the performance of acts, utterance of words,\n&c., like those of man, as practicable before as after the addition of\nhuman nature to that Person.\n\nThe views advanced by Dr. Watts proceed upon the assumption that two\ndistinct _persons_ were united; whereas it was two distinct _natures_ that\nwere united in one Person. That Person existed before the human nature was\nadded to it. The nature added had no separate or distinct personality. It\nbecame part of the pre\u00ebxisting Person. \"He took it to be his own nature,\n... causing it to subsist in his own Person,\" says Owen. The Logos, the\npersonal Word or Revealer, the delegated Official Person or Mediator, who\n\"was in the beginning and was God, was made flesh and dwelt among us.\"\nJohn i. \"He took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the\nseed of Abraham.\" Heb. ii. 16. \"He did not assume a nature from angels,\nbut he assumed a nature from the seed of Abraham.\" Syriac Text. \"The Lord\nJesus Christ is God and man in one person. For there is supposed in these\nwords (Heb. i. 16) his pre\u00ebxistence in another nature than that which he\nis said here to assume. He subsisted before, else he could not have taken\non him what he had not before. Gal. iv. 4; John i. 14; Tim. iii. 16; Phil.\nii. 6, 7. That is, ... the Word of God ... became incarnate. He took to\nhimself another nature, of the seed of Abraham according to the promise;\nso, continuing what he was, he became what he was not; for he took this to\nbe his own nature ... by taking that nature into personal subsistence with\nhimself, in the hypostasis [substance or subsistence] of the Son of God;\nseeing the nature he assumed could no otherwise become his. For if he had\nby any ways or means taken the person of a man in the strictest union that\ntwo persons are capable of, in that case the nature had still been the\nnature of that other person, and not his own. But he took it to be his own\nnature, which, therefore, must be by a personal union, causing it to\nsubsist in his own person.... This is done without a multiplication of\npersons in him; for the human nature can have no personality of its own,\nbecause it was taken to be the nature of another person who was\npre\u00ebxistent to it, and by assuming it, prevented its proper personality.\"\n(Owen on the Epistle to the Hebrews, chap. ii. 16.)\n\n\"Christ is the Jehovah whose dominion is proclaimed, [Psalm xcvii.,] who\nis declared to be the God whom men and angels are bound to serve and\nworship. Such is He who for our deliverance condescended to assume our\nnature.... For thus it seems the matter stood in the counsels of Eternal\nWisdom: It behooved Him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might\nbe a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining unto God, to\nmake reconciliation for the sins of the people.\" (Horsley's Sermon on\nthe 97th Psalm.) That is: It behooved Him, the Christ, Jehovah in the\npre\u00ebxisting official Person, to assume our nature.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\n    Local and visible Manifestations, Intercourse and Instructions\n    as characterizing the primeval and Mosaic Dispensations--Local\n    Presence of the Messenger Jehovah in the Tabernacle.\n\n\nIt being evident that the Messiah appeared to the patriarchs in a\nvisible form, that they recognized him under various designations, saw\nhim face to face, conversed with him, offered to him burnt offerings and\nprayers, believed in him with that faith which is unto righteousness,\nreceived from him revelations, promises, and covenants, and in all the\naspects and relations in which he appeared, regarded him as their God\nand the God of providence and grace, their Creator, Preserver, Lawgiver,\nand Ruler, it is safe to conclude that this method of personal and\nvisible manifestation and intercourse was a primary and essential\ncharacteristic of that dispensation. If the instances of such personal\nappearance and intercourse in which minute details are recorded, as in\nthat to Abraham in the plain of Mamre, and that to Jacob at Peni-El,\nare not greatly multiplied, they are yet sufficiently numerous,\nconsidered in connection with the occasions, circumstances and\nexpressions by which other instances are distinguished, to warrant us in\nsupposing the frequent occurrence of like manifestations to the same\nindividuals, and to many others of whose personal history no extended\ndetails are recorded, and many others of whom nothing, or nothing except\ntheir names, is mentioned. Moreover, when Moses wrote, such visible\nmanifestations were familiar to the Israelites, and in his retrospective\nhistory no more required to be specially mentioned, except as incidents\ninterwoven with, and inseparable from, the personal narratives of the\npast, than full details respecting sacrificial offerings, their typical\nreferences, the law of the Sabbath, and other matters, which were in\nlike manner familiar, and constituted the essential elements of their\nreligious system.\n\nThere is ground to conclude that this mode of manifestation was co\u00ebval\nwith the creation; and that, if there had been no apostasy of man, He\n\"for whom are all things, and by whom are all things,\" would have\ncontinued visibly and constantly present with the race on earth, as he\nwill be after he shall have destroyed the last enemy, and obviated the\nconsequences of the fall. At that predicted restitution, a condition of\nthings like that which preceded the defection is to be realized; when he\nis to dwell with men--their God.\n\nThe New Testament clearly ascertains to us that he was personally the\nCreator. The style and manner in which he spoke and acted, as recorded by\nMoses in his account of the creation, and in his primeval intercourse with\nAdam, coincides in familiarity, and may be described as homogeneous, with\nthat employed on occasions of his visible manifestations to Abraham,\nJacob, and others. When he said, \"Let us make man in our image, after our\nlikeness,\" it may well be presumed that, among other things, he had\nreference to that visible form in which he was thenceforth frequently\nrecognized, and in which he at length became incarnate, and will hereafter\nbe seen by every eye.\n\nAs instances of the appropriateness of what he said to a person locally\npresent, and speaking and acting as a man would naturally do, the\nfollowing are referred to: \"He _saw_ every thing that he had made, and\nbehold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth\nday. And on the seventh day, having ended his work, he _rested_, and\nblessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had\n_rested_ from all his work which Elohim created and made.\" Such\nreferences to time and place imply an actor having coincident relations.\nAgain, \"He planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man\nwhom he had formed, and commanded him, saying, Of every tree of the\ngarden thou mayest freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good\nand evil.\" After the transgression, the same local references, and the\nlike familiarity, and implication of his personal presence, are\ncontinued: \"And they heard the voice\"--according to Owen and others, the\nWORD--\"of Jehovah Elohim, _walking_ in the garden; and Adam and his wife\nhid themselves from _the presence_\"--literally, _the face_--\"of Jehovah\nElohim, amongst the trees of the garden. And Jehovah Elohim called unto\nAdam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice,\nand I was afraid, and I hid myself.\" These passages seem to be\ndemonstrative of the local personal presence of the Divine speaker, as\nclearly as of that of the guilty couple. They heard him in the garden,\nand to avoid meeting or being met by him, they hid themselves among the\ntrees. This would have been to no purpose, had he not been locally, but\nonly spiritually present. They heard him walking, and having retreated\nto a covert for concealment, he called to Adam; acts which, in a plain,\nliteral narrative, imply a local personal presence.\n\nIf on this occasion, when the delinquent parties were successively\narraigned and questioned, and the sentence of condemnation was\npronounced in words addressed personally to each, he was locally\npresent, the otherwise seeming paradox, that the same style and manner\nof address to the subtle adversary should be employed as to Adam,\ndisappears. So the words addressed to Cain can hardly be thought to have\nbeen literally spoken, but upon the supposition that the Divine speaker\nwas locally present, and that his presence was matter of previous and\nfamiliar recognition to Cain. A like inference may be made from the\nstatement that Elohim came to Abimelech, and spake to him in a dream,\nand from his address to Jehovah, Gen. xx.; and also from the statement\nthat Elohim came to Laban in a dream, and his mention of the fact, and\nof the caution he renewed to Jacob, Gen. xxxi.\n\nNor is there in any respect any thing improbable in the supposition that\nhe was locally and visibly present in the likeness of man at that\nperiod, any more than at subsequent periods. On the contrary, the\nstatement (John i. 1) that the WORD--the delegated Person who in due\ntime assumed our nature and was visibly on earth--_was_ in the\nbeginning, and created all things, implies that he was then recognized\nin his official character, which implies relations and acts of which\nplace and visibility were indispensable conditions. Such must\nundoubtedly have been the case when he was seen, if not uniformly when\nhis voice was heard. He may have been often locally present when, though\nheard, he was not seen. Such, with respect to Daniel's companions, was\nthe case in his vision, chap. x. He saw one in the form of man, whose\nface was as the appearance of lightning, and heard his words; but the\nmen that were with him saw not the vision. And when Paul saw his person\nso unequivocally as to constitute him a witness of his resurrection, the\nmen accompanying him heard his voice, but saw him not. When it is simply\nsaid that he appeared to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or others, and the\nnarrative proceeds to relate what he said, and what answers were made,\nthe language plainly implies his local personal presence, though no\nmention is made of his being seen. The occasions and objects of his\nappearance in such instances were, so far as we can judge, as important\nand as appropriate to such local and visible manifestations, as those in\nrelation to which it is expressly recorded that he was seen in the\nlikeness of man.\n\nThe primeval and Levitical dispensations were specially characterized by\nvisible manifestations, acts, rites and events, embodying, enforcing,\nand illustrating the great truths which were revealed. Thus, on the part\nof man, the first prohibition enjoined upon Adam, besides its reference\nto his will, had relation to an external and visible act, and an\nexternal and visible object, the fruit of a particular tree. The ritual\nof worship prescribing, among other offerings, that of slaughtered\nanimals on an altar, the observance of the Sabbath, the long list of\nfasts, feasts, convocations, ordinances, rites and ceremonies, and most\nof the injunctions and prohibitions of the moral law, had respect to\noutward and visible acts. And on the other hand, the Divine Lawgiver\nand Ruler manifested himself visibly, announced his revelations and\ncommands in audible words, distinguished the righteous generally by\noutward prosperity, long life, and numerous descendants, and the wicked\nby opposite evils, or by special calamities and judgments manifest to\npublic observation. By this method, the personality, the attributes and\nperfections, the prerogatives and rights, the holiness, faithfulness,\nmercy and truth of Jehovah, were not only exhibited to the view of all\nintelligent creatures, fallen and unfallen, but were exhibited in such\nrelations to accountable creatures, in their various circumstances, and\nin their connections with laws, covenants, promises, and predictions, as\nto lead unmistakably to a right apprehension of them, and a right\napprehension of the conduct of men in view of them; results which, so\nfar as we can judge, could have been produced in no other way, unless by\nendowing creatures with omniscience, or with plenary inspiration. For,\nfrom their nature as created, finite and dependent agents, their\nthoughts, apprehensions and inferences are successive, and all the\nknowledge of external things which they acquire otherwise than by\ninspiration, they acquire by means of their external senses; seeing\nvisible objects, hearing audible sounds, &c. Those to whom these divine\nmanifestations, personal, visible, and audible, were first made, had no\nprototypes, precedents or analogies, to assist them in gaining right\napprehensions, and deducing just conclusions, had the method of\ninstruction been that merely of announcements, from an invisible source,\nof abstract propositions. But by the method actually adopted,\nprototypes, precedents and analogies were furnished, which, being\nrecorded in the relations and historical connections in which they\noccurred and were observed, serve effectually for the instruction of\nthose to whom similar outward and visible manifestations are not\nvouchsafed.\n\nOn the other hand, by the method taken, the nature, deserts, and\nconsequences of sin were unmistakably shown, by its being embodied and\npublicly exhibited in visible acts and their consequences. Thus the\ntransgression of Adam, regarded in its connection with the prohibition\nwhich had been emphatically enjoined, with his arraignment, and the\nsentence pronounced upon him, and with his expulsion from Eden, and the\ncurse and blight visibly produced upon the earth on which he was doomed\nto toil for a subsistence, and at length to decline and die, furnished\nillustrations of the indescribable turpitude of his apostasy, and of the\nmoral and physical evils that were among its just and legitimate\nconsequences, which neither then nor now could be conveyed in an\nabstract statement. So the hypocrisy, envy, infidelity, and malignity of\nCain, regarded in connection with the knowledge he had of the\nconsequences of Adam's transgression, and of the laws, obligations, and\nduties which were binding upon him; and in connection with the remorse\nvisibly depicted on his countenance, his expulsion from the accustomed\nplace of worship and of intercourse with Jehovah, and the spectacle he\nwas to exhibit as a fugitive and a vagabond, despised and shunned as an\noutcast, for whom the earth, in respect to his tillage of it, was\nspecially cursed and blighted; furnished, to the view of all intelligent\nobservers, lessons and illustrations which could in no other conceivable\nway have been exhibited.\n\nThe like may be observed concerning the spectacle of violence and\ncorruption which all but universally prevailed before the deluge, and on\naccount of which that exterminating judgment upon the race, with its\nvisible accompaniments and its physical effects upon the earth itself\nand its irrational inhabitants, was, in the view of the whole universe\nof accountable creatures, specially and judicially inflicted. Also,\nconcerning the notorious and awful wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah, and\nthe exterminating retribution visited upon them, making them a public\nand perpetual example. And, omitting to specify less conspicuous and\nindividual instances to the like effect in the history of the\npatriarchs, or that of the treatment of the Israelites in Egypt, and its\ncounterpart in the plagues which ensued, or any of later date, it is\nmanifest that this method of manifestation, instruction, warning, and\nreproof, was characteristic of those early times.\n\nIf now, in conformity with \"the unanimous opinion of the ancient\nChurch,\" we consider that He who in his delegated character is, in Moses\nand the prophets, designated by all the Divine names and titles, and\nspecially, among his peculiar official titles, by that of the Messenger\nJehovah, \"was the mediator in all the relations of God to the people,\"\nand, as expressed by Hengstenberg; from the beginning constantly filled\nup the infinite distance between the Creator and the creation, and was\nin all ages the Light of the world, and Mediator in all the relations of\nGod to the human race, then his early method of local, personal, and\nvisible manifestations, interpositions, and instructions, is obviously\nin keeping with that exhibited during his subsequent sojourn on earth,\nand so accordant with the nature and ends of his official character and\nits relations and objects, as to imply that the present dispensation is\nan exception, to be succeeded by one of renewed and more glorious,\nimpressive, and instructive visibility than that of Paradise, when all\nhis prior administrations and agencies will be completely vindicated,\nevery eye will see him, and every tongue confess that he is Jehovah, to\nthe glory of God the Father.\n\nThe foregoing observations may be further illustrated by reference to\nthe tabernacle as the local residence of the Messenger Jehovah, and as\nin some respects typical.\n\nThe pattern of the tabernacle which was shown to Moses in the mount, was\na representation to him of the person and work of the Mediator as Priest\nand King in human nature, which he was required to represent to the\nchildren of Israel by the visible structure which he was to erect. The\n_true_ tabernacle, of which this was the figure, was his human nature,\nin which his sacrifice, intercession, and regal glory were to be\nrealized.\n\nThe tabernacle, with its furniture and services, signified to the\nworshippers the leading truths concerning the person, offices, mediation,\nincarnation, sacrifice, intercession, and final glory and reign of Christ.\nIt taught these truths by means of visible signs--figures intended to\nserve that purpose till Christ should come, and in human nature, the true\ntabernacle, make atonement by shedding his own blood, and openly\nmanifesting the way of reconciliation and access to God through him.\n\nThis way into \"the holiest of all,\" _i. e._, heaven itself was not to be\nopenly and completely manifested, but only as was practicable through\nthese visible signs and teachings, during the continuance of the\ntabernacle erected by Moses, and afterwards placed in the first temple,\nas a figure of the true; but the coming of Christ in the true\ntabernacle, his human nature, to offer himself a sacrifice, would fulfil\nand make manifest the things signified in the figure. The tabernacle\nsignified that he would become literally incarnate; but by the actual\nexhibition of his person in human nature, all obscurity and doubt would\nbe removed.\n\nThe tabernacle, as a figure of his incarnate person, included, in the\nsanctuary within the veil, the golden altar of incense, the ark of the\ncovenant, and the mercy-seat, which was the throne; and in the other\napartment, the altar of burnt offering, the show-bread, the candlestick,\n&c., answering to the offices and benefits of Him who was both priest\nand sacrifice, altar and mercy-seat.\n\nThat they had an ark and tent answerable essentially to the tabernacle\nanterior to that erected in the wilderness, is implied in several\npassages. Thus, Exod. xxxiii., before the gifts had been received for\nthe new structure, \"Moses took _the tabernacle_ and pitched it without\nthe camp, afar off from the camp; ... and as Moses entered into _the\ntabernacle_, the cloudy pillar descended and stood at the door of the\ntabernacle, and talked [see Heb.] with Moses.\" Again, Exod. xvi., on the\nfirst dispensation of manna, Aaron is directed to \"Take a pot and put an\nomer full of manna therein, and lay it up _before Jehovah_, to be kept\nfor your generations. So Aaron laid it up before the testimony, to be\nkept:\" that is, probably, in the _tent_ or place where the Shekina\ndwelt, as afterwards in the tabernacle at Shiloh and Mizpeh, prior to\nthe erection of the temple. The same thing may be implied in the words\nof the Philistines when the Israelites brought the ark of the covenant\ninto their camp: \"The Philistines were afraid, for they said, Elohim is\ncome into the camp. Woe unto us!... this is _the_ Elohim that smote the\nEgyptians.\" 1 Sam. iv. As if, in the information they had received\nconcerning the plagues of Egypt, the presence of _the_ Elohim was\nassociated with a tent or _tabernacle_, and the ark of the covenant.\nThat there was such a place of Divine manifestation among the\nIsraelites during their sojourn in Egypt and at the legation of Moses,\nis in the highest degree probable, since the true faith and worship were\npreserved; and probably it was to that place that Moses, in the progress\nof his controversy with Pharaoh, often repaired for direction and\nauthority. And Moses returned unto Jehovah, and said, \"Adonai,\nwherefore,\" &c. Exod. v. \"And Moses spake _before_ Jehovah....\" \"And\nMoses said _before_ Jehovah.\" vi. \"And Moses went out from Pharaoh, and\nentreated Jehovah.\" viii. \"And Moses went out of the city from Pharaoh,\n[perhaps from the district of the Egyptians to that of the Israelites,]\nand spread abroad his hands unto Jehovah.\" ix. The same word (Sheken or\nShekina) which is employed to signify that Jehovah _dwelt_ in the pillar\nof cloud and of fire, and in the tabernacle between the cherubim, is\nemployed also Gen. iii. 24, which may read, \"He caused the cherubim to\n_dwell_ at the east of the garden of Eden,\" _i. e._, as in a tent or\ncovering, a tabernacle, or column of cloud or fire.\n\nDoubtless Moses previously understood the true doctrine concerning the\nperson, mediation, and sacrifice of the Divine Mediator; but to qualify\nhim to teach this doctrine and to enforce the duties connected with it,\nan exhibition was made to him of that Person in the form in which he was\nto make atonement by the sacrifice of himself. On the occasion of\nreceiving instruction concerning the tabernacle, being called up into\nthe mount, he, with Nadab, Abihu, and seventy of the elders, saw the\nElohe of Israel, in the likeness of the God-man, as appears from the\nallusion to his person, and what took place. \"There was under _his feet_\nas it were a paved work of a sapphire stone.... Upon the nobles he laid\nnot _his hand_.... They saw (_the_) Elohim, and did eat and drink.\" They\nevidently saw his person in the form in which he was to execute the\npriestly office, and which was to be foreshown by the tabernacle. No man\nhath seen the Father. But Moses saw (_the_) Elohim, the Elohe of Israel,\nJehovah, the Messenger, the God-man. On another occasion Jehovah came\ndown and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and said, \"With Moses will\nI speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches, and\nthe similitude of Jehovah shall he behold.\" Numb. i. He appeared in the\nform of man to Abraham, Jacob, and others, with no accompaniment of\nvisible glory. Isaiah saw him, the King, Jehovah Zebaoth, _seated_ on a\nthrone; Ezekiel, in the likeness of a man on a throne, John, as the Son\nof man, clothed with a garment down to his feet.\n\nAfter this manifestation to the leaders and elders of Israel, Moses went\nalone into the midst of the cloud on the mount, and remained there forty\ndays, receiving instructions for himself and the people concerning the\ntabernacle. \"And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the\nchildren of Israel, that they bring me an offering, &c.; ... and let\nthem make me a sanctuary, that _I may dwell among them_. According to\nall that I show thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the\npattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.\" This\nperfect model, by an imitation of which he was to represent the\nincarnate person and sacerdotal work of Christ, was shown to him in the\nmount. No doubt a visible pattern of the tabernacle and its instruments\nwas shown to him. That it was not a mental vision, or a verbal\ndescription merely, by which he was instructed, is clearly indicated by\nthe phraseology above quoted from Exod. xxv. 9: \"According to all that I\nshow thee;\" more strictly, \"According to all that I make thee to see.\"\n\nAgain, after a variety of directions concerning the table for the\nshow-bread, the candlestick, and other articles of furniture, Jehovah\nsaid to Moses, \"Look that thou make them after _their pattern_ which was\nshowed thee in the mount.\" Exod. xxv. 40, and xxvi. 30. \"Thou shalt rear\nup the tabernacle according to _the fashion thereof_ which was showed\nthee in the mount.\" And relating to the altar of burnt offerings:\n\"Hollow with boards shalt thou make it: as it was showed thee in the\nmount, so shalt thou make it.\" xxvii. 8. Again, at the dedication of the\ntabernacle it is said, \"According unto the pattern which Jehovah had\nshowed Moses, so he made the candlestick.\" Numb. viii. 4.\n\nThis phraseology, accompanied as it is by minute verbal descriptions of\nthe several objects, still refers to something more definite; a form,\nmodel, pattern, which he was strictly to imitate. The purposes to be\nanswered required perfect accuracy in the copy. And hence the apostle,\nHeb. viii. 5, alluding to this scene, says: \"Moses was admonished of\nGod, when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that\nthou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the\nmount.\"\n\nThis construction is confirmed by a portion of subsequent history. When\nSolomon was about \"to build an house for the sanctuary,\" David,\ninstructed by Divine inspiration in respect to the forms of different\nparts of the edifice, caused patterns or models thereof to be\nconstructed for the guidance of his son. \"Then David gave to Solomon the\npattern of the porch, and of the houses thereof, and of the treasuries\nthereof, and of the upper chambers thereof, and of the place of the\nmercy-seat; and the pattern of all that he had by the Spirit, of the\ncourts of the house of Jehovah, and of all the chambers round about, of\nthe treasuries of the house of Elohim, and of the treasuries of the\ndedicated things.\" 1 Chron. xxviii. In these services no discretion was\nleft either to Moses or to Solomon. The things to be made were to be\nmade in exact imitation of the patterns furnished.\n\nIf we suppose that Moses beheld the person of the Mediator in the\nlikeness of man, and at the same time beheld the model of the tabernacle\nand its furniture, by a copy of which he was visibly to prefigure and\nrepresent the human nature and the official works of Christ, then the\nstructure erected by him, with the throne, the altar, and all the\ninstruments and rites of the Levitical service, will appear in the\nhighest degree fitted to instruct the people in the great truths\nconcerning his kingly and priestly offices. His consecration of the most\nholy apartment as his dwelling-place, answerable, as the place of his\nintercession and of his mediatorial throne to that in which he was to\nappear after his incarnation and ascension, will be intelligible; and\nthe fact that there he reigned as King, dictated laws, and administered\nthe Theocracy, and that he was on subsequent occasions soon in\nconnection with the visible form and accompaniments of the tabernacle,\nby Isaiah, Ezekiel, and others, and lastly by John after his ascension,\nwill appear consistent with all that is made known to us of his\nmediatorial agency and visible manifestations under the primeval,\npatriarchal, and Mosaic dispensations. During those dispensations he as\ntruly officiated as Mediator as after the full realization of what the\ntabernacle prefigured; exercised the offices of Prophet, Priest, and\nKing, and dwelt personally in the holy place of the tabernacle after\nthat was prepared, till he formally forsook and withdrew from it, prior\nto the destruction of the first temple. His office and relations, as\ncivil head and ruler of the nation, implied his personal presence. That,\nas their civil ruler, he was King in the same sense as other kingly\nrulers, appears from what is said when, through unbelief and desire of a\nleader and judge who should be always visible, they sinfully demanded a\nking from among themselves, like the kings of other nations: \"Ye said, A\nking shall reign over us, when Jehovah your Elohe was your king.\" 1 Sam.\nxii. 13.\n\nFrom the oracle, the cover of the mercy-seat in the holy place within\nthe veil, as one ever present, he spoke to Moses, dictated the laws\nwhich are recorded after the erection of the tabernacle, and gave\nresponses to the high priest on special occasions, whenever appealed to,\nnot only during the ministry of Moses, but afterwards. And it is to be\nnoticed that, as there were during the earlier dispensations certain\nlocalities appropriated to Divine worship, where altars were erected to\nJehovah and typical sacrifices offered, and Divine manifestations and\nrevelations were vouchsafed; so, after the tabernacle was set up, and\nalso after it was transferred to the temple, it was the place resorted\nto for oracular responses as well as for sacrifices of burnt offering.\nOn the occasion of the war with Benjamin, \"the children of Israel, and\nall the people, went up and came unto the house of Elohim, and wept, and\nsat there _before_ Jehovah, and fasted that day until even, and offered\nburnt offerings and peace offerings before Jehovah. And the children of\nIsrael inquired of Jehovah, (for the ark of the covenant of [_the_]\nElohim was there in those days, and Phinehas the son of Aaron stood\nbefore it in those days,) saying, Shall I yet again go out to battle?\n&c.... And Jehovah said, Go up,\" &c. Judges xx. Thence, in the days of\nEli, Jehovah spoke to Samuel 1 Sam. iii. See also Joshua vii. 6; 1\nChron. xxi. 30; 2 Sam. xxii. 7; Psalm xviii. 6; xxvii. 4; Isaiah lxvi.\n6.\n\nNow, the tabernacle was erected expressly to be the dwelling-place of\nJehovah as Mediator, \"Let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell\namong them.\" Exod. xxv. 28, \"Thou shalt put the mercy-seat above upon\nthe ark; and in the ark thou shall put the testimony that I shall give\nthee. And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from\nabove the mercy-seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the\nark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in\ncommandment unto the children of Israel.\" xxv. 21, 22. \"There I will\nmeet with the children of Israel, and the tabernacle shall be sanctified\nby my glory.... And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will\nbe their God, and they shall know that I am Jehovah their Elohe, that\nbrought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among\nthem.\" xxix. 43, 45, 46. The tabernacle in the wilderness had its\nstation in the midst of the camps; from the precincts of which all\nlepers were to be excluded, \"that they defile not their camps in the\nmidst whereof I dwell.\" Numb. v. 3. So no satisfaction might be taken\nfor the life of a murderer in the land of Canaan; for blood defiled the\nland, and it could not be cleansed \"but by the blood of him that shed\nit. Defile not therefore the land which ye shall inhabit, wherein I\ndwell: for I Jehovah dwell among the children of Israel.\" Numb. xxxv.\n34. Accordingly we read that \"the glory of Jehovah filled the\ntabernacle.... The cloud of Jehovah was upon the tabernacle by day, and\nfire was on it by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel\nthroughout all their journeys.\" Exod. xl. 34, 38.\n\nAll this phraseology plainly indicates the local presence of the\nPersonal Word; as plainly as the records of his visible presence on any\noccasions. Various other scriptures confirm this. When king David said\nto Nathan, \"See now, I dwell in an house of cedar, but the ark of God\ndwelleth within curtains,\" Nathan was directed to \"Go and tell David,\nThus saith Jehovah, Shalt thou build me an house to dwell in? Whereas I\nhave not _dwelt in any house_ since the time that I brought up the\nchildren of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day; but have _walked in a\ntent and in a tabernacle_.\" To this follow allusions to his dealings\nwith David, and promises concerning the future. \"Then went king David in\n[_i. e._ into the tabernacle] and sat _before Jehovah_, ... and made\nacknowledgments, thanksgivings, and prayers to Jehovah Zebaoth, the\nElohe of Israel.\" 2 Sam, vii.\n\nIt is thus manifest that the tabernacle was intended as the residence of\nthe official Person, and with reference to his official works; and being\na figure of his human nature, he dwelt in it, and exercised his\nprophetic, regal, and priestly offices in it, as he was to do afterwards\nwhen literally incarnate. If it represented his human nature, then\ndoubtless he dwelt in it and if he dwelt in it in any sense answerable\nto his subsequent dwelling in the human nature, then he dwelt in it\nlocally and personally. The services performed there accordingly imply\nand confirm this view. There was a shedding of blood, the blood of the\ncovenant, which has flowed in every age, through which remission of sin\nwas granted. See Levit. xvii. 2; Heb. ix. 22.\n\nNo atonement could be made but by sacrificial blood-shedding; and if the\nshedding and sprinkling of blood in the tabernacle service prefigured\nthe true atonement, then it referred to the incarnate Word; and if he\nwas in any manner in the holy place, he must have dwelt there in the\nperson and likeness in which he appeared when visible. If any Divine\nPerson was present in the tabernacle, it must have been the Mediator in\nhis official capacity. For to suppose it to have been the Father, is to\nsuppose that in the Levitical services there was in the minds of the\nworshippers no recognition of the Mediator.\n\nAccordingly, when he visibly appeared incarnate among men, he spoke of\nthe temple as representing his body. \"Destroy this temple, and in three\ndays I will raise it up.... But he spake of the temple of his body.\"\nJohn ii. 19, 21. And John, describing the Messiah as he appeared visibly\nincarnate, says the WORD was God--was in the beginning--created all\nthings. \"The WORD became flesh and dwelt [literally, tabernacled] among\nus, and we beheld his glory.\" John i. See also the Epistle to the\nHebrews, especially chap. viii-x., where the Mosaic tabernacle of\nwitness, as it is called in Numbers and Acts vii., is in all its\nessential characteristics and objects contrasted with the person and\noffice-work of Christ as he appeared incarnate,--\"a minister of the\nsanctuary and of the true tabernacle, [his human nature,] which the Lord\npitched and not man,\"--in fulfilment of the things signified and\nprefigured in the tabernacle of witness, \"which was a figure for the\ntime then present.\" \"But Christ being come, ... by a greater and more\nperfect tabernacle not made with hands, ... by his own blood entered\nonce into the holy place, [heaven as prefigured by the holy of holies\nwithin the veil,] having obtained eternal redemption for us;\" _i. e._,\nby the offering of his own blood as an atoning sacrifice for sin, as\nprefigured by the sacrificial shedding of blood in the Levitical service\nand the patriarchal worship. \"He entered not, when he offered himself a\nsacrifice, into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures\nof the true, but into heaven itself. Nor yet did he offer himself often,\nas the high priest entered into the holy place every year with blood of\nothers, but now once at the end of the Levitical economy, he appeared to\nput away sin by the sacrifice of himself.\" After he had once offered\nhimself a sacrifice for sin, he ascended, and \"sat down on the right\nhand of God, thenceforth expecting till his enemies be made his\nfootstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are\nsanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after\nthat he had said, This is the covenant that I will make with them after\nthose days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in\ntheir minds will I write them; and their sins and iniquities will I\nremember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more\noffering for sin. Having therefore boldness to enter into the holiest by\nthe blood of Jesus, by a new and living [life-giving] way, which he hath\nconsecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; and\nhaving an High Priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a\ntrue heart in full assurance of faith.\"\n\nThe foregoing observations and references show, in some degree, how\nMoses and his inspired successors wrote of the Messiah.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\n    Of the Chaldee Paraphrasts--Their method of designating the\n    Personal WORD or Revealer--Occasion and Necessity of it.\n\n\nHe who, in the primeval dispensation, was, in his official character,\ndistinctively announced as the Messenger Jehovah, and the Messenger\nElohim, is, in the same character, no less distinctively announced, on\nhis visible appearance incarnate, as the Word. And, taking the words,\nJohn i. 1, last clause, in the order in which they occur in the\noriginal, \"God (Elohim) was the Word,\" He, in that character, is\ndeclared to be the Creator. \"All things were made by him.\" \"By\nhim\"--referred to as the Son, and as the image of the invisible God, in\nwhom we have redemption through his blood--\"were all things created,\nthat are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible.\" Col.\ni. These designations and ascriptions undoubtedly identify him in\nrespect to his person, and his official character, with Elohim, who\n(Gen. i.) in the beginning created the heavens and the earth.\n\nBut the designation translated Word--a term employed in the abstract for\nthe concrete, as light for the enlightener, life for life-giver, Logos,\nor Word, for revealer--has a counterpart, of like personal and official\nsignificance, in the Hebrew Scriptures, which was recognized by the\nancient Jewish church, and by the Chaldee paraphrasts; and which, in a\nChaldee form, the latter in their paraphrases inserted in numerous\ninstances before the Divine names, where they understood them to\nindicate the official delegated Person, and where the context did not\nnecessarily convey that meaning.\n\n\"The Chaldee paraphrases,\" says Prideaux, \"are translations of the\nScriptures of the Old Testament made directly from the Hebrew text into\nthe language of the Chaldeans; which language was anciently used through\nall Assyria, Babylonia, Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine. These\nparaphrases are called _Targums_, because they were versions or\ntranslations of the Hebrew text into this language. These Targums were\nmade for the use and instruction of the vulgar Jews, after their return\nfrom the Babylonish captivity. For although many of the better sort\nstill retained the knowledge of the Hebrew language during that\ncaptivity, and taught it their children; and the Holy Scriptures that\nwere delivered after that time, excepting only some parts of Daniel and\nEzra, and one verse in Jeremiah, were all written therein; yet the\ncommon people, by having so long conversed with the Babylonians, learned\ntheir language and forgot their own. It happened indeed otherwise to the\nchildren of Israel in Egypt. For although they lived there above three\ntimes as long as the Babylonish captivity lasted, yet they still\npreserved the Hebrew language among them, and brought it back entire\nwith them into Canaan. The reason of this was, in Egypt they all lived\ntogether in the land of Goshen; but on their being carried captive by\nthe Babylonians, they were dispersed all over Chaldea and Assyria, and\nbeing there intermixed with the people of the land, had their main\nconverse with them, and therefore were forced to learn their language,\nand this soon induced a disuse of their own among them; by which means\nit came to pass, that after their return, the common people, especially\nthose of them who had been bred up in that captivity, understood not\nthe Holy Scriptures in the Hebrew language, nor their posterity after\nthem. And therefore when Ezra read the law to the people, (Neh. viii.,)\nhe had several persons standing by him well skilled in both the Chaldee\nand the Hebrew languages, who interpreted to the people in Chaldee what\nhe first read to them in Hebrew. And afterwards, when the method was\nestablished of dividing the law into fifty-four sections, and of reading\none of them every week in their synagogues, (as hath been already\ndescribed,) the same course of reading to the people the Hebrew text\nfirst, and then interpreting it to them in Chaldee, was still continued.\nFor when the reader had read one verse in Hebrew, an interpreter\nstanding by did render it in Chaldee; and then the next verse being read\nin Hebrew, it was in like manner interpreted in the same language as\nbefore; and so on from verse to verse, was every verse alternatively\nread, first in Hebrew and then interpreted in Chaldee, to the end of the\nsection; and this first gave occasion for the making of Chaldee versions\nfor the help of these interpreters. And they thenceforth became\nnecessary not only for their help in the public synagogues, but also for\nthe help of the people at home in their families, that they might there\nhave the Scriptures for their private reading in a language which they\nunderstood.\"\n\nAfter further showing how this practice was perpetuated in the public\nservices of the synagogues, first in respect to the law, and afterwards\nin respect to the prophetic and other Scriptures; and that as copies of\nthe Scriptures both for public and private use were multiplied, and the\nnumber of synagogues increased, the Chaldee version was reduced to\nwriting, and read alternately with the Hebrew, and finally, as he\nsupposes was done in the time of our Saviour, read without and in place\nof the Hebrew, he proceeds to describe the several Targums which have\ncome down to the present time. Of these, the two which are most esteemed\nare those of Onkelos on the Pentateuch, and Jonathan on the Prophets,\nwhich are supposed to have been copied or essentially derived by them\nfrom the earlier and well-accredited versions, and to have been written\nor edited about the same time, and not long before the commencement of\nthe Christian era. The Targum of Onkelos, he observes, is rather a\nversion than a paraphrase, for it renders the Hebrew text word for word.\nBut Jonathan, he adds, takes on him the liberty of a paraphrast.\n\nOf these Targums, and others of a later date, it is known that they\nexhibit or construe the predictions concerning the Messiah in the same\nway as is done by Christians. That of Onkelos in particular, which is\nheld to be the most ancient and the purest, and from which Prideaux\nsupposes our Saviour to have quoted in several instances, which he\nspecifies, is remarkable in this respect. And if, as is supposed, it\nrepresents literally or substantially the version which originated under\nthe superintendence of Ezra, when, from the long disuse of the Hebrew\nScriptures and the ignorance of the people generally of their meaning,\nit was of the first necessity to their instruction and reformation to\nexplain the import and reference of the Divine names and titles in the\nbooks of Moses, where the prophets and church of preceding ages\nunderstood them to designate the Personal WORD; then the frequent\ninsertion, before the names Jehovah and Elohim, of the term _Memra_ as\nequivalent to Logos, is a reliable exposition and attestation of the\nfaith of Ezra and his predecessors. And, apparently, every consideration\nis in favor of this view of the case. The word in question is inserted\nbefore the words Jehovah and Elohim where the creation is asserted, so\nthat the act is affirmed of the WORD, or the _Word_ Elohim, or the\n_Word_ Jehovah Elohim; for which no reason can be assigned or\njustification offered, unless the personal reference was the same as\nthat of John in ascribing the creation to the Logos. By a like insertion\nthe giving of the law to Moses at mount Sinai is ascribed to the WORD\nElohim; speaking to him face to face, to the WORD Jehovah; and in\nnumerous other instances, where personal acts are affirmed, and where\nthe personal reference necessarily includes the added as well as the\noriginal designation. If this was done by Ezra, then he did but add what\nthe circumstances of his time required to the example of Moses, who\nsometimes referred to the delegated ONE, the personal WORD, by the\nsingle terms, Jehovah and Elohim, and at others by the compound\ndesignations, Melach Jehovah and Melach Elohim. In his case, uniformity\nin this respect was rendered unnecessary, and diversity intelligible, by\nthe prevalent sentiment, knowledge, and usage of the people. On the\ncontrary, in the other case, the ignorance and disuse of the original\nHebrew, on the part of the people, rendered it necessary, first in the\noral translation and exposition, and afterwards in the written versions\nof the sacred books, to insert, at appropriate places, a term adapted,\nlike Logos in the Greek, to suggest, or by definition and use to receive\nand fix the requisite meaning as a designation.\n\nThere is in the nature of the case a very strong probability that the\npractice of inserting this expository term in the Chaldee versions was\noriginally sanctioned by higher authority than any that we have notice\nof, after the time of Ezra, or that of Malachi, who is by some supposed\nto have been the same person as Ezra, and by others to have been\ncontemporary. Of all people, the Jews were the least likely to receive\nand adopt such an exposition in relation to the Divine names, without\nthe prescription and sanction of a prophet. The supposition of its\nhaving originated and been brought into use and favor at a later period\nis wholly improbable, whether considered in relation to the nature and\ntendency of the practice, or to the condition of the Jews down to the\ntime of our Saviour. It is, in itself, far more probable that the devout\nJews during the captivity in Babylon, with Ezekiel, who had visions of\nthe Personal Word in the likeness of man, and who appears sometimes, if\nnot often, to refer to Him by the Hebrew term _Dabar_, answering to the\nChaldee _Memra_, Word, or Revealer; with Daniel, who had visions of the\nsame delegated one, in the same form; and with Ezra and other of their\ndisciples of the sacerdotal and prophetic order, held the same faith as\nthe prophets and patriarchs of earlier times, concerning the person,\nagency, and manifestations of the Messiah; recognized him under the same\ndesignations, and, on their return to Jerusalem, adopted, under the\nguidance of Ezra, an additional title, rendered necessary to the common\npeople by their disuse of Hebrew, and their use of another language,\nwhich was thenceforth to be their vulgar tongue.\n\nAnd if not, from the circumstances of the case, to be assumed as needing\nno confirmation, it is at least probable in the highest degree that the\nGreat Revealer would in such a way provide for the maintenance and\nperpetuity of a church of true worshippers, holding the doctrines and\nthe faith of the patriarchs and prophets concerning his person, and the\nmanifestations and titles by which he was known to them; a succession\nof devout, instructed, and faithful worshippers, who, at whatever time\nhis advent might take place, would, on his appearance in a form\nanswering to that in which Abraham and others saw him, be ready and\nwaiting, like Simeon and Anna, to see and to proclaim their recognition\nof him.\n\nThe weight of this probability is greatly enhanced by the consideration,\nthat the earlier and principal agencies and instrumentalities by which\nthose doctrines and that faith had been maintained were discontinued\nprior to the deportation of the Jews and the destruction of their\ntemple, and were never afterwards renewed. For, previous to these\nevents, Jehovah in the similitude of man, radiant in appearance as the\nbrightness of amber and of fire, appeared to Ezekiel at his place of\nexile, and in vision transported him to Jerusalem. And having exhibited\nto his astonished gaze the utter desecration of every part of the temple\nby the most impious and loathsome abominations of idolatry; and having\nnotified him of the tokens by which the remnant of true worshippers was\nto be discriminated, and how they were to be preserved; and predicted\nthat restoration which is yet future; and shown for his own conviction\nand that of the captives on his report to them, the grounds and reasons\nof his righteous judgments upon the rest; and finally having passed from\nthe interior of the temple to the threshold, and assumed the glorious\nform, with the cherubic accompaniments, in which he had appeared by the\nriver of Chebar, (chap. i.,) \"he departed from off the threshold of the\nhouse, and,\" in the sight of the prophet, \"mounted up from, the earth,\"\nand afterwards \"went up from the midst of the city,\" (rather, from over\nthe city,) \"and stood upon the mountain which is on the east side of\nthe city.\" \"So,\" adds Ezekiel, \"the vision that I had seen went up from\nme.\" Ezekiel, chap. viii.--xi.\n\nEzekiel was one of the captives carried to Babylon with Jehoiachin, B.\nC. 600. Jehoiachin was the last who in due succession sat on the throne\nof David. He was deposed by Nebuchadnezzar, who placed Zedekiah on the\nthrone as his own viceroy and vassal.\n\nNo one of the family of David ever afterwards reigned over Judah. The\ntheocratic viceroyalty ceased; the temporal kingdom of the house of\nDavid was dissolved. Jehovah, being rejected by his covenant people, and\nidolatry substituted for his worship, forsook his temple, discontinued\nhis former theocratic relation, ceased to manifest himself in the\nShekina, and turned to execute wrath upon Judah and Israel for their\nidolatrous abominations, and upon the surrounding nations whose idols\nthey worshipped, and by whom they had been seduced and oppressed.\n\nThis signal procedure was the sequel of many clear and emphatic\npredictions, and a long course of discipline tending to restrain the\nwhole house of Israel, and more especially the house of Judah, from\ntotal apostasy and alienation; and its occurrence is distinctly noted by\nthe prophets.\n\nThe reformation and reign of Hezekiah were succeeded by unprecedented\nabominations of idolatry during the reign of Manasseh his son. \"He built\nup again the high places which Hezekiah his father had destroyed; and he\nreared up altars for Baal; and worshipped all the host of heaven, and\nserved them. And he built altars in the house of the Lord, of which the\nLord said, In Jerusalem will I put my name. And he built altars for all\nthe host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the Lord. And he\nmade his son pass through the fire, and observed times, and used\nenchantments, and dealt with familiar spirits and wizards: he wrought\nmuch wickedness in the sight of the Lord, [his presence in the Shekina,]\nto provoke him to anger. And he set a graven image of the grove [_i.\ne._, the pillar or statue] that he had made, in the house of the Lord,\"\nprobably within the veil confronting the Shekina. He seduced the people\n\"to do more evil than did the nations whom the Lord destroyed before the\nchildren of Israel. And the Lord spake by his servants the prophets,\nsaying: Because Manasseh King of Judah hath done these abominations, and\nhath done wickedly above all that the Amorites did which were before\nhim, and hath made Judah also to sin with his idols, therefore thus\nsaith the Lord God of Israel: Behold, I am bringing such evil upon\nJerusalem and Judah, that whosoever heareth of it, both his ears shall\ntingle. And I will stretch over Jerusalem the line of Samaria, and the\nplummet of the house of Ahab; and I will wipe Jerusalem as a man wipeth\na dish, wiping it, and turning it upside down. And I will _forsake_ the\nremnant of mine inheritance, and deliver them into the hand of their\nenemies; and they shall become a prey and a spoil to all their enemies.\"\n2 Kings xxi. and 2 Chron. xxxiii.\n\nManasseh was succeeded by Amon his son, \"who did that which was evil in\nthe sight of the Lord, and walked in all the ways that his father walked\nin, and served the idols that his father served, and worshipped them.\" 2\nKings xxi. In the next reign, that of Josiah, a general reformation was\nwrought, and idolatry and its monuments were temporarily put away.\n\"Notwithstanding, the Lord turned not from the fierceness of his great\nwrath, wherewith his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the\nprovocations that Manasseh had provoked him withal. And the Lord said, I\nwill remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel, and\nwill cast off this city Jerusalem which I have chosen, and _the house_\nof which I said, My name shall be there.\" 2 Kings xxiii.\n\nOn the death of Josiah, the people set up his son Jehoahaz to be king,\nwho did \"evil in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his\nfathers had done.\" And at the end of three months he was deposed by the\nKing of Egypt, who placed in his stead as his vassal, another son of\nJosiah, whose name he changed from Eliakim to Jehoiakim, probably in\nderision, substituting the initial of the name Jehovah for that of the\nname Elohim, to indicate his assumed triumph over the peculiar God of\nthe Jewish people.\n\nJehoiakim \"did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according\nto all that his fathers had done.\" From him the kingdom passed to his\nson Jehoiachin, who at the end of three months was vanquished by the\nKing of Babylon and carried captive with the princes, officers, and most\nof the people, and the treasures of the temple. The kingdom was thus\nbroken up. Nebuchadnezzar, however, left Zedekiah as his vassal in\ncharge of Jerusalem. Under him, notwithstanding the impending\ndestruction of the city and temple, \"the chief of the priests and the\nremaining people transgressed very much after all the abominations of\nthe heathen, and polluted the house of the Lord which he had hallowed in\nJerusalem. They mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words,\nand misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord rose against his\npeople till there was no remedy;\" and they were subdued, the temple and\ncity burnt, and the wall of Jerusalem broken down. 2 Chron. xxxvi.\n\nThe formal abdication and abandonment of the throne of David was\nconsummated by the seizure and captivity of Jehoiachin. \"As I live, saith\nthe Lord, though Coniah [Jehoiachin] the son of Jehoiakim King of Judah\nwere the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence.\" \"O\nearth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord. Thus saith the Lord, Write\nye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no\nman of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and\nruling any more in Judah. Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I\nwill raise unto David a righteous BRANCH, and a king shall reign and\nprosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days\nJudah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is his name\nwhereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.\" Jer. xxiii. So,\nbefore the capture and exile of Jehoiachin, it was announced of Jehoiakim\nhis father, \"He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David; and his\ndead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to\nthe frost. And I will punish him and his seed, and the inhabitants of\nJerusalem and the men of Judah.\" Jer. xxxvi.\n\nThus Jehovah in the most public and formal manner forsook and withdrew\nfrom the temple, and terminated the theocracy; the procedure being\nattended by visible exhibitions, and verbal explanations and\nannouncements intelligible to Ezekiel, and adapted to qualify him to\nvindicate it to the captives, and to forewarn them of the inflictions\nand desolations which were to follow. Accordingly, neither the Shekina\nnor any tokens of the Divine presence there afterwards appeared. When\nthe structure was demolished by the Chaldeans, the altar and all the\ninterior furniture was destroyed or removed, and never again recovered.\nIn the new erection under Cyrus, when dedicated, and ever after, the ark\nof the covenant and the mercy-seat upon it, the Shekina, the Urim and\nThummim, the holy fire upon the altar, and the spirit of prophecy, were\nirrecoverably wanting. The construction which was substituted for the\noriginal ark had neither the tables of the law nor any of its other\ncontents, nor any visible glory over it, nor oracles proceeding from it.\nThe Divine presence, always before visible in a cloud over the\nmercy-seat, returned no more. An imitation altar was erected, but the\nfire which came down from heaven upon the altar in the tabernacle, and\nagain at the dedication of the first temple, had been extinguished, and\nwas not again restored. Jehovah, officially, as prophet, priest, and\nking, had withdrawn, not to re\u00e4ppear till he should come, the Messenger\nof the Covenant, in fulfilment of Malachi's prediction.\n\nThe new structure therefore was, at least to all but those whose worship\nwas purely and eminently spiritual, a cold, cheerless, and dark arena of\nformal and wearisome rites and ceremonies; a lifeless round of irksome\nforms, without any visible tokens of the Divine presence, or of Divine\nrecognition or acceptance; any oracular responses, any fire from heaven,\nor other vindications, confirmations, or sanctions of the doctrines or\nfaith professed or signified by the services and offerings of the\nworshippers.\n\nHence the degeneracy, formalism, and hypocrisy which subsequently\ncharacterized the temple worship, as recorded by Malachi and his\ncontemporaries, and in the later history of the Jews down to our\nSaviour's time; their separation into discordant sects; the renunciation\nby the mass of them of the divine Mediator and the doctrine of\nMediation, and their adoption exclusively of the doctrine of the UNITY,\nas held by them to this day; and the necessity, in order to the\nmaintenance among the true worshippers of the doctrines and faith of the\npatriarchs and prophets, of providing and perpetuating in their vulgar\ntongue such expositions as were furnished by the Chaldee paraphrasts.\n\nA further confirmation to the same effect might be deduced from a\nconsideration of the results of the scheme of reformation ascribed to\nZoroaster towards the close of the Babylonish exile, whereby he hoped to\nunite the Jews with the Chaldeans, Persians, &c., in one sect, by\npurging the Magian system of worship from idolatry, restoring it to what\nhe held to be its primitive purity, and combining with it the doctrine\nof one supreme creative intelligence, the doctrine of a resurrection,\nand other tenets of the Jews which might be incorporated in a system\nthat neither taught nor admitted a Mediator, or any doctrine of Divine\nor creature mediation. This artful scheme, which was more or less\nsuccessful at the time, and which, among those Jews of Babylon and the\nprovinces who did not return to Palestine, may be traced down for\ncenturies in the history of Oriental Gnosticism, obviously furnished a\nfurther reason for guarding the true worshippers, after the period of\nexile and the cessation of prophetic gifts, by such means as the Chaldee\nversions furnish.\n\nLet it be further observed, as not unworthy of particular notice, that\nthe Samaritans, from the very commencement of their history, and of\ntheir rivalship and hostility to the Jews, and the erection of their\ntemple on Mount Gerizim, simultaneously with that of the restored Jews\nat Jerusalem, received and used no portion of the sacred writings then\nextant, except the books of Moses; and that they perseveringly rejected\nall traditions, and all glosses and comments on the original text. And\nyet from the saying of the Samaritan woman, \"I know that Messiah cometh;\n(that is, _the Christ, the Anointed_;) when he is come, he will teach us\nall things,\" it would seem that, down to our Saviour's time, they\nunderstood the true doctrine concerning his person, his incarnation, and\nthe titles by which he would be distinguished. When told that he who was\nthen present in the form of man, and who spoke to her, was the Messiah,\nshe manifested no surprise or doubt. Many of the Samaritans believed in\nhim on her testimony. \"And many more believed because of what they heard\nfrom himself,\" and said, \"We know that this is truly the Saviour of the\nWorld, the Messiah.\" (_Campbell._)\n\nNow, since they held no intercourse with the Jews, and, from prejudice\nand hostility, would learn nothing from them; and since they received\nonly the Pentateuch and rejected all traditions, it would seem that they\nmust from the beginning of their history have understood the Mosaic\nwritings to teach those doctrines, and from continual study of them as\nthe only source of their religious knowledge, hopes and expectations,\nmust have perpetuated the sentiments with which they originally received\nthem.\n\n\"That the sentiments of the woman who conversed at the well with Christ\nwere the same with those of the Samaritans in general, will not admit of\na doubt; for from whence could a common person like her have obtained\nthe information she discovers on several points relating to the Messiah,\nunless from popular traditions current amongst those of her own nation?\nThese sentiments then furnish us with a strong argument in answer to\nthose who contend that the more ancient Hebrews entertained no\nexpectation of a Messiah, but that this hope first, sprang up amongst\nthe Jews some short time before the coming of our Saviour. So deep and\ninveterate was the enmity which subsisted between the Jews and the\nSamaritans, that it is utterly incredible that a hope of this kind\nshould have been communicated from either of them to the other. It\nnecessarily follows, therefore, that as both of them were, at the time\nof our Saviour's birth, looking for the appearance of a Messiah from\nabove, they must have derived the expectation from one common source,\ndoubtless the books of Moses and the discipline of their ancestors; and\nconsequently that this hope was entertained long before the Babylonish\ncaptivity, and the rise of the Samaritans. I mention only the books of\nMoses, because it is well known that the Samaritans did not consider any\nof the other writings of the Old Testament as sacred or of Divine\noriginal; and it is therefore not at all likely that any information\nwhich they might possess respecting the Messiah that was to come should\nhave been drawn from any other source. In the discourse of the Samaritan\nwoman, we likewise discover what were the sentiments of the ancient\nHebrews respecting the Messiah. The expectation of the Jews at the time\nof our Saviour's coming was, as we have seen, directed towards a\nwar-like leader, a hero, an emperor, who should recover for the\noppressed posterity of Abraham their liberty and rights; but the\nSamaritans, as appears from the conversation of this woman, looked\nforward to the Messiah in the light of a spiritual teacher and guide,\nwho should instruct them in a more perfect and acceptable way of serving\nGod than that which they then followed. Now the Samaritans had always\nkept themselves entirely distinct from the Jews, and would never consent\nto adopt any point of doctrine or discipline from them; and the\nconsequence was, that the ancient opinion respecting the Messiah had\nbeen retained in much greater purity by the former than by the Jews,\nwhose arrogance and impatience under the calamities to which they were\nexposed, had brought them by degrees to turn their backs on the opinions\nentertained by their forefathers on this subject, and to cherish the\nexpectation that, in the Messiah promised to them by God, they should\nhave to hail an earthly prince and deliverer. Lastly, I think it\nparticularly deserving of attention, that it is clear from what is said\nby this woman, that the Samaritans did not consider the Mosaic Law in\nthe light of a permanent establishment, but expected that it would pass\naway, and its place be supplied by a more perfect system of discipline\non the coming of the Messiah. For when she hears our Saviour predict the\ndownfall of the Samaritan as well as the Jewish religion, instead of\ntaking fire at his words, and taxing him, after the Jewish manner, with\nblasphemy against God and against Moses, (Acts vi. 13-15,) she answers\nwith mildness and composure that she knew the Messiah would come, and\nwas not unapprised that the religion of her ancestors would then undergo\na change.\" (Mosheim, Int. Com. chap. 2.)\n\nThe Jews, on the contrary, as is hereafter more particularly observed,\nhad renounced the Divine Mediator and the entire doctrine of mediation\nbetween God and man. They did not expect the promised Messiah in the\ncharacter of Mediator, but, holding no distinction of persons in the\nGodhead, they gloried in the doctrine of the _Unity_; believed the\nMosaic Law and institutions would be perpetual, and trusted to their\nobservance of them for salvation. It were easy to multiply citations to\nshow that they still entertain those views. A single instance may\nsuffice. In the London Jewish Chronicle for May, 1852, the chief Rabbi\nof the great synagogue, in a sermon on the first day of the Feast of\nWeeks, is quoted as saying: \"A man who has a royal patron, when in\ndistress applies first to the Minister, to know if an audience will be\ngranted; but with respect to God, if man is in trouble he wants no\nMediator, or angels, but calls to God alone, and he shall be heard. And\nthis cheering belief in the unity of God is quieting to the mind.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\n    Citations from the Chaldee Paraphrases.\n\n\nThe earliest Chaldee paraphrases which have been handed down are\nsupposed to have been compiled or written about the time of the first\nadvent, when the true worshippers may be supposed to have been anxious\nto revive and spread abroad the knowledge of them in such manner as to\ninduce the Jews of that period to recognize the Messiah in the incarnate\nWord. The following testimonies from those writings of the sentiments of\nthe Jewish Church concerning the Messiah as understood by them to be\nrevealed in the ancient Scriptures, and his identity with the Messenger\nJehovah, are, for the sake of his comments, taken from Faber's _Hor\u00e6\nMosaic\u00e6_:\n\n\"When the text reads, _They heard the voice of the Lord God walking in\nthe garden_, the Targums explain the passage to mean: _They heard the_\nWORD _of the Lord God walking;_ or, somewhat more fully, _they heard the\nvoice of the_ WORD _of the Lord God walking_. In point of grammatical\nconstruction, even the modern Jews allow that the participle _walking_\nagrees with the voice, and not with _the Lord God_. But walking is the\nattribute of a person. Therefore the Targums rightly gave the sense of\nthe original when they introduced the WORD as the judge of our first\nparents.\"\n\nThe exclamation of Eve, I have gotten a man from the Lord, they render,\n\"_I have obtained the man, the angel of Jehovah!_ Now, since _Jehovah_\nis the word used in the original, it is difficult to account for this\nparaphrastic exposition, unless we conclude that, at the time when it\nwas written, the Jews believed the angel of Jehovah to be himself\nJehovah, and expected him to be born incarnate.\"\n\n\"To this opinion we shall the rather incline, if we attend to another\nparaphrastic interpretation. The sacred text reads: _In that day shall\nJehovah of hosts be for a crown of glory, and for a diadem of beauty\nunto the residue of his people_. But the Targum of Jonathan reads: _In\nthat day shall the Messiah of Jehovah of hosts be for a crown of glory_.\nJonathan, however, could never have thus explained the passage, unless\nhe had believed that the future Messiah would be Jehovah incarnate; nor\nwould he have hazarded so extraordinary an interpretation, unless he had\nbeen fully conscious of speaking the general sentiments of his\ncontemporaries. It is well known that the Jews so highly venerate the\nTargum of this writer, as to deem it something divine; yet we see that\nJonathan identifies the Messiah with Jehovah himself. The doctrine in\nquestion still prevailed among the Jews at the time when Justin Martyr\nflourished, as is manifest from his direct appeal to Trypho. _If we\nproduce to them,_ says he, _those scriptures formerly rehearsed to you,\nwhich expressly show that the Messiah is both subject to suffering, and\nyet is the adorable God, they are under a necessity of acknowledging\nthat these respect the Christ. So that while they assert that Jesus is\nnot the Christ, they still confess that the Christ Himself shall come,\nand suffer, and reign, and be the adorable God: which conduct of theirs\nis truly most absurd and contradictory._ I need scarcely remark, that\nJustin could never have hazarded such language to a Hebrew antagonist,\nunless he knew that he had very good ground for what he said.\n\n\"But to return to the Targums, where the text reads: _Let not God speak\nwith us, lest we die_, the interpretation of Onkelos runs, _Let not the\nWord from before the Lord speak with us_. So likewise where the text\nreads, _She called the name of Jehovah that spake unto her, Thou God\nseest me_, the Targum of Jonathan runs, _She confessed before the Lord\nJehovah, whose Word had spoken unto her_. And the Targum of Jerusalem,\n_She confessed and prayed to the Word of the Lord who had appeared to\nher_. Now the person who appeared to Hagar was the angel of Jehovah. The\nparaphrasts therefore identify _the Word and the Angel_. Hence it is\nplain that by the Word of God they do not mean a speech uttered by God,\nbut that they use the term to express a real person. By this personal\nWord they understood the Messiah; as is evident from Jonathan's\ninterpretation of the text, _Jehovah said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my\nright hand_. He explains its purport to be, _Jehovah said unto his\nWord_. But it is manifest from our Saviour's conversation with the\nPharisees relative to the nature and parentage of the Messiah, that they\nacknowledge this text to relate to him; and it appears from the Midrash\nTillim that such an application is fully recognized by the Jewish\nRabbins. Hence the inference is inevitable, that the Hebrew doctors\nconfess the Messiah to be the Word of God or the angel of Jehovah. And\nhence we shall at once perceive why St. John so pointedly bestows the\ntitle upon his divine Master. He did but employ the usual phraseology of\nhis countrymen respecting the promised Messiah; yet, by applying the\nname of Jesus of Nazareth, he at once declared him to be the Messiah,\nand that angel of Jehovah who was confessedly the God both of the\nPatriarchal and of the Levitical Church.\n\n\"Agreeably to this obvious conclusion, the Targums exhibit the Word with\nall the characteristics of the expected Messiah.\n\n\"They describe him as the Mediator between God and man.\n\n\"Thus, in paraphrasing a text from Deuteronomy iv. 7, Jonathan writes:\n_God is near in the name of the Word of Jehovah_; in paraphrasing a text\nof Hosea iv. 9, _God will receive the prayer of Israel by his Word, and\nhave mercy upon them, and will make them by his Word like a beautiful\nfig tree_. And in paraphrasing a text of Jeremiah xxix. 14: _I will be\nsought by you in my Word, and I will be inquired of by you through my\nWord._ Thus likewise where Abraham is said by Moses to have _called on\nthe name of Jehovah the everlasting God_, he is described by the Targum\nof Jerusalem as _praying in the name of the Word of Jehovah, the God of\nthe world_.\n\n\"They speak of him as making atonement for sin.\n\n\"Thus, in paraphrasing a text of Deuteronomy, (xxxii. 43,) Jonathan\nwrites: _God will atone by his Word for his land and for his people,\neven a people saved by the Word of Jehovah._\n\n\"They exhibit him as a Redeemer.\n\n\"Thus the text from Genesis xlix. 18, _I have waited for thy salvation,\nO Jehovah_, is paraphrased as follows in the Jerusalem Targum: _Our\nfather Jacob said thus: My soul expects not the redemption of Gideon the\nson of Joash, which is a temporal salvation; nor the redemption of\nSamson, which is a transitory salvation; but the redemption which thou\ndidst promise should come through thy Word to thy people. This salvation\nmy soul waits for._ Thus the same text is paraphrased by Jonathan with a\ndirect application to the Messiah; whence again we find it to be the\nestablished doctrine of the ancient Hebrew Church, that the Messiah and\nthe Word were the same person. Our father Jacob said: _I do not expect\nthe deliverance of Gideon the son of Joash, which is a temporal\nsalvation; nor that of Samson the son of Manoah, which is a transient\nsalvation; but I expect the redemption of Messiah the son of David, who\nshall come to gather to himself the children of Israel._\n\n\"The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan were written immediately before the\ntime of Christ, and among the Jews they are in such high esteem, that\nthey hold them to be of the same authority with the original text. Of\nthis extravagant honor the ground is, that those two interpreters\ncommitted to writing the ancient oral traditions, which [they supposed]\nhad come down in regular descent from their first communication to Moses\non the top of Mount Sinai.\n\n\"Such an opinion proves at least the high antiquity of the sentiments\ncontained in those Targums; and, as the Targums themselves were composed\nbefore the Christian era, they must clearly be viewed as exhibiting the\ndoctrine of the Levitical Church ere an inveterate hatred of the gospel\nled to a suppression or concealment of the ancient faith.\n\n\"The later Targums were written subsequent to the time of our Lord; but\nso far as regards the present argument, their importance is not the less\non that account. Those of Onkelos and Jonathan show the tenets of the\nHebrew Church _before_ Christ; those which are later prove, by their\naccordance with their predecessors, that the same doctrine continued in\nfull force during the first centuries _after_ the Christian era. Thus,\nnotwithstanding Jesus of Nazareth was denied to be the Messiah, the\nJews,\" [meaning of course the old school, orthodox party,] \"it is plain\nfrom the written evidence of the later Targums, did not immediately\ndepart from the sentiments of their forefathers relative to _the\ncharacter_ of the Messiah.\"\n\nAfter quoting testimonies from different Jewish Rabbins, he observes:\n\"The reason why the Rabbins pronounced the Messiah to be Jehovah, was\nthis: Following the ancient Targums, which spoke the universally\nreceived doctrines of the _Hebrew_ Church, they perceived, like the\nauthors of those Targums, that the Messiah was the same person as the\nanthropomorphic Word, or Angel of Jehovah. But they knew that the Angel\nof Jehovah was the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob. And they\nwere assured that their pious forefathers did not idolatrously worship a\ncreature, but that they venerated the self-existent God, Jehovah. Hence\nthey rightly determined that _Jehovah_ was _the name of the Messiah_.\nThis will appear very distinctly, if we attend to their doctrine\nrespecting the great angel whom they cabalistically denominated\nMetraton.\" (Vol. 2, sec. 1, chap. iii.)\n\nThe reader will observe that this author construes the formulas Melach\nJehovah, Memra Jehovah, &c., in the same way as our translation, Angel\n_of_ the Lord, Word _of_ the Lord, &c.; and while correctly holding that\nthe Angel or Messenger, and the Logos, Memra, or Word, are personally\nidentical with Jehovah, still indicates a distinction, as though the\nformer persons were sent by the latter. This is undoubtedly inconsistent\nand unauthorized. Had he in his construction left out the preposition\n_of_, as the original does, all would have been clear.\n\nThe following extracts are corrected from Dr. J. P. Smith's work, The\nScripture Testimony to the Messiah.\n\nOnkelos renders Jacob's prediction of Shiloh, Gen. xlix., \"_The Messiah\nwhose is the kingdom_.\" The Jerusalem Targum, \"_The King Messiah whose\nis the kingdom_.\" Jonathan on Sam. xxiii. 1-7: \"The God of Israel spoke\nwith respect to me; the Rock of Israel, the Sovereign of the sons of\nmen, the true Judge, hath spoken to appoint me King; for _He is the\nMessiah_ that shall be, who shall arise and rule in the fear of the\nLord.\" The Chaldee and other Targums generally refer the 2d Psalm to the\nMessiah. Also the 45th Psalm, v. 2: \"Thy beauty, O King Messiah, is\npre\u00ebminent above the sons of men.\" Jonathan renders Isaiah xxiii. 5:\n\"Behold, the days are coming, saith the Lord, when I will raise up to\nDavid the Messiah of the Righteous, and he shall reign,\" &c. And xxxiii.\n15: \"In those days and in that time, I will raise up to David the\nMessiah of righteousness,\" &c. And Micah v. 1: \"And thou, Bethlehem, out\nof thee shall proceed in my presence the Messiah to exercise sovereignty\nover Israel, whose name has been called from eternity, from the days of\nthe everlasting period.\" Zech. iii. 8: \"Behold, I bring forth my servant\nthe Messiah, and he shall be revealed.\" And vi. 12: \"Behold a man,\nMessiah is his name, ready that he may be revealed and may spring forth,\nand may build the temple of Jah.\"\n\nThe Jerusalem Targum, referring to Abraham when Jehovah appeared to him\nas a man, says: \"The Word of Jehovah [Memra Jehovah] appeared to him in\nthe Valley of Vision.\" Jonathan on Isaiah xlviii. 12: \"Obey my Word;\"\nand 13: \"Even by my Word I have founded the earth;\" xlix. 16: \"My Word\nwill not reject thee.\" Jer. xxix. 23: \"Before me it is unveiled, and my\nWord is witness;\" xxxi. 4: \"For my Word is to Israel as a Father;\"\nxxxii. 40: \"My Word shall not turn away from following them to do them\ngood, and my Word shall rejoice over them to do them good.\" Ezek. xx.\n12: \"I gave them my Sabbath days, to be for a sign between my Word and\nthem, that they may know that I am Jah who sanctify them.\" The\nTargumists generally substitute the word Jah for Jehovah. Jonathan on\nGen. v. 26: \"That was the generation in whose days they began to\napostatize, and made to themselves falsehoods, [or idols,] and named\ntheir falsehoods by the name of the Word of Jah.\" Jer. Tar. on Exodus\nvi. 2: \"And Jah was revealed by his Word to Abraham, to Isaac, and to\nJacob.\" Var. Tar. Isaiah xliii. 2: \"In ancient time, when ye passed\nthrough the Red Sea, my Word was for your help;\" xlv. 17: \"Israel shall\nbe delivered by the Word of Jah, with an everlasting deliverance;\" v.\n25: \"By the Word of Jah shall all the seed of Israel be declared\nrighteous, and shall glory;\" lxiii. 8: \"My people are they, sons who\nwill not deal falsely; and his Word was their Redeemer;\" v. 13: \"He led\nthem through the deep: the Word of Jah led them.\" Jer. vi. 8: \"Be\nadmonished, O Jerusalem, lest my Word cast thee off.\" Hosea xiv. 9: \"I\nby my Word will accept the prayer of Israel.\" Zach. vi. 7: \"Not by\nforce, nor by power, but by my Word, saith Jah of hosts. And he will\nreveal the Messiah whose name is spoken from eternity, and he shall\nreign over all kingdoms.\"\n\nThe author quotes the following from Dr. Ryland and the Prolegomena to\nWalton's Polyglot: \"There are many passages of the Chaldee Paraphrasts\nwhich could have been derived only from the remains of the expositions\nand doctrines delivered by the prophets. They have many things\nconcerning the Word of God, by whom the universe was created, &c., and\nwhich admirably confirm the declarations of St. John upon the Logos, and\nprove that in so designating the Messiah or Son of God, the Evangelist\nemployed a name already in familiar use among the Jews, as received from\ntheir ancestors, though not perfectly understood by all among them. To\nthis Word the Jerusalem Targum on Gen. i. 27 attributes _creation_: 'The\nWord of the Lord created man.' And xxxii. 22: 'And the Word of the Lord\nsaid, Behold Adam whom I have created.' Jonathan on Deut. xxxii. 39,\nsays: 'When will the Word of the Lord be manifested to redeem his\npeople?' The same Targum on Gen. xix. 24, ascribes to the Word of the\nLord the sending down of sulphur and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah:\n'Sulphur and fire were sent down upon it from the Word of the Lord out\nof heaven.' So likewise Onkelos: 'And the Word of the Lord returned.'\nAnd on Gen. v. 24: 'Enoch was taken away by the Word before the Lord.'\nSo the Jerusalem, Deut. xviii. 19: 'My Word will take vengeance upon\nhim.' So Onkelos and Jonathan. The passages are innumerable in which\nactions and properties are attributed to the Word of God, as a distinct\nPerson.\"\n\nAgain, quoting Owen as referred to by Ryland: \"The Chaldee Paraphrast,\nobserving that some especial presence of God is expressed in the words,\nGen. iii. 8, renders them, 'And they heard the voice of the Word of the\nLord God walking in the garden.' So all the Targums. And that of\nJerusalem begins the next verse accordingly: 'And the Word of the Lord\nGod called unto Adam.' And this expression they afterwards make use of\nin places innumerable; and that in such a way as plainly to denote a\ndistinct Person in the Deity. That this was their intention in it, is\nhence manifest; because about the time of the writing of the first of\nthose Targums which gave the rule of speaking unto them that followed,\nit was usual amongst them to express their conceptions of the Son of God\nby the name of the Logos, or Word of God.\" (_Owen on Epist. Heb. Vol.\n1._)\n\n\"At this time, there was nothing more common among the Hebrews than to\ndenote the second subsistence of the Deity by the name of the Word of\nGod. They were now divided into two great parts: first the inhabitants\nof Canaan, with the regions adjoining, and many old remnants in the\nEast, who used the Syro-Chaldean language, being but one dialect of the\nHebrew; and secondly, the dispersions under the Greek empire, who are\ncommonly called Hellenists, and also used the Greek tongue. And both\nthese sorts did usually, in their several languages, describe the second\nPerson in the Trinity by the name of the _Word of God_. For the former\nsort, or those who used the Syro-Chaldean dialect, we have an eminent\nproof of it in the translation of the Scripture which, at least some\npart of it, was made about this time amongst them, commonly called the\nChaldee Paraphrase; in the whole whereof the second Person is mentioned\nunder the name of Memra dejeja, or the Word of God. Hereunto are all\npersonal properties and all divine works in that translation assigned;\nwith an illustrious testimony to the faith of the old Church concerning\nthe distinct subsistence of a plurality of Persons in the Divine nature.\nAnd for the Hellenists who wrote and expressed themselves in the Greek\ntongue, they used the name _Logos, the Word_ of God, to the same\npurpose: as I have elsewhere manifested out of the writings of Philo,\nwho lived about this time, between the death of our Saviour and the\ndestruction of Jerusalem.\" (_Owen, Vol. 2._)\n\nIt will be observed that in all the translations of the Targums, and in\nthe comments of Ryland and Owen, the same usage is exhibited as in our\ntranslation, of making the _Jehovah_ the genitive of the official\nappellative which precedes it. Hence the mystery and confusion which\nhave so generally been thought to attend the official designations of\nthe Old Testament. But if it be considered that in the use of the terms\nLogos, Dabar, and Memra, where a personal reference is intended, the\nabstract is put for the concrete, as _Word_ for _Revealer_, so that\nwhere these words are coupled with _Jehovah_ the reading should be _The\nRevealer_, or _The Revealing Jehovah_,--as in the case of _Melach\nJehovah_, the reading should be, _The Messenger_, or _The Sent_ or\n_delegated Jehovah_, or the Messenger _who is_ Jehovah,--the use of\nthose terms as personal designations will suggest no difficulty.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\n    Reasons of the Failure of the modern versions of the Scriptures\n    to exhibit clearly the Hebrew designations of the Messiah--The\n    Masoretic Punctuation--Reference to the term Melach and the\n    formula Melach Jehovah.\n\n\nBut if, in the ancient dispensations, the Messenger Jehovah, the\ndelegated official Person, Messiah, was, in all relations, the actor,\nadministrator, and revealer; if Moses and the prophets wrote\nintelligibly of Him; if they recognized and acknowledged him under all\nthe Divine designations, why, it may naturally be asked, did not the\nauthors of the English and other modern versions so understand, and in\ntheir translations construe and represent them? An answer to this\nquestion, in all its bearings, probably no one now would be inclined to\nundertake. But in certain, and perhaps the most important respects, it\nadmits of a satisfactory answer. The translators, from the prescribed or\ncustomary and popular course of theological study and opinion, which\naimed to avoid, with the arrogant assumptions and pretensions of\nRomanism, the gentile heresies of the whole Papal history, were led to\nentertain an overweening and ill-founded confidence in the modern Jews\nas interpreters of their own Scriptures; that is, of the Jewish authors\nwho flourished, and whose works were published, after the establishment\nof Papal domination and intolerance, and of Mohammedan ravage and\nproscription. That school of Jewish authors was not only more modern,\nbut widely different in respect to their theological doctrines from the\nChaldee paraphrasts, especially in regard to the Messiah; and may be\ncomprehensively described as including the Talmudists, the Masoretic\ndoctors, and their rabbinical disciples and followers of various names.\nThe productions of these Jewish authors were numerous and readily\naccessible at the period of the revival of learning in Europe, and in\nthe sixteenth century were brought into notice and favor especially by\nthe elder Buxtorf, in connection with his edition of the Hebrew Bible,\nand his lexicons, grammar, and various works relating to Masoretic and\nrabbinical literature. He seems to have entered with enthusiasm into the\nstudy of this school of Jewish writers; and, with respect at least to\nthe later and best known portion of them, as the clue to their\nsentiments was furnished by their use of the Masoretic points, he\nembraced their system in that respect, and inculcated and defended the\napplication of it to the text of the Hebrew Scriptures with earnestness,\nperseverance, and success. His example was followed. The use of the\npoints facilitated the study of the language; and for that reason, as\nwell as because they were supposed to be safe guides in respect to the\nreference and meaning of words, they became popular with the learned and\nwith students. Instead of being regarded as having the effect of a\ntranslation and commentary, and thereby fastening on the text the\nconstructions and opinions of their authors, whether erroneous or\notherwise, they were regarded primarily in a grammatical point of view,\nand as indicating the vowels supposed to be proper to Hebrew words, in\naddition to the letters originally composing them.\n\nBut this system of punctuation has unavoidably the effect of a version\nor comment. Its office is essentially that of an exponent of the\nconstructions and opinions of its authors, and as such it can be no\nfurther correct and reliable than their theological, exegetical, and\nreligious doctrines, theories and sentiments were in accordance with the\nreal meaning of the original text. It may often, and perhaps generally\nwhere no doctrine or doubtful construction is concerned, have the effect\nto express that real meaning, and to that extent it might be harmless,\nand, if not wholly useless, might be of equal value with a paraphrase to\nthe same effect. But if the student adopts this system as a guide, he\nnaturally relies on it as equally applicable to every portion of the\nsacred oracles, and, with as much confidence in one case as in another,\nadopts the construction which it indicates.\n\nAn attempt to reform the reigning fashion of Hebrew study in relation to\nthis subject would probably be as hopeful a task as an attempt to\ndisabuse the minds of theologians and religious teachers of the\nempirical, fanciful, and puerile system of figurative exposition which\nwas rendered popular by Origen, and has reigned triumphant from his to\nthe present time; being propagated from age to age by education, and by\nthe example and influence of the learned. But, regarded in a merely\nhistorical point of view, there appears to be no room for doubt but that\nthe Hebrew vowel points--closely and even bigotedly adhered to, as they\nare understood to have been, by the translators of the Scriptures into\nour own and other modern languages--had, extensively, a very ill effect\nupon the versions which they furnished. And to whatever extent this was\ntrue, it would naturally prevail, especially in relation to those\npassages concerning which the authors held erroneous opinions, and as to\nwhich, under the more than hereditary Jewish prejudices occasioned by\nthe persecutions and proscriptions to which they were subjected, they\naimed to counteract the tendency of the Chaldee versions, as well as\n\"to root out,\" in the language of McCaul, the Christian interpretations\nof the Hebrew text. \"The violent persecutions of the Crusaders,\" says\nthat writer, \"the jealousy excited by the Christian attempt upon the\nHoly Land, and the influence of the doctrine of the Mahometans, amongst\nwhom they lived, produced a sensible change in Jewish opinions and\ninterpretations, which is plainly marked in Kimchi and other writers of\nthe day, and without a knowledge of which the phenomena of modern\nJudaism cannot be fully understood. Rashi, Aben-Ezra, and Kimchi\nendeavored to get rid of the Christian interpretations, and Maimonides\nto root out the Christian doctrines _which had descended from the\nancient Jewish Church_.\" (_Introduction to Kimchi._) Yet this laborious\nstudent of those authors and of the Talmud adhered as pertinaciously as\nthey to the Masoretic points, and apparently without over suspecting\nthat their highest office and their necessary and principal effect was\nthat of being the vehicle of a comment. Such is the force of education,\nliterary discipline, example, and habit in generating fixed opinions.\n\nBut let one deemed competent to judge and to speak upon this subject be\nreferred to:\n\n\"The Masoretic punctuation,\" says Bishop Lowth, \"by which the\npronunciation of the language is given, the forms of the several parts\nof speech, the construction of the words, the distribution and limits of\nthe sentences, and the connection of the several members, _are fixed_,\nis in effect _an interpretation_ of the Hebrew text made by the Jews _of\nlate ages_, probably not earlier than the eighth century, and may be\nconsidered as their translation of the Old Testament. Where the words,\n_unpointed_, are capable of various meanings, accordingly as they are\nvariously pronounced and constructed, the Jews, _by their pointing_,\nhave determined them to one _meaning and construction_, and the sense\nwhich they thus give is _their sense_ of the passage, just as the\nrendering of a translator into another language is _his sense_; that is,\nthe sense in which in his opinion the original words are to be taken;\nand it has no other authority than what arises from its being agreeable\nto the rules of just interpretation. But because in the languages of\nEurope the vowels are essential parts of written words, a notion was too\nhastily taken up by the learned at the revival of letters, when the\noriginal Scriptures began to be more carefully examined, that the vowel\npoints were necessary appendages of the Hebrew letters, and therefore\n_co\u00ebval with them;_ at least that they became absolutely necessary when\nthe Hebrew was become a dead language, and must have been added by Ezra,\nwho collected and formed the canon of the Old Testament, in regard to\nall the books of it in his time extant. On this supposition the points\nhave been considered as part of the Hebrew text, and as giving the\nmeaning of it on no less than Divine authority. Accordingly, our public\ntranslations in the modern tongues for the use of the Church among\nProtestants, and so likewise the modern Latin translations, are for the\nmost part close copies of the Hebrew pointed text, and are in reality\nonly versions at second-hand, translations of the Jews' interpretation\nof the Old Testament.\"\n\nAfter conceding to this interpretation what he supposes it may justly\nclaim, he adds that the modern translators \"would have made a much\nbetter use of it, and a greater progress in the explication of the\nScriptures of the Old Testament, had they consulted it without\nabsolutely submitting to its authority; had they considered it as an\nassistant, not as an infallible guide.\" Finally he compares the effect\nof this course to that of the Act of the Council of Trent in pronouncing\nthe Vulgate to be of equal authority with the original Scriptures.\n(_Dissertation preliminary to his Version of Isaiah._)\n\nNow to apply these observations to the case in hand. Our translators\nhaving been educated in the Jewish sense of the Hebrew Scriptures, and\nhaving studied the original with the points under the received and\ngeneral impression that they were of equal authority with the text, of\ncourse proceeded with their translations under the influence of whatever\nerroneous constructions and opinions the Massorites and their disciples\nentertained. Those errors, therefore, which were predominant in the\nJewish mind when the points were added to the text, and when the causes\nof prejudice and hostility against the Christian doctrines were\nuniversally and most violently in operation, were perpetuated, both\namong Jews and Christians, by the use of those ingenious and plausible\nappendages; and from that day to this, translators and expositors have\nfallen back upon them, and upon the awful petrifactions of Talmudical\nand rabbinical jargon, as guides to the meaning of the words of\nInspiration.\n\nThe Jewish people, after their total defection to idolatry, their exile\nin Babylon, and the cessation of prophetic gifts, having renounced idols\nand incurred the hatred and contempt of idolaters, were, from their\nrestless state of mind, their internal divisions, feuds, and rivalships,\nand the exposures and vicissitudes of their external condition\npeculiarly exposed to cardinal and sectarian errors. They had forsaken\nJehovah, and no longer received any tokens of his presence and favor.\nBoth priests and people, a faithful remnant always excepted, had\nrejected him as their mediatorial prophet, priest, and king, and\nrenounced their allegiance to him as their lawgiver and providential\nruler and protector; and holding no longer the belief of a Divine\nmediator or of any mediation, they relapsed into that notion of the\nUnity which they still adhere to, and looked only for a temporal\npolitical Messiah. The fitful efforts at reformation which, under the\ninfluence of Ezra, Nehemiah, and the latest prophets, appeared after the\nrebuilding of their temple, gave place to extremes of formalism,\nhypocrisy, and impiety. Their notions of the person, offices,\nprerogatives, incarnation and sacerdotal work of the Anointed One, were\nas unscriptural and baseless as those of more modern times.\n\nJustin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, (Brown's version,)\nabout the middle of the second century, thus refers to the Rabbins of\nthat day, (sect. 68.) Trypho, in common, no doubt, with the Jews\ngenerally, held that there was no distinction of Persons in the Godhead,\nand that, there was no Divine Being, or Person, but the Father only; and\nquoted, not the original Hebrew of Scripture texts, but the glosses and\nfalse constructions of the Rabbins, in support of his opinions. Justin\nreplies: \"If, therefore, I shall prove that this prophecy of Esaias was\nspoken of our Christ, and not of Hezekias, as you say, shall not I\nprevail upon you in this also to disbelieve your Rabbies, who assert\nthat the translation which your seventy Elders made when they were with\nPtolemy, King of Egypt, is in some places not true? for those places in\nthe Scriptures which expressly contradict any foolish notion which they\nare fond of, they say are not so in the original; and those places which\nthey can twist and twine about so as to make them suit any human\naffairs, they say were not spoken of this Christ of ours, but of him\nwhom they endeavor to wrest them to speak of. So they have taught you\nto wrest the passage now in dispute, saying that it was spoken of\nHezekias; upon which passage I will prove that they have fixed a wrong\ninterpretation. But when we propose those Scriptures to them which I\nhave already recited, and do expressly prove that Christ was to be\nexposed to sufferings, to be worshipped, and is God, they do indeed,\nbeing necessarily obliged thereto, own that they relate to Christ; but\nthey take upon them to assert that he was not THE Christ, and say that\nthere is one still to come, who is both to suffer, and to reign, and to\nbe worshipped, and to be God.\" In sect. 71 he observes that the Rabbies\n\"have erased out several whole periods from the Septuagint translation,\nin which it is expressly foretold that he who was crucified was to be\nGod and man, and to be crucified and to die;\" which erased passages he\nafterwards quotes.\n\nIn the course of his argument he alleges and quotes from the Old\nTestament to show that _the_ Christ is called God, Lord, Lord of Hosts,\na King, the King of Israel, the King of Glory, Angel or Messenger, Man,\nCaptain of the Host, &c.\n\nThe efforts to impart correct instruction and revive the ancient faith\nby means of the Chaldee expositions, doubtless had effect upon more or\nless of those who frequented the synagogues and the temple services; but\nto the great mass, so far as can be judged from history, or from their\nsentiments and condition, at the period of the advent, they were of no\navail. How natural, then, that the successors of this party of Sadducean\nand Pharasaic infidelity, with the stimulus added by the conversion or,\nas they regarded it, the apostasy of many to the Christian faith, and\nthe further stimulus of Mohammedan and pseudo-Christian intolerance and\npersecution, should do their utmost to conceal or extirpate from the\nHebrew text all traces of the Christian doctrine!\n\nWith reference to the subject now specially in hand, it may suffice to\nrefer to a single instance of concealment and perversion which, though\nof earlier origin, as appears from the Septuagint and the Vulgate, for\naught that is perceived, was fastened upon the Hebrew text by the\nMasoretic punctuation, and was derived thence by our translators;\nnamely, that of the formula, _Melach Jehovah_, which, by the examples\nformerly adduced, the connections in which it occurs, the use of the\nterms interchangeably, and the testimony of the Evangelists, is shown to\nbe a clear, unequivocal, and emphatic designation of the official\nPerson, Messiah, the Legate of the Father. But the school of Jews above\nreferred to, of whom Kimchi may be taken as a representative, consider\nthe person designated _Melach_ in this formula \"as nothing more than one\nof the many angels to whom he supposes that the governance and guidance\nof this lower world is committed.\" They did not regard the term\n_Melach_, when employed in this formula, as a name of office, signifying\nMessenger, but as a personal designation, signifying Angel, an angel,\none of the angels. The points accordingly are so adjusted as to require\nthe rendering to be, _an_ angel _of_ the Lord, or _the_ angel,\nunderstood as one of _the angels of_ the Lord. To gloss over the\napparent identity, in some passages, of that angel with Jehovah, and the\nascription of the same acts to each separately, they represent the angel\nas personating, and speaking in the name of, Jehovah; and explain his\ncalling himself the God of Beth-El as signifying no more than Jacob's\ncalling a place El-Beth-El.\n\nNow it is apparent that our translators have in the instance under\nconsideration given us, not the clear and definite import of the\noriginal text, but, closely adhering to the points and following the\nsteps of their Rabbinical guides, have given at second-hand a version of\ntheir _sense_, \"a translation of their interpretation.\" In every\ninstance but one (Malachi iii.) in their translation of the word\n_Melach_, (except when applied to men,) they employ the word _Angel_, a\npersonal designation, not a name of office; and in most cases, if not in\nall, the English reader must naturally suppose that the reference was\nmerely to one of the many created beings called angels. Accordingly,\nthough they sometimes say, _the_ angel of the Lord, in other instances,\nwhere the original is the same, they say, _an_ angel of the Lord,\nimplying that they did not uniformly refer to the same Person, nor in\nany case to any other than a created angel. The same thing is further\nillustrated and confirmed by their grammatical construction of the\nformula in accordance with the points, rendering it uniformly, the\nangel, or an angel _of_ the Lord, or of God. For instance, in Judges,\nchap. ii. 1, in the original, _Melach Jehovah_ came up from Gilgal to\nBochim, is translated, \"_an_ angel _of_ the Lord came up,\" &c. So in\nchap. vi. 11 of the same book, _Melach Jehovah_ is rendered, _an_ angel\n_of_ the Lord; and in the next verse the same formula is rendered, _the_\nangel _of_ the Lord; and three times in the 20th and 21st verses, _the_\nangel; and twice in the 22d verse, _an_ angel. In all these cases, and\nmany others like them, it is demonstrable from the context that one and\nthe same person is referred to; that the same acts are ascribed to him\nand to Jehovah, and that the formula by which he is designated is\nemployed interchangeably with the names Jehovah and Elohim. Yet, looking\nno farther than the sentences which announce the actor or speaker as an\nangel, neither collating those sentences with others in the same or\nother chapters, nor being able, if he did, to explain or reconcile the\nvarious and discordant renderings, the reader is left in doubt and\nperplexity, or else concludes that a created angel is referred to.\n\nHad the translators in this and other cases of the kind taken the\nunpointed Hebrew text as their guide, compared all its parallel\npassages, and understood the word Melach according to its original and\nprimary meaning, and its specific and necessary import where joined with\nthe Divine names, as in the formulas above-mentioned, to be a name of\noffice, signifying Messenger, Legate, one delegated, sent; who can doubt\nbut that they would have discerned in the designation an unmistakable\nreference to the Messiah; that they would have retained the original\nHebrew formulas, or translated them intelligibly and uniformly, and left\ntheir readers in no perplexity as to their sentiments or the meaning of\ntheir version?\n\nThe word _Melach_ first occurs in the Hebrew Scriptures, Gen. xvi.,\nwhere it is employed in its primary signification, and occurs four times\nin the formula _Melach Jehovah_, clearly designating the official\nPerson, Jehovah, in his delegated character--the Anointed and Sent of\nthe Father, _The Messenger Jehovah_. In the original there is\nuniformity, consistency, and perfect freedom from ambiguity and\nuncertainty in the use of this term as an official designation, here and\nwherever it occurs throughout the Scriptures. There is no mistaking it\nif regarded in its grammatical relation with the Divine names, and its\nconnection with the context, independently of the points and of the\nhereditary Jewish construction; and had the translators so regarded it,\nand in their version employed the term _Messenger_ instead of _Angel_,\nit would have been as clearly understood to designate the official\nPerson as if they had substituted or added the term _Messiah_.\n\nSubsequently, this name of office was applied to created angels and to\nmen employed, and because they were employed, as messengers; and it\nfinally came to be used as a personal appellative. The first instance of\nthis occurs Gen. xix. 1: \"There came two _angels_ to Sodom,\" that is,\ntwo messengers; two who were _sent_ by Jehovah while he was present with\nAbraham in the visible form of man. And chap. xxxii. 3, 6: \"Jacob _sent\nmessengers_ before him to Esau.... And _the messengers_ returned to\nJacob;\" that is, he _sent_ two of his servants with a message. But in\nthe original, the word translated angels in chap. xix., and messengers\nin chap. xxxii., is the same, and differs from that in chap. xvi. and\nall the parallel passages translated _angel_, only by being in the\nplural form.\n\nThis term _Melach_, as an official designation of Jehovah, including the\ninstances in which it is coupled with the name Elohim, occurs more than\ntwenty times in the books of Moses, and more than twice that number of\ntimes in the later Hebrew Scriptures; and considering that it is often\nemployed interchangeably with the names Jehovah and Elohim; that the\nsame acts, revelations, promises, covenants, and predictions, are in the\nsame or in different passages ascribed indifferently to Jehovah, Elohim,\nand the Messenger Jehovah; and that in the New Testament, both in\nreferences to the Old and in original revelations and announcements, the\nsame acts, promises, &c., are ascribed to the Logos or personal Word\nunder that and other designations; it is manifest that, had our\ntranslators rightly apprehended the import and reference of the\ndesignation, and represented it in their version by a term as guarded,\nunequivocal, and distinctive as the original, their readers would be at\nno loss as to how or in what relations Moses wrote of Christ.\n\nBut their misguided and erroneous apprehensions and renderings of this\nofficial designation are scarcely more remarkable than the like\nproceedings on their part in reference to several other peculiar or\nofficial Hebrew designations of the Messiah, which occur both in Moses\nand the prophets; their inadequate and uncertain or erroneous versions\nof which are no doubt to be ascribed to their concurrence with the\nJewish expositions and with the requirements of the vowel points. And\nwithout imputing any other than honest intentions, or doing any\ninjustice to the translators, but only allowing for the effect of their\ntheological education, and for the arbitrary and controlling influence\nof the guides which they thought it safe to follow, and which, from\ntheir own convictions and the ascendant notions of the times, they were\nin effect necessitated to adopt, it may safely be alleged that, with\nrespect to the great Actor and Revealer, the pervading theme of Moses\nand the prophets, they have in numerous instances wholly failed, and in\ntheir version, as a whole, but partially succeeded, in exhibiting the\ndesignations and references of the original.\n\nThat their version, as a whole, is superior to any of the other modern\nversions, is generally admitted; that it exhibits the historical\nnarratives and those doctrinal statements which do not immediately\nrelate to the official Person, with a fidelity and an intelligibleness\nscarcely indeed to be avoided by able and honest men, but which such men\nat the present day would not be likely to excel, is justly to be\nacknowledged; but in regard to the personal designations, ascriptions\nand references alluded to, their guides subjected their intentions to an\nerroneous theory.\n\nThe ill consequences to the English reader, so far as the doctrines\nessential to his salvation are concerned, are counteracted by the record\nof the visible appearance of the official Person incarnate, the\nhistorical narratives of his acts, his expiatory death, his resurrection\nand ascension, and the doctrinal revelations and apostolic testimonies\nof the New Testament; and he is far too easily led to regard the Divine\noracles as of little significance or importance, except in so far as\nthey specially teach those essential doctrines. In this partial view of\ntheir import and design, the Old Testament is lightly esteemed or\ndisregarded with respect to the far greater part of its contents, by\nthose who most highly esteem the New, and with respect to the whole of\nits contents, by many. It is not recognized as a continuous record of\npersonal Divine manifestations, visible appearances, supernatural acts,\naudible enunciations; a record of the creation, of the apostasy and its\nconsequences, of the administration of providence and grace, and of\nvisible interpositions and retributions towards individuals, families,\nand nations; a progressive disclosure of the attributes, prerogatives,\nand purposes of the Self-existent, of his acts as Lawgiver and Ruler,\nand of his supremacy, majesty and glory, whereby He who personally\nappeared and acted under the ancient dispensations, and at length became\nincarnate, revealed himself in his delegated relations as truly to the\nuniverse of the unfallen as to man, and as truly with reference to\nresults yet future as to those incipient events in which were laid the\nfoundations of his onward, universal, and never-ending system of\nmanifestations and agencies, and in the progress of which all the\nwonders of mercy and justice, all the retributions of time and awards of\neternity, all the paradoxes and mysteries of the past, and their\nrelations to the future, are to be disclosed, vindicated, and rendered\nluminous to the apprehension of intelligent creatures. The eternal\npurposes which were purposed in him before the foundation of the world,\nand the sequel of the covenants, prescriptions, promises, comminations,\nsymbols, and predictions which, in connection with the first of their\nrespective series of events, were announced to the patriarchs and\nprophets, await the future for their ever-widening range of illustration\nand accomplishment. The scene is but begun. The first steps only of an\nendless progress, the first events only of a continuous, inseparable,\nand endless series, the first disclosures only of a boundless range of\ndevelopment by the same divine Actor and Revealer, have yet transpired.\nThe earth as his footstool is yet to be the scene of the restitution of\nall things. His early footsteps on it are to be retraced in a renewed\nparadise, and the visible manifestations of the past to be resumed, when\nall that is recorded of Him in his offices and his administration, and\nhis intercourse with the first Adam, and with the patriarchs and\nprophets, will be understood and heeded as of the scheme and fabric of\nhis glory.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\n    Continuation of the subject of the preceding Chapter--Combined\n    influence of Rabbinical and figurative Interpretations--German\n    method of Hebrew study--Preposterous notion of the inadequacy of\n    Language as a vehicle of Thought.\n\n\nThere is a view of the ill effects of the combined influence of the\neducation and Rabbinical example and prescription under which our\ntranslation was produced, which would confirm the foregoing observations,\nwere it competently traced in connection with the no less imposing and\neffective influence of the system of allegorical, mystical, and figurative\ninterpretation which prevailed from and after the days of Origen. Had our\ntranslators not been spell-bound by the influence first above-mentioned,\nthey would have been impelled by their Protestantism, their piety, and\ntheir good sense, to discard the latter. Had they discerned the real\nmeaning, official reference, and literal import of the designations above\nconsidered, and of the references, manifestations, and acts ascribed in\nconnection with them to the Messiah, and recognized him as the One often\nvisible and always acting Administrator and Revealer, they could not have\nfailed to give a translation with which allegorical, mystical or tropical\ninterpretations of the literal language of the historical, and the literal\nannouncements of the prophetic portions of the Scriptures, would have been\npalpably incongruous and inadmissible. But the one influence, by keeping\nthe Messiah personally, and in respect to his offices and agency, out of\nsight, or as nearly so as possible, was not repugnant to the other\nsystem, which contemplated Him only as foreshadowed by types and figures,\nprophetic symbols and mystical allusions, as though the first\nmanifestation of his official agency was not intended to occur till his\nincarnation.\n\nUnlike the fixed and imperative rules which governed the use of the\nMasoretic points, this figurative system was subject to no conditions or\nrestraints other than such as might exist in the imaginations of\nindividuals. It furnished no just discrimination or definition of the\ndifferent figures of speech, of their object, or of their legitimate\nuse, nor pretended to give a reason why any word was in any given case\nsaid to be used figuratively, or to have a figurative instead of a\nliteral import. It neither descended to such particulars, nor was in any\nway dependent on them. The fact that every word in a given sentence was\nemployed by the writer in the most strictly literal sense, was no sign\nthat it must of course be construed literally, nor hindrance of Origen\nor his followers, orthodox or Swedenborgian, down to the present day,\nfrom giving the whole or any portion of it a figurative meaning, and,\nmaugre its obvious literal import, making it refer to something or any\nthing, past, present, or future, which the fancy of the expositor might\nsuggest.\n\nUnder this system, it is easy to see how the literal designations and\nliteral statements of the Old Testament relating to the Messiah, the\nvisible appearances, special interpositions, and various acts ascribed\nto him; and the literal announcements of the prophecies concerning his\nyet future manifestations, the descendants of his ancient covenant\npeople, Jerusalem, the millennium, &c., &c., may be obscured, mystified,\nmisconstrued, or wholly explained away.\n\nUnder the hitherto unrestrained predominance of these two fountains of\ninfluence, the current of Hebrew learning has for the most part been\nrestricted to the grammatical study of the text and its real or fancied\ndifficulties and defects. The Germans, who lead the way, set out with\nthe assumption that the student is to regard the Bible as differing in\nno respect from other books. He is to take it in hand just as he would\nif he had never heard of its claim of inspiration or of Divine\nauthority, of the attributes and perfections of its Author, of his works\nof creation and providence, or any thing of the religion which it\nteaches. With no guiding theory of the great scheme of the Creator and\nRuler of the world, and of his method of carrying it into effect; with\nno conviction that in a volume inspired by Him, that scheme and method\nmust constitute the leading and pervading theme, and be so prominent as\nto render the petty difficulties and obscurities he may meet with of no\naccount; they seem to enter upon the study as we may suppose one of the\nnatives of our ancient forests, with no other knowledge of art than was\nrequired in the construction of his cabin, would enter upon the task of\nlearning the architectural theory which governed the construction of an\nimmense and complicated edifice, with the objects and uses of the whole\nand of each constituent part, by examining separately and in detail\nduplicates of each particular brick, stone, timber, nail, hinge, clamp,\nlatch, and every other material and element of the finished structure.\nAfter wearying himself with this undertaking, he would be apt either to\nabandon it, content with what he had learned of the disconnected\nelementary materials, or to form an erroneous theory of their relations\nand uses, if united in conformity with the model; or else to conclude,\ndespite the model before him, that the separate pieces could not be\ncombined in one harmonious whole; that no theory would account for such\na result, and that all that could be done was to study them separately,\nascertain their separate uses, and discover their defects; that though,\nto superficial observers, apparently united in the stately edifice, they\nwere not really united, but were of diverse natures and different ages,\nfashioned and added by many different builders at widely distant\nperiods; and that the structure was but a mass of patchwork, the result\nof what the successive builders added to the work of their predecessors,\neach bringing his own peculiar materials, and pursuing the style of\narchitecture prevalent in his own day; and therefore to comprehend it\nthe student must take the portion of each builder separately, and make\nit his object to investigate and criticize the materials and style\nemployed by him, compare each with all the others, enumerate their\ndefects, and in the end show that, viewed collectively, the whole is but\na mass of discordant materials, clumsily arranged, with innumerable\ndefects, inconsistencies, superfluities, erroneous combinations, and\nobjects as diverse and various as the capacities, tastes, and\ncircumstances of the several builders.\n\nIf this, as an illustration of the modern German method of studying the\nHebrew Scriptures, is in any degree exaggerated, it is yet probably\nexact enough to account for the worse than Rabbinical, worse than\nPopish, worse than Mohammedan results--neological infidelity, both with\nrespect to the Old and the New Testaments, and atheism with respect to\ntheir Author. Doubtless there are exceptions--here and there a Lot\nescaping for his life from this critical Sodom. The reference is to the\ngeneral and notorious results.\n\nThe system virtually begins with a denial of the Divine origin and\nauthority of the Scriptures, and a degradation of them to the level of\nthe works of heathen authors, and as a system, pursued under the\ninfluences above referred to, is no better calculated to lead the\nstudent to a right apprehension and knowledge of the great theme and\nconnected chain of things revealed, than the study of insects, under the\nname of the science of entomology, is calculated to enable the student\nto conceive, understand, and comprehend the doctrines of the Newtonian\nphilosophy.\n\nAmong the results of this course of things, it is obvious to notice the\nwide-spread, notorious, and effective sentiment of doubt and uncertainty\nas to the claims of the Scriptures in respect to the most important facts\nand doctrines, among the learned, scientific and professional men\nextensively on both sides of the Atlantic. Hence the origin, popularity,\nand influence of the geological doctrines concerning the antiquity of the\nearth, successive creations or developments, diversity of origin of\ndifferent families of the human race, and various kindred matters. The\nexcited minds of scientific men, unsatisfied, unestablished, and misled by\nthe results of Rabbinical and neological study and criticism, have\nappealed from the Scripture records to the fossil relics of what they\nfancy to have been a world of immeasurably higher antiquity than that of\nwhose creation Moses is the historian. They seek there, and imagine that\nthey discover, engraven on the rocks, an earlier revelation, a more\ncorrect chronology, a higher and more intelligible theory of the origin,\nprogress, uses, and ends of the earth, its changes, and its families of\nrational and irrational inhabitants. And finally the better portion of\nthis great school, as the only means left of guarding the rising\ngeneration from blank atheism, recommend the institution of professorships\nof Natural Theology, that, by a due exhibition to them of the evidences of\ngeological and other natural sciences, they may, if possible, be convinced\nthat there is a God!\n\nAnother result is obvious in the still more extended influence among\nall classes, learned, religious, ignorant and skeptical, of the\ndiscovery--made, probably, or adopted, alike by the Talmudists and\nOrigen though not openly professed as a clue to their productions--that\nlanguage is a very inadequate, imperfect, indeterminate vehicle of\nthought; an uncertain, incompetent, unreliable means of expressing\nmen's ideas. The incautious, half demented inheritors of this\ndiscovery, however, apprehending, in the present condition of things,\nno danger of injury to their intellectual, professional, literary or\nreligious reputation, proclaim it as boldly and unreservedly as if it\nwere universally admitted and confirmed by universal experience. Out of\ncharity or out of hypocrisy towards their readers, indeed, or because\nthey consider themselves exceptions to a general rule, applicable, in\ntheir view, even to the penmen of the sacred writings, they directly\nprofess and apply this fancied discovery only in relation to the\nlanguage of Scripture and to that of orthodox creeds and confessions.\nIn this they feel secure of the acquiescence of the great majority of\nall descriptions, and, but for their heresies in other relations, and\nhaving other bearings, would feel in other respects, as well as in\nthis, secure of the learned among the orthodox.\n\nIt is obvious how, by this device, the Arch-enemy wins and secures his\nprey among those who have the oracles of God; as of old among the\nheathen by his own oracles, the responses from which were ever capable\nof several meanings, from among which the consulting party might adopt\nthe one most agreeable to his wishes, feelings, and emotions.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\n    Relation of the antagonism between the Messiah and the great\n    Adversary to the local, personal, and visible Manifestations of\n    the former--Modes of Visibility on the part of the latter,\n    through human agents and various instrumentalities.\n\n\nThe antagonism between the Messiah and the great Adversary, which, in the\nScriptures, is conspicuous in all that relates to idolatry and other\nprincipal forms of impiety, and the means employed to counteract and\npunish them, strongly implies and confirms the reality and visibility of\nthe local personal appearances and acts recorded of the delegated Person.\nThe scene of that antagonism was on the earth. It involved an abiding\nenmity and active hostility between the followers of the respective\nleaders, separated the descendants of Adam into two hostile parties, and\nwas carried on by means of their visible agency in all the forms in which\nthey could express their inward sentiments, and in all the relations they\nsustained to the Divine Lawgiver, to the Arch-apostate, and to one\nanother. In so far, then, as their acts and doings were visible in\ncarrying on this warfare, it was requisite that the means of opposing,\ncounteracting and condemning them should be visibly exhibited, that they\nmight be observed, rightly judged of, and productive of appropriate moral\neffects.\n\nBut granting this to be apparent from the nature of the case, so far as\nconcerns the agency of righteous men on one side, and that of wicked men\non the other; it may at first be thought not to require any visible\nmanifestations or acts of the Divine leader of the righteous, any more\nthan of the apostate leader of the wicked. The sequel may show that such\nvisibility in respect to both was exhibited; by the one, to whom it\noccasioned no difficulty in any respect, in whatever mode, and to\nwhatever extent he pleased; by the other, in whatever ways it was\npossible for him to render himself visible, by subjecting the bodies of\nmen or of inferior animals to his possession and control, and through\ntheir physical organs acting and speaking, and thereby giving visibility\nto his acts and audible utterance to his words; or by counterfeit\napparitions, and by such arts and jugglery as his followers, the\nmagicians of Egypt and elsewhere, practised with such success as to\nrender their apparent acts undistinguishable from real ones.\n\nThat he had the power of occupying and actuating the bodies of men and\nof inferior animals, is shown by what is recorded of him and of the\ndemons under him, in the New Testament; and it is very evident from what\nwas said by the Jews on various occasions, that such possessions were no\nmatter of surprise or doubt; and that they well understood that it was\nSatan, Baal-Zebub, the prince of the demons, that was cast out by the\npower of Christ, is evident from his question when answering them on one\noccasion, \"How can Satan cast out Satan?\"\n\nIn that which, from the events in Eden to the day of Pentecost, was\nremarkable as a dispensation of visible agencies and results, visible\nteachings, rites, ordinances, institutions, mercies and judgments,\nmanifestations and events, the Adversary carried on his system of\nhostility and rivalry by visible agents and instruments, as will be\nillustrated with reference to the all but universal system of idolatry\nof which he was the head under the name of Baal, and in which he was\nrepresented by visible images without number, and had innumerable\npriests and counterfeits of all the visible accompaniments of the system\nprescribed for the worship of Jehovah.\n\nIn the progress of that dispensation it is observable, not only that the\nDivine Messenger appeared in the visible likeness, and, at its close, in\nthe nature of man, but also that created spiritual beings, angels,\nappeared visibly from time to time, and at the advent, resurrection and\nascension of Christ. The power of rendering themselves visible, if it\nresided in the unfallen angels, and was a condition of their nature, is\nlikely to have been retained and exercised by the fallen. And if--as\nhypocrites, by their outward and visible acts, make themselves appear to\nbe honest and true--Satan can deceive by assuming the appearance of an\nangel of light, he is likely to have exercised that power in every way\npossible to him and conducive to his ends. Possessing capacities little\nconceived of or comprehended by mortals; capacities indicated by the\nattitude of opposition and rivalship which he assumed towards his\nCreator and rightful Sovereign, the omnipotent and omniscient One; by\nthe boldness and perseverance of his rebellion, the vastness of the\nresults which he accomplished in the seduction of his celestial\nfollowers, and the ruin of this world, the indescribable audacity of his\npersonal encounter in the wilderness with the incarnate Word, and the\nstill more amazing desperateness of the conflicts predicted in the\nApocalypse; who can doubt but that he had at all times ways and means of\nrendering his agency visible, directly and by instruments at his\ncommand?\n\nIt is plain, from the narrative of the temptation in the wilderness,\nthat he was locally present, and in a way implying relations to physical\nthings analogous to those of men; to the atmosphere, as the medium of\nsound and of vision; to the earth, as a basis of locomotion; that he\nuttered words and exerted physical power. So in the narrative of Job,\nand that of the scene in Paradise, to specify no others, such physical\nand visible acts are ascribed to him as plainly as acts visibly of a\nsimilar nature are affirmed of the two angels who, with Jehovah, came to\nAbraham in the form of men, partook as men of his repast, and at parting\nfrom Jehovah and Abraham, \"turned their faces and went towards Sodom.\"\n\nHis policy as a deceiver would have been defeated, had he stood forth\nmanifest in such form to mortal eyes as clearly to identify him, and\nexpose his malignity and betray his evil designs towards the human race,\nwhile yet in a state of probation with reference to their repentance and\nsalvation. He succeeded with them, for the most part, by subtlety,\ncraft, falsehood exhibiting counterfeit resemblances of goodness, and\nworking through visible agents actuated by him, and instrumentalities\nwhich served as screens. Thus, in the first temptation, having no\nalternative prior to the fall, he actuated an irrational creature,\nerect, perhaps, originally, in form, and otherwise pre\u00ebminently adapted\nto his purpose, but afterwards by the curse (denounced on the visible\nagent as an intelligent person, in whom the fallen spirit and the animal\nwere united as by a mock incarnation) degraded to crawl upon the ground,\nand called the serpent; while the actuating intelligent agent was\nforewarned of the enmity and prolonged hostility which would ensue\nbetween him and his followers and the race which he had seduced. The\nnarrative, 1 Kings xxii. 19-23, shows that Satan could inspire false\nprophets, sorcerers and magicians; and the exercise of that power is\ndoubtless to be supposed in respect to all those who are called false\nprophets, sorcerers, diviners, &c.; those who inquired of Baal-Zebub, or\nconsulted any of the oracles of the idolatrous party.\n\nThere are in the annals of sorcery and witchcraft innumerable\nillustrations of the agency, pretensions and purposes of the Evil One in\nsecuring the homage of men, and employing them as instruments of his\nantagonism. The following notices are taken from \"Narratives of Sorcery\nand Magic, from the most authentic sources. By Thomas Wright, M. A., F.\nS. A.\" This work relates chiefly to the sentiments, practices, judicial\ntrials, confessions and executions of sorcerers and magicians, in the\nthirteenth and four ensuing centuries, in England, Scotland, France,\nSpain, Germany, and other countries of Europe. A belief in sorcery, as a\nkind of supernatural agency, was then universally prevalent, and was\nmanifested in two different forms, sorcery and magic. \"The magician\ndiffered from the witch in this: that while the latter was an ignorant\ninstrument in the hands of the demons, the former had become their\nmaster by the powerful intermediation of a science which was only within\nthe reach of a few, and which these beings were unable to disobey.\" Of\nthis _science_ there were several schools in Europe. The professed\nobject of those who studied it was to acquire the power of coercing the\nEvil One. In practice, the magicians, tempted by ambition, avarice, or\nsome other passion, generally made \"the final sacrifice,\" that is,\nformally sold their souls to Satan. Thus, in the tenth century,\n\"Gerbert is said to have sold himself, on condition of being made a\npope.\"\n\n\"The witch held a lower degree in the scale of forbidden knowledge. She\nwas a slave without recompense; she had sold herself without any\napparent object, unless it were the mere power of doing evil.\" \"It has\nbeen an article of popular belief, from the earliest period of the\nhistory of the nations of western Europe, that women were more easily\nbrought into connection with the spiritual world than men; priestesses\nwere the favorite agents of the deities of the ages of paganism. During\nthe twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the power of the witches to do\nmischief was derived from a direct compact with the Demon, [Devil,] whom\nthey were bound to worship with certain rites and ceremonies, the\nshadows of those which had, in remoter ages, been performed in honor of\nthe pagan gods.\" In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, \"the witches\nmet together by night, in solitary places, to worship their master, who\nappeared to them in the shape of a cat or a goat, or sometimes in that\nof a man. At these meetings they had feasts, and some were appointed to\nserve at table, while others received reward or punishment, according to\ntheir zeal in the service of the Evil One. Hither also they brought\nchildren which they had stolen from their cradles, and which were\nsometimes torn to pieces and devoured. We see here the first outlines of\nthe witches' 'Sabbath' of a later age.\"\n\nIn the progress of the narratives there are abundant testimonies to the\nfollowing opinions and practices:\n\n1. That it was Satan, the arch-apostate, personally, with whom they\nentered into compact; selling to him their souls for a consideration,\nand covenanting to worship and serve him, and to renounce Christ and\nblaspheme his name.\n\nThus, in the confession of a Dr. Fian, of Scotland, of \"the origin of\nhis acquaintance with the Devil,\" while meditating how he should be\nrevenged of his landlord, \"The Devil suddenly made his appearance, clad\nin white raiment, and said to him, 'Will ye be my servant, and adore me,\nand ye shall never want?' The Doctor assented to the terms, and, at the\nsuggestion of the Evil One, revenged himself.\" And in that of Ganfridi,\na French Catholic priest: \"The Demon appeared to him in a human form,\nand said to him, 'What do you desire of me?'\" After stating what he\nwanted, \"the Demon promised to grant him his desires, on condition that\nhe would give up to him entirely his 'body, soul, and works;' to which\nhe agreed,\" excepting only to his performing the sacraments as a priest.\n\n2. They had what they termed \"Sabbaths,\" when they met for the worship\nof Satan; and also periodical feasts, appointed on days set apart for\nfestivals of the Romish Church.\n\nGanfridi, the priest above mentioned, \"gave an account of the Sabbaths,\nat which he was a regular attendant. When he was ready to go--it was\nusually at night--he either went to the open window of his chamber, or\nproceeded through the door into the open air. There Lucifer made his\nappearance, and took him in an instant to their place of meeting, where\nthe orgies of the witches and sorcerers lasted usually from three to\nfour hours. Ganfridi divided the victims of the Evil One into three\nclasses: the novices, the sorcerers, and the magicians. On arriving at\nthe meeting, they all worshipped the Demon, according to their several\nranks; the novices falling flat on their faces, the sorcerers kneeling\nwith their heads and bodies humbly bowed down, and the magicians, who\nstood highest in importance, only kneeling. After this they all went\nthrough the formality of denying God and the saints. Then they had a\ndiabolical service in burlesque of that of the Church, at which the Evil\nOne served as priest in a violet chasuble; the elevation of the demon\nhost was announced by a wooden bell, and the sacrament itself was made\nof unleavened bread. The scenes of unutterable licentiousness which\nfollowed, resembled those of other witch meetings.\"\n\nIn the early part of the seventeenth century, in Labourd, at the\nsouth-west corner of France, nearly all the families of a population of\nthirty thousand were subjects of sorcery. At their \"Sabbaths,\" which\nwere numerously attended every Wednesday and Friday night, \"Satan,\nseated on a throne, appeared in the shape of a large black man with\nhorns, and sometimes in other forms. The ceremonies of worship, the\nfeasting, the dance, and the license which followed, are described in\nall their particulars, in a multitude of confessions.\"\n\nIn Navarre, the delusion was no less prevalent. The ordinary Sabbaths\nwere held every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday evening. \"The form assumed\nby the Demon was that of a man with a sad and choleric countenance, very\nblack and very ugly. He was seated on a lofty throne, black as ebony,\nand sometimes gilt, with all the accessories calculated to inspire\nreverence. On his head was a crown of small horns, with two larger ones\nbehind, and another larger one on the forehead. It was the latter which\ngave a light somewhat greater than that of the moon, but less than that\nof the sun, which served to illumine the assembly. His eyes were large\nand round, and terrible to look at; his beard like that of a goat, and\nthe lower part of his body had the form of that animal, &c. His worship\nwas conducted with the same forms and ceremonies as in Labourd. After\nthe worship of the Demon followed a travestie of the Christian mass;\nafter the mass, the usual licentiousness, then the feast. Before they\nleft, the Demon preached to them on the duties they had contracted\ntowards him, exhorted them to go and injure their fellow-creatures, and\nto practise every kind of wickedness, and gave them powders and liquors\nfor poisoning and destroying. He often accompanied them himself when\nsome great evil was to be done.\"\n\n3. In the confessions of those who were tried and executed, it is\nrelated in numerous instances that they had, on their first admission at\nthe Sabbath rites and orgies, formally renounced Christ, and uttered\nblasphemous expressions. It was an article of their compact that they\nshould not, at any of their assemblies, mention the name of Christ; (an\ninterdict similar to that of the Yezzidis, or worshippers of Satan, near\nMosul, mentioned by M. Layard;) and it is affirmed that whenever his\nname was inadvertently articulated, the assembly was instantly\ndispersed.\n\n4. It was held that the initiated received from the Evil One a\nparticular mark on their persons, to distinguish them as his; that Satan\noften appeared to them unexpectedly in the form of a goat, a black dog,\na cat, a horse, or a toad; and that each new witch received a toad, cat,\nor other animal, as an imp or familiar to attend them constantly. They\npretended to raise storms, destroy vessels and crops, torment and kill\nanimals and men by their sorcery; and for such crimes many thousands of\nthem were accused, tried, and put to death.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\n    Illustration of the subject of the last Chapter, exhibiting the\n    Antagonism as carried on by visible agencies, instrumentalities,\n    and events, in the plagues of Egypt and at the Red Sea.\n\n\nThere is a striking instance of this antagonism carried on by visible\nagencies, instrumentalities, and events, in the narrative of the plagues\nof Egypt, under the immediate direction of the Messenger Jehovah, after\nhis appearance to Moses in the burning bush; of which plagues it was\nrepeatedly declared to be the object on the one hand to convince the\nchildren of Israel, and by rehearsal to their descendants to convince\nthem that he was indeed Jehovah; and on the other, to cause Pharaoh and\nthe Egyptians to know that he was the Self-existent, and to cause his\nname to be declared throughout all the earth. Pharaoh, and the priests\nof Baal, and the wise men, the sorcerers and magicians, like Ahab and\nthe prophets and votaries of Baal in his time; and Nebuchadnezzar and\nthe magicians, astrologers, sorcerers and Chaldeans of his, were to\nwitness miraculous and resistless proofs that Jehovah, the Elohe of\nAbraham and Israel, was the only living and true God, the Creator,\nproprietor, and ruler of the world, and that their idolatry was an\nimposture and a cheat. In this, as in the other and all similar\ninstances of a public formal conflict of the great antagonists and their\nagents, to determine which should be acknowledged as supreme, and be\nobeyed and worshipped, the demonstrations on the part of Jehovah were\nresisted, step by step, by the Adversary and his party, till they were\noverpowered, shown to be false pretenders, terrified, exposed, and\nconfounded.\n\nJehovah directed Moses and Aaron, when they appeared before Pharaoh, and\nwere required by him \"to show a miracle\" in support of their\npretensions, to cast down the rod they were to carry, and it should\nbecome a serpent--the animal with which the name and personal history of\nSatan were intimately associated, and whose visible form was familiar\namong the material images, representative of him under the name of Baal,\nfrom the earliest times; the animal which he entered and actuated in\nEden, and which, doubtless, he could enter and actuate again, and by\njugglery employ rods in his exhibition. \"And Aaron cast down his rod\nbefore Pharaoh and before his servants, and it became a serpent;\" as\nmuch as to say, Here is a miracle, producing before your eyes the god,\nthe visible image and representative of the god whom you worship. But we\nmay suppose Pharaoh to have said, This we can do: this only shows the\npower of our god, and is to no purpose as evidence on your side. \"Then\nPharaoh called the wise men and the sorcerers, and the magicians of\nEgypt did in like manner with their _enchantments_; for they cast down\nevery man his rod, and they became serpents.\" This satisfied him.\nSimilar feats had probably often satisfied him before. Visible effects\nof power in the production, apparently, of living animals, were manifest\nto his senses. The sequel, in the fact that \"Aaron's rod swallowed up\ntheir rods,\" belonged to another category. If he regarded it as the\nmoderns regard written language, he would be satisfied by calling it\n\"figurative,\" or saying it was equivocal, and had no fixed or\ndeterminate meaning.\n\nThe nature of the conflict, and the visibility of the instruments and\nresults, are thus sufficiently apparent. To the view of the beholders,\nthe coincidence of the power of the unseen agent on the one side, with\nthe act of Aaron and his rod as an instrument, and on the other, with\nthe acts of the magicians and their rods, appeared alike. From aught\nthat was apparent, if Moses and Aaron wrought their miracle by the power\nand will of Jehovah, the magicians wrought theirs by the power and will\nof their god. It was a miracle transcending the efforts of mortal power,\nand superior to that by which the magicians acted, that Pharaoh\nrequired. Nothing else would meet the case. But as he viewed it, this\nexperiment was not conclusive.\n\nAt the next trial, Aaron, in the presence of Pharaoh and his servants,\n\"lifted up the rod and smote the waters that were in the river, and they\nwere turned into blood.\" The fish died, \"and there was blood throughout\nall the land of Egypt.\" \"And the magicians did so with their\nenchantments, and Pharaoh's heart was hardened.\" The experiment of the\nmagicians, in this case, must have been on a very limited scale, for it\nappears from the narrative that there was no water to be had for seven\ndays, but such as was obtained by digging near the river. Still, if they\napparently produced the effect on ever so small a quantity, those who\ntrusted in them would be satisfied. The Nile was a leading object of\nEgyptian idolatry, as an instrument and emblem of the munificence of the\ngod of that idolatry, whose superiority and power were argued from the\nvast benefits occasioned by the river, without the aid or inconvenience\nof clouds and rain. The miracle was therefore a public and signal rebuke\nof their idolatry, affecting directly every inhabitant of the land, and\na stupendous demonstration of the supremacy of Jehovah. But the arts and\ninstrumentality of the magicians counteracted its effect.\n\nThe ensuing trial, which constituted the second plague, covered the\nland, the houses, furniture, utensils, and the people themselves, with\nmyriads of loathsome frogs, one of the sacred animals of their idol\nsystem, and of the progeny of their sacred river, consecrated to the\nsun, and, by reason of its inflations, deemed an emblem of inspiration.\nThey were thus confounded by the insupportable multitude and\noffensiveness of one of the objects of their idol worship, sent forth by\nanother, as if purposely to punish them. After the usual announcements\nand directions, \"Aaron stretched out his hand over the waters of Egypt;\nand the frogs came up and covered the land of Egypt: and the magicians\ndid so with their _enchantments_, and brought up frogs upon the land of\nEgypt.\" Their enchantments in this case seem to have had no favorable\neffect. The frogs brought up by them must have aggravated the already\nintolerable evil. Pharaoh begged Moses to entreat Jehovah to remove the\nplague, and promised in that case to let the people go. Moses consented,\nso that Pharaoh, by the counter miracle, \"might know that there is none\nlike unto Jehovah, the Elohe of the Hebrews.\"\n\nThe third plague, more tormenting to the persons of the Egyptians than\nthe preceding, baffled and silenced the magicians. \"Aaron stretched out\nhis hand with his rod, and smote the dust of the earth, and it became\nlice in man and in beast; and the dust of the land became lice\nthroughout all the land of Egypt. And the magicians did so with their\n_enchantments_ to bring forth lice, but they could not. Then the\nmagicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of Elohim.\" But his\nheart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them.\n\nIn the preceding instances, Pharaoh and the magicians had been\nforewarned as to what kind of evil was to be inflicted, and had time to\nprepare their enchantments. When (the sun excepted) the chief of all the\nnatural objects of their idolatry was to be changed into blood, so as to\ndestroy the fish, and put a stop to all the benefits for which they\ndeified it, the miracle was in itself calculated to be perfectly\nconclusive, and Moses was directed to say to Pharaoh, \"In this thou\nshalt know that I am Jehovah.\" And when the progeny of their sacred\nriver were to be brought up in such masses as to cover the whole land\nand all the objects in it, so that they could not move without\ndestroying those deified creatures, they were specially forewarned, and\nhad time to arrange and work their enchantments with as much success as\nin our own day attends the workers of Popish miracles.\n\nBut in this last instance they had no previous notice. It was an\nexperiment, doubtless, that they had never tried, they could do nothing\nwithout enchantments; they had no jugglery prepared for such a case;\nthey were baffled, disgraced, and thrust aside: and in what follows, the\nutter and desperate malignity of sin is shown in such obstinacy,\nhardihood, and perseverance on the part of Pharaoh and his people, as\nhas a parallel only in Satan and his angels. Occasionally, indeed, under\nthe most appalling terrors of mind and sufferings of body, conscious\nthat Jehovah had absolute power over all creatures and all elements, and\nthat new and unknown horrors awaited them, some momentary concessions\nwere extorted from their physical fears and agonies.\n\nOn the infliction of the plague of flies, (another of the deified or\nidolized representatives of Baal,) Pharaoh, to convince him that Jehovah\nwas the same as the Elohe of the Hebrews, and that his supremacy and\npower were universal over all the earth, was told that while this plague\nshould fall upon him, and upon his servants and people, and into their\nhouses, and upon the ground, it should not touch the Hebrews. \"I will\nsever the land of Goshen, in which my people dwell, that no swarms of\nflies shall be there; _to the end thou mayest know that I am Jehovah in\nthe midst of the earth_.\" In this, as in the case of the frogs, and\nequally, it is presumed, in the case of the lice, they were necessitated\nto destroy multitudes of idolized creatures, representative of Baal, and\nthus by their own acts, as well as by their sufferings, to show that he\nwas not able to protect his representatives, or those who worshipped him\nthrough them. Pharaoh hypocritically relented till, on the entreaty of\nMoses, Jehovah removed this plague.\n\nIn the inflictions which followed, each was more appalling and terrific\nthan those which preceded. They were introduced by special announcements\nof their object, their intensity, and their effects; a set time was\nspecified for their occurrence, and in each case the land of Goshen was\nexempted. They were such as most unequivocally to demonstrate the\nalmighty power of Jehovah, the reason of their being visited upon the\nEgyptians, the nature and bearings of the controversy, and the\nantagonist position and character of the parties. Jehovah, displaying\nhis prerogatives and his righteousness in the visible effects of his\npower, \"executed judgment against all the gods of Egypt.\" By the fifth\nplague, the idolized animals, models of the molten calves, with all the\ncattle of Egypt, were destroyed. By the sixth, the sacred persons, the\npriests, magicians, sorcerers, with all the people, high and low, were\ntormented with boils and blains, so that \"the magicians could not stand\nbefore Moses, because of the boils.\" This being ineffectual, the grounds\nof the controversy were again particularized, and more terrible\ninflictions threatened. \"I will at this time send all my plagues upon\nthine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou\nmayest know that there is none like me in all the earth.\" Then Jehovah\n\"sent thunder, and hail, and fire; and the fire [or lightning] ran upon\nthe ground; and the hail smote man and beast, and herbs and trees; only\nin the land of Goshen there was no hail.\"\n\nThe air, which was the medium of the pestilential boils, and was an\nelement of this terrific storm, unprecedented in Egypt or elsewhere,\nwas, equally with the other elements, water and fire, idolized as an\ninstrument, medium, or vehicle of Baal; fire being arrogated as his\nattribute or element, and the sun as his shekina: and being so regarded\nby the Egyptians, it was shown in the most awful and appalling manner\nthat Jehovah exercised the most absolute control over them. Pharaoh,\nunder the impulse of amazement and terror, sent for Moses and Aaron, and\nsaid: \"I have sinned this time: Jehovah is righteous, and I and my\npeople are wicked. Entreat Jehovah (for it is enough) that there be no\nmore mighty thunderings and hail, and I will let you go.\" Moses replied,\npromising to do this, and that the storm should cease, that Pharaoh\n\"might know how that the earth is Jehovah's;\" that is, that he might be\nconvinced and know that the earth, the elements, and all creatures were\nJehovah's, and not Baal's, and that he might renounce Baal, and\nacknowledge Jehovah. But \"when Pharaoh saw that the rain, and the hail,\nand the thunders were ceased, he sinned yet more, and hardened his\nheart, he and his servants.\" No demonstration was or would be sufficient\nto end the controversy, so long as the relentless Adversary behind the\nscenes could, through their base propensities and depraved wills, delude\nand instigate his Egyptian vassals. The lesson to be taught to the\nIsraelites and others, concerned not those hardened mortals only, but\ntheir subtle deceiver, and they, as subjects and instruments of his.\n\nWhen the plague of locusts was threatened, Pharaoh's servants\nremonstrated with him, and urged him to let the people go; and he sent\nfor Moses and Aaron, and proposed that the men should go, and leave\ntheir families and flocks behind. This being totally refused, they were\nfearfully scourged by another of their idolized insects, in the\ndestruction of every herb and plant, and all that the hail had left.\nThis extorted from Pharaoh another confession: \"I have sinned against\nJehovah your Elohe, and against you. Now therefore forgive, I pray thee,\nmy sin only this once, and entreat Jehovah your Elohe that he may take\naway from me this death only.\"\n\nNext the plague of dense total darkness for three days was sent upon all\nthe Egyptians, so that \"they saw not one another, neither rose any from\nhis place.\" Thus the chief visible object of their idolatrous homage,\nthe imputed residence and shekina of Baal, was excluded from their view,\nand all acts of idolatry and access to images precluded. Pharaoh now\nshowed a degree of angry desperation; and after offering to let the\npeople go without their flocks, and those terms being rejected, he drove\nMoses from his presence, and threatened his life if he saw him again.\n\nThere remained yet one more plague, the instant destruction of all the\nfirst-born of Egypt at the dead of night, which so terrified the whole\npopulation with dread of immediate and utter extermination, that with\none voice they urged the departure without delay of all the Israelites,\nwith all their flocks and goods, and with whatever gifts and supplies\nthey wished. \"And they took their journey; and Jehovah went before them\nby day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a\npillar of fire, to give them light, to go by day and night.\"\n\nThus the Messenger Jehovah, who introduced this train of visible wonders\nby appearing to Moses in the burning bush, signalized the triumphant\nrescue and march of his people out of Egypt by re\u00e4ppearing, and going\nbefore them in the cloud-like appendage, visibly luminous as fire by\nnight, and as an irradiant form by day, which continued as the constant\nsignal of his presence during the whole period of their wanderings in\nthe wilderness.\n\nBut their departure, which took place in the night, was no sooner made\nknown to the Egyptians than \"the heart of Pharaoh and of his servants\nwas turned against them.\" They reproached themselves for having let them\ngo, and were infatuated to pursue and bring them back. \"And all the\nhorses and chariots of Pharaoh, and his horsemen and his army pursued\nand overtook them at the Red Sea.\" Still more stupendous exhibitions of\npower, supremacy and triumph on the one side, and of incurable and\nfatal delusion on the other, were required for the instruction and\nconviction of that and succeeding ages. \"And Melach (the) Elohim, which\nwent before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the\npillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them,\nand it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel;\nand it was a cloud and darkness to them, but it gave light by night to\nthese, so that the one came not near the other all the night.\"\n\nThus the final trial was arranged and conducted under the visible\ndirection of the Messenger Jehovah. The sea was divided, and the hosts\nof Israel went over as on dry land. Pharaoh's chariots and army\nfollowed. \"Jehovah looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the\npillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled them;\" threw them into\nconsternation by \"taking off their chariot wheels,\" and by causing the\nwaters to return, overwhelmed and drowned them in the midst of the sea.\n\"Thus Jehovah saved Israel, and Israel saw that great work which Jehovah\ndid upon the Egyptians; and the people feared Jehovah, and believed\nJehovah and his servant Moses.\"\n\nThe greatness and wonderfulness of this deliverance, as referred to and\ncelebrated in other parts of Scripture, if regarded, not as a signal and\nnever-to-be-forgotten triumph of the Messenger Jehovah over Satan, and\nthe agents of his idolatry and imposture, but simply in its relation to\nthe numbers, power, or unassisted skill of the Egyptians, are out of all\nproportion to the result. Instead of such an array of preparations, such\nthreats and remonstrances, such a succession and selection of miracles\nand plagues, had the object been only to loosen their covetous hold on\nthe labor and service of Israel, a single blow might as easily have\ndestroyed them all in a moment as their first-born, or whelmed them in\nthe Nile, as in the Red Sea. But their idolatry denied the supremacy,\nprerogatives, and rights of Jehovah, and ascribed them, not to\nirrational animals and senseless elements, except as vehicles and\nmediums of homage, but to an intelligent and powerful rival, competitor,\nand pretender to the throne and government of the world, who claimed,\nprescribed, and received their worship, arrogated the credit of\nbestowing the blessings of providence, sanctioned the indulgence of\ntheir passions, instigated their magical delusions, and had their\nconfidence as to his power to protect them. It was to vindicate himself,\nand to confound that arrogant pretender, that Jehovah vouchsafed these\ndemonstrations in the view of the Hebrews, who needed the lesson which\nthey taught, and in a way to be rehearsed and known among the Canaanites\nand other nations of the earth. It was a marked and memorable scene in\nthe progress of that great antagonism which hitherto has constituted the\nbasis, and, however obscured to the blinded view of the actors, or\nconcealed by their craft and policy, has furnished the elements of\nhistory, and is yet in the view of the whole universe, with all the\naccompaniments of publicity and conclusiveness, to have its issue.\n\nIt would require a chapter to refer to all the descriptions and\nallusions commemorative of this scene, in the triumphant song of Moses,\nrecalled and sung, Rev. xv. 3, by the redeemed, in celebration of their\nresembling deliverance, to the praise of the Lamb as their Redeemer,\nwhom they address as the Lord God Almighty--Jehovah, the Elohim; and in\nthe Psalms, cxxxv., cxxxvi., and other Scriptures, where to Jehovah are\nreferred the wonders done in Egypt and in the wilderness, which by Moses\nare ascribed to him as Melach Jehovah.\n\nBut, waiving these references, it may be noticed as an additional\nevidence that it was the Delegated One, the Personal Word, who, after\nappearing visibly to Moses, and investing him with his ministerial\noffice, executed those wondrous demonstrations in Egypt, that, prior to\nthe signal exercise of his power and justice by which he destroyed all\nthe first-born of the opposing party, he instituted for the benefit and\nas auxiliary to the faith of his people, the ordinance of the passover;\nof which, the slaughter of the paschal lamb, the sprinkling of the blood\nas the means of exemption from death, and other details, had a\ncounterpart in the circumstances, reference, import, and Scripture\nnarrative of his sacrifice of himself, Christ our Passover sacrificed\nfor us; the Lamb of God, slain virtually and in effect, as by covenant\nand oath, from the foundation of the world.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\n    Further Illustration of the Antagonism--Idolatry a Counterfeit\n    Rival System in opposition to the Messiah and the True\n    Worship--Its Origin and Nature--Satan the God of it--The Tower\n    of Babel devoted to his Worship--That Worship extended thence\n    over the Earth at the Dispersion.\n\n\nThe illustration of this mighty and ceaseless conflict requires\nparticular reference to the system of idolatry by which, in opposition\nand rivalship to the worship and service of Jehovah, Satan organized his\nfollowers under Nimrod; and on their dispersion to different regions of\nthe globe, enslaved and held in bondage all the tribes and nations which\nthey planted, and to which he at length seduced the kings, princes,\npriests, and all but a remnant of the chosen people. It was one\ncomprehensive antagonist rival system, copied and counterfeited in all\nits leading features from the doctrines and ritual revealed to the race\nat first, and renewedly taught and practised by Noah, on his egress from\nthe ark. In what forms the great Adversary had instigated the corruption\nand wickedness, and led on the masses of the race before the Deluge to\ntheir total destruction by that instrument of Jehovah's power, is but\nfaintly intimated. The earth was filled with violence; and it is not\nunlikely that Cain's example in presenting, contrary to the Divine\ncommand and the ritual prescription, an offering not of blood, not\ntypical of the expiatory sacrifice of Messiah, the promised Son, but an\noffering intended for the occasion, by its nature, and in contrast to\nthat of Abel, to express his denial and rejection of the typical\nsacrifice and its antitype; and his sullen and arrogant denial of his\nbeing in the wrong, and needing an atonement and forgiveness; and the\nexample of his persecuting malevolence, in killing his brother, may\nfurnish a clue to the theory and practice of his party afterwards.\n\nBut while Noah, conformably to the earlier practice, erected an altar to\nJehovah, offered typical offerings, and otherwise complied with the\nritual, professed the doctrines, and exercised the faith of the revealed\nsystem of religion, and was a preacher of righteousness; his early\ndescendants, like those of Adam, were soon separated into opposite\nparties of true and false worshippers.\n\nThe false or idolatrous party, originally characterized as the seed of\nthe serpent, the followers and servants of Satan, having, under\nNimrod--a name signifying rebel--united in their antagonist scheme,\ncommenced the erection of the tower of Babel--otherwise Bel, Belus, or\nBaal--in Babylon.\n\nFrom a comparison of the terms employed with reference to this\nstructure, and the object and nature of the idolatry to which it was\ndevoted; its history and that of the structures and idolatry of other\ncountries which were copied from the model here furnished; the\ndescriptions in the Scriptures of that idolatry, both as practised by\nthe heathen and by the Israelites, and the references to it by\nHerodotus, Thucydides, and other secular historians, the following\nsummary statement in the present and two succeeding chapters is believed\nto be well founded.\n\nThis tower or temple was originally destined, as it was afterwards\ndevoted, to the worship of the great Adversary, who palmed himself upon\nhis followers as god of this world, god of providence, bestower of\nbenefits and blessings; the good principle or intelligence of the\nBabylonians, Persians, and other heathen nations, by whom he was\nregarded as a creature intermediate between the supreme, self-existent,\ninvisible Being, and the human race, and in that character as creator\nand ruler of the world; having his residence in the sun as his\ntabernacle and shekina, and manifesting himself locally and at pleasure\nto his votaries in fire, as his element, and as the medium of their\nworship, sacrifices, incense, &c., and in light, and in the effects of\nthe solar heat upon vegetation, and otherwise as causing the chief\nblessings and comforts of life. These visible objects and benefits\nappealed directly to the senses and the unrestrained passions of his\nfollowers, who, being at enmity with the righteous party, and\nirreconcilably opposed to the doctrines, duties, and restraints of their\nreligion; and yet, as well from social considerations as from their\nnatures as dependent creatures, requiring a substitute, a rival\nantagonist system, and a head and leader consistent with it, may well be\nsupposed to have entered into this system with a zeal, a pertinacity and\ndesperateness, not exceeded by their successors in Babylon or elsewhere,\nnor even by that of the apostate Jews, who, in direct opposition to the\ndoctrines and worship of Jehovah, established in his temple this idol\nsystem, with its emblems and rites, and the public and formal worship of\nits god in the sun, most boldly and impiously turning their faces to the\nEast, and their backs to the visible Shekina in the holy place.\n\nThe system of corruption, delusion, and bondage, by which the great\nAdversary commenced his second experiment of lordship over his party,\nand of renewed and perpetual hostility towards the righteous, and\ntreason, rebellion, impiety, and insult towards Jehovah their Elohe,\nrequired not only to be such as would gratify their depraved hearts and\ngrovelling passions, so as to insure success to his craft and subtlety,\nbut to be contrived, adopted, and put in practice so as to unite,\ncombine, and govern them, as soon as possible after the repeopling of\nthe earth commenced.\n\nThat it was in fact contrived, adopted, and practised prior to the\ndispersion, is proved by the resumption and practice of it by the\ndispersed tribes and nations both in the Eastern and Western\nhemispheres: and that the nature, object, doctrines, rites, bearings,\nand ends of it, were originally well understood, and matter of common\nintelligence and notoriety, is proved by the close resemblance of the\nsystem, as established in other quarters of the world, to the model\nmetropolitan establishment in Babylon.\n\nThis original tower or temple--which there is no reasonable ground to\ndoubt continued near two thousand years, till Xerxes pillaged and\ndestroyed it, together with the structures around it which had been\nadded by Nebuchadnezzar--was six hundred feet square at the base, and\nsix hundred feet in height, its cubic contents far exceeding those of\nthe largest of the pyramids. It was devoted to the worship of the god of\ntheir idolatry, the intelligence to whom they ascribed the works of\ncreation and providence, under the names Bel, Baal, Beelzebub, and other\ndesignations of Satan; and also to astronomical observations, which\nappear to have led to the appropriation, subsequently, of the moon to\nAstarte, consort of Baal and Queen of heaven, the prototype--not in\nrespect to her moral character, which was wholly opposite, but to her\nmediating office--of the deified Mary of the Papists; and of the\nplanets and stars, to subordinate auxiliary mediating demons of\ndifferent species.\n\nThe projectors and architects of this great paragon and wonder of the\nworld were not a horde of ignorant, wandering nomades. They had\nknowledge and arts adequate to an undertaking, whether considered merely\nas a physical undertaking, or in connection with the stupendous and\nenduring system of imposture, impiety, and misery it was devoted to,\nwhich has not been equalled since: and which may well be conceived of as\nsufficient to occasion the local and special interposition of the\nMessenger Jehovah to confound their language and scatter them abroad\nupon the face of all the earth. Their astronomy, and probably their\ngeometry and other abstruse branches of knowledge, were, at least in\nrespect to their leading principles, not inferior to those of the\npresent day. Prideaux, speaking of this tower, which he holds to be the\nsame with that destroyed Xerxes, observes, that \"when Alexander took\nBabylon, Callisthenes the philosopher, who accompanied him thither,\nfound they had astronomical observations for nineteen hundred and three\nyears backward from that time, which carrieth the account as high as the\none hundred and fifteenth year after the flood, which was within fifteen\nyears after the Tower of Babel was built. For the confusion of tongues,\nwhich followed immediately after the building of that tower, happened in\nthe year wherein Peleg was born, which was an hundred and one years\nafter the flood, and fourteen years after that, those observations\nbegan. This account Callisthenes sent from Babylon into Greece, to his\nmaster Aristotle,\" &c. (Book II., part 1.)\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX.\n\n    The system of Idolatry founded on a perversion of the Doctrine\n    of Mediation--References to the Worshippers of Baal, Israelite\n    and Pagan.\n\n\nThis system of idolatry was founded on the doctrine of mediation, which\nwas the basis of the revealed system of true religion. But in the\napplication of that doctrine, idolatry exhibited an entire perversion,\nascribing the mediatorial office and relations, not to Messiah, the\nMessenger Jehovah, the one only Mediator between God and man, but to his\nadversary, antagonist, and competitor, who emphatically in this respect,\nand as creator and administrator of providence, arrogated the office,\nprerogatives, relations and works of Jehovah, the delegated Personal\nWord.\n\nThis consideration alone affords a clue to any intelligent understanding\nof the system in its details, or of the succeeding history of the\nantagonism; of the enormity and turpitude of idolatry as a crime; and of\nthe amazing retributions and judgments which it called down upon the\nCanaanites and other nations devoted to the worship of Baal, and upon\nthe Israelites on their apostatizing to that worship.\n\nThe doctrine of mediation and of one Divine Mediator, as it involved the\nrelations of men to the Creator, moral and providential Ruler and\nRedeemer, was the basis and prime element in the patriarchal and\nLevitical economies, which prescribed a religion not merely for\ndependent, but for fallen, guilty creatures, no acts of whom, whether\nof obedience in performing ordinary duties, or of religious homage,\nsacrifices, prayers or offerings, could be accepted unless rendered in\nthe exercise of faith in the appointed Mediator, and a consciousness of\nentire dependence on his merits, and the efficacy of his mediation, as\nthe only ground of acceptance, and of the bestowment of blessings on\nthem. Hence the typical sacrifices, and all the rites, ordinances, and\nprescriptions of that system.\n\nBut from the nature of the case, and the consciousness of dependence,\nhelplessness and misery in those who turned away from the true worship,\na sense of the necessity of mediation and a mediator must naturally have\nbeen felt by them, as well as by those of the other party. Without a\nsense of that necessity they would neither have projected nor adopted\nany religion whatever. It is the sole basis of all false religions.\nThose who have it not, must be classed with atheists or deists. The Jews\nwho nominally reject the doctrine, and really reject the true Mediator,\npalpably contradict and pervert the religion which they profess, and\nvirtually assign to their rites and forms the office of mediation.\n\nNothing can be more unlikely or more absurd than the supposition that\nnations, tribes, or individuals should contrive or adopt or persevere in\nthe practice of a false religion, without a notion more or less correct,\nand a conviction more or less strong and effective, of the existence of\na Supreme Being, to whose will the striking events of providence, the\nvicissitudes in their own experience, their acts, their prayers, their\nfears and hopes, had a real, though it might be a mysterious and\nincomprehensible, reference. But with such conviction, their false\nreligion, naturally in theory, and necessarily in order to such effect\nupon their hopes and fears as to induce their perseverance in it,\nrefers ultimately to that mysterious, unseen, and, without intermediate\nagencies and instruments of mediation, inaccessible Being. Such fears\nand such conviction, coupled with the uncertainties of the future, and\nwith impending or foreboded evils, are, like instincts, deep seated, in\nthe very nature of man. And hence, with reference to the false system\nunder consideration, the facility, on the one hand, with which\nimposture, delusion, and desperate infatuation might take effect; and\nthe absurdity, on the other hand, of supposing that Baal, whose\ntabernacle in the sun, and whose manifestations in fire, light, air or\nwater were ever visibly or sensibly present and familiar; or that any of\nthe animals consecrated to him, or of the representative material images\nof animate or inanimate, rational or irrational forms, called idols,\nwere ever mistaken by any of his worshippers for that Being whom they\nregarded as supreme, ever invisible, and far removed from immediate\nintercourse and familiarity with mortals. Such a mistake would argue\nthat the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Asiatics, Polynesians, Mexicans, and\nall other pagans, as well as the devotees of Popery, were more senseless\nthan the animals, or even the material forms and figures, before which\nthey bowed themselves down, and presented their gifts and offerings.\n\nBut not to waste words on so plain a matter, let it be illustrated by\nreference to Scripture. The Israelites were so terrified by the thunders\nand lightnings at the giving of the Law, when Jehovah spoke to them\ndirectly, that \"they removed and stood afar off; and they said unto\nMoses: Speak thou with us, and we will hear, but let not Elohim speak\nwith us, lest we die. And Moses said unto the people, Fear not, for\n(the) Elohim has come to prove you, and that his fear may be before\nyour faces, that ye sin not.\" Ex. xx. Moses, referring to this, Deut.\nv., says: \"Jehovah,\" that is, the Messenger Jehovah, \"talked with you\nface to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire, (I stood between\nJehovah and you at that time, to show you the word of Jehovah: for ye\nwere afraid by reason of the fire, and went not up into the mount;)\nsaying, I am Jehovah thy Elohe, which brought thee out of the land of\nEgypt, from the house of bondage. Thou shalt have none other Elohim\nbefore me. Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, nor any likeness\nof any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath,\nor that is in the waters under the earth; thou shalt not bow down\nthyself unto them, nor serve them: For I, Jehovah thy Elohe, am a\njealous El,\" &c. Shortly after this, Moses, Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and\nseventy of the elders of Israel were called up into the mount, and \"they\nsaw the Elohe of Israel.\" Then Aaron and the others returned to the\npeople, except Moses, who was called up into the cloud on the mount, and\nremained there forty days and forty nights. In the meantime, \"the sight\nof the glory of Jehovah was like devouring fire on the top of the mount,\nin the eyes of the children of Israel.\" The appalling terrors of this\nsight, from which they were, at the announcement of the Law, so anxious\nto be relieved, being thus prolonged from week to week, and despairing\nof the return of their chosen interlocutor between Jehovah and them, the\nminds of the people reverted to the image representative of Baal, and\nwith other images and idolized objects familiarly called Elohim, with\nwhich their sojourn in Egypt had made them acquainted: and they said to\nAaron, \"Up, make us Elohim which shall go before us; for as for this\nMoses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not\nwhat is become of him.\" Aaron accordingly made a molten calf, \"and they\nsaid, _This is thy Elohe_, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the\nland of Egypt:\" plainly meaning, This image represents, is a visible\nrepresentative of thy Elohe, and stands between him and us, as Moses,\nthe man that brought us out of Egypt, stood between Jehovah and us at\nthe giving of the Law. They wanted and deemed that they had in this\nmolten image a visible representative of the Elohe of Israel. But no one\ncan suppose that Aaron, after having witnessed the wonders in Egypt, and\nassisted Moses as an instrument of them, and, with the elders, \"seen the\nElohe of Israel\" in the mount, could mistake and ascribe to the brute\nimage the power and prerogatives of that Being; neither did the people\nimagine any thing to that effect. The crime of which they were guilty,\nand for which they were punished, was that of breaking a positive\ncommand; doing what was expressly forbidden; making a graven image;\nworshipping it as a representative emblem of Jehovah, and medium of\ntheir homage of him; placing it _before him_, between them and him, in\nimitation of the Egyptians, who made and worshipped similar images as\nthe immediate, local, visible, familiar objects or media through which\nthey offered their sacrifices and prayers to Baal. There is no\nintimation that they intended on this occasion to ascribe their\ndeliverance from Egypt to Baal. On the contrary, they had witnessed the\nmost amazing demonstrations in the plagues and at the Red Sea, that\ntheir deliverance was effected by the high hand and outstretched arm of\nJehovah, in opposition to that adversary. They were required by\nsacrifices and prayers to worship the Elohe of Israel directly in spirit\nand in truth, conformably to the letter of their ritual, the divine\ndoctrine of mediation, and his relations as the only Mediator between\nthe invisible God and men. The introduction of a representative image or\ndeified object between him and them, and offering burnt offerings in\nthat relation, as Aaron did, was not only wholly inconsistent with the\nnature, theory, and ritual of their religion, and a flagrant act of\ndisobedience; but was calculated to lead them, as it afterwards did, to\nrenounce Jehovah, and turn away to the exclusive worship of Baal through\nthe medium of idols. Against this tendency they were often cautioned and\nwarned; and were commanded to destroy the images and altars of Baal\nwherever they encountered them. They were forbidden to inquire after the\nidol gods, or how the idolatrous nations served them, and were commanded\nto put to death members of their families, false prophets and others who\nshould endeavor to entice them to idolatry, and utterly to destroy those\nwho were enticed, with their families and all their effects. Deut. xii.,\nxiii., &c.\n\nThe first public defection of any of the Israelites, or any considerable\nnumber of them, took place nearly forty years after the Exodus, when, in\ntheir forty-second journey, they entered the plain of Moab, and were\nseduced by the Moabites to attend \"the sacrifices of their gods; and the\npeople did eat, and bowed down to their gods, and Israel joined himself\nunto Baal-peor\"--that is, Baal, as worshipped on the eminence called\nPeor, where the vilest abominations were practised. Twenty-four thousand\nof the people were slain in rebuke of this apostasy. Under the Judges,\nafter the death of Joshua, the children of Israel \"forsook Jehovah, and\nserved Baal and Ashtaroth,\" Judges ii. 3, 6; and again in the reign of\nAhab, who, having married Jezebel, a heathen woman and zealous devotee\nof that idolatry, built a house or temple of Baal in Samaria, erected\nan altar for him, and served and worshipped him.\n\nIn the meantime, however, there continued generally among the Israelites\na restless propensity for such visible and familiar images as were\ncommon in Egypt and other nations, and which, notwithstanding the\nprohibition in the Decalogue, and the wrath incurred for the violation\nunder Aaron, and in the plain of Moab, they seem to have deemed\nconsistent with their religion, provided the worship offered through\nthem was directed to Jehovah and not to Baal. Thus, in the narrative of\nMicah, Judges xvii., it appears that silver which had been dedicated to\nJehovah was wrought into a graven image, not for any purpose of secret\nor heathenish idolatry, but as an instrument to be employed in his daily\ndomestic worship of Jehovah. He accordingly engaged a Levite to\nofficiate as priest, who, on the arrival of a company of Danites in\nsearch of a place to dwell in, made no secret of his occupation. Micah,\non engaging him, said, \"Now know I that Jehovah will do me good, seeing\nI have a Levite to my priest;\" which plainly implies that he professed\nto worship Jehovah, and to expect benefits only from him. An\nillustration to the like effect is furnished in the history of Gideon, a\ntrue worshipper of Jehovah, to whom the Messenger Jehovah appeared, and\nwho, in obedience to his command, destroyed the altar of Baal; and yet,\nafter having been the instrument, with three hundred men, of the\ndestruction of the kings of Midian, and of an army of one hundred and\ntwenty thousand, took of the spoils of gold, and made an ephod and put\nit in his city; an imitation no doubt of that prescribed to Moses, but\nintended, at a distance from the tabernacle, as an instrument of\nworshipping and consulting Jehovah; but which, as naturally as if it\nhad been a graven image, became a snare to him and to the people.\n\nAnother illustration occurs in the history of Jeroboam, late a refugee\nand perhaps idolater in Egypt, who, fearing that if the people of the\nten tribes, and the Levites who dwelt among them, should continue to go\nup to Jerusalem to worship Jehovah in the temple, their hearts would be\nturned from him to Rehoboam as their rightful king, \"made two calves of\ngold, and said unto the people, It is too much for you to go up to\nJerusalem; behold thy Elohe, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the\nland of Egypt. And he set the one in Bethel, and the other put he in\nDan. And this thing became a sin.\" Doubtless the people regarded these\ngraven images in the same light as that made under the direction of\nAaron; for, with the exception of the priests and Levites, they\nacquiesced in the change, though a week before they were ready, as\nsubjects of the legitimate successor of Solomon, to continue in the\nestablished worship of Jehovah in the temple. The priests and Levites\nwere expelled as too closely connected with the service in Jerusalem;\nnew priests were appointed, and the same rites were observed before the\nimages as before Jehovah in the temple. And when Jehu, in his zeal for\nJehovah, slew all the partisans of Baal, he still adhered to the golden\ncalves in Dan and Bethel, as not in his view inconsistent with the true\nworship. 2 Kings x.\n\nIn the same class of acts, in point of turpitude, and in respect to the\napparent intention of the actors and the tendency of their acts, may be\nincluded that of Nadab and Abihu, in \"offering _strange fire_ before\nJehovah, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from\nJehovah and devoured them, and they died before Jehovah;\" and that of\nKorah and his company, who usurped the priests' office and burned\nincense, and were destroyed with their families and fourteen thousand of\ntheir adherents.\n\nThese illustrations show that the worship rendered to images did not\nterminate in them as its object, but referred to an unseen Intelligence\nbeyond them, who was supposed to be cognizant of their circumstances and\ntheir acts, and to be able to protect them and grant their requests. It\nproceeded on the assumption that the visible emblem, the graven image,\nor whatever was selected by individuals or canonized by the priests, and\nworshipped as an idol--the proper signification of which is, a figure,\nlikeness, or representation--was a medium of intercourse with the Being\nworshipped.\n\nThis was the case, not merely with the Israelites in their use of images\nin the real or pretended worship of Jehovah, but equally of the devoted\nworshippers of Baal. A few references out of many which might be made,\nwill show that their prayers and offerings were directed to the unseen\nobject of their homage. Thus, in the formal controversy between Elijah,\nas prophet of Jehovah, and the four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal,\nto demonstrate by fire, to Ahab and the people, which was supreme,\nwhether Jehovah or _the_ Baal was _the_ Elohim to be worshipped and\nobeyed; Elijah proposed that each party should offer a sacrifice of\nanimals, and let it be seen which would be miraculously consumed, and\nsaid: \"Call ye on the name of your Elohe,\"--rendered here and elsewhere\nerroneously _gods_ in the plural, as if there were more than one\nBaal,--\"and I will call on the name of Jehovah; and _the_ Elohim that\nanswereth by fire, let him be the Elohim. And all the people answered\nand said, It is well spoken. And Elijah said unto the prophets of _the_\nBaal, Choose you one bullock for yourselves, and dress it first, for ye\nare many, and call on your Elohe; but put no fire under. And they took\nthe bullock which was given them, and they dressed it, and called on the\nname of _the_ Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O _the_ Baal,\nhear us! But there was no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped\nupon the altar that was made. And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah\nmocked them, and said, Cry aloud, for he is an Elohim; either he is\ntalking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he\nsleepeth, and must be awaked. And they cried aloud, and cut themselves,\nafter their manner, with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out\nupon them. And they prophesied until the time of the offering of the\nevening sacrifice, and there was neither voice, nor any to answer, nor\nany that regarded.\" 1 Kings xviii.\n\nIn this case there does not appear to have been any intervening image or\nidol. The priests called on the name of the absent, invisible Baal, but\nhe answered not. He could not assist them by working a real miracle, and\nunder the circumstances they could not counterfeit one; and with the\napprobation of the people, who saw that they were impostors, they were\nall slain.\n\nThat the real object of their worship was distinct from their images, is\nimplied in their selecting high places for their religious rites, and\nerecting lofty towers for that purpose, where the sun could be earliest\nseen at rising, and where the stars or host of heaven could be most\nadvantageously observed; and in burning their children as sacrifices,\nmaking them pass through the fire to Baal or Moloch. Thus, in the reign\nof Ahaz, 2 Kings xvii., \"They made them molten images, even two calves,\nand made a grove, and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served\nBaal. And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the\nfire.\" Manasseh made his son pass through the fire; and in Josiah's\nreformation he put down the idolatrous priests \"that burned incense unto\nBaal, to the sun [literally, to Baal, the sun] and to the moon, and to\nthe planets, and to all the host of heaven.\" 2 Kings xxiii. Jeremiah\nsays: \"They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons\nwith fire for burnt offerings unto Baal.\" Chap. xix. 5. Again: \"And they\nbuilt the high places of Baal, to cause their sons and their daughters\n_to pass through the fire_ unto Moloch.\" Jer. xxxii. 35. And of Josiah\nit is said, that he defiled Tophet--\"that no man might make his son or\nhis daughter _to pass through the fire_ to Moloch.\" 2 Kings xxiii. 10.\nTheir idea evidently was, that by sacrificing in this way the most\nvalued offering they could make, that of their children, they would pass\nin and through that element to Baal, whose residence was conceived to be\nin the solar orb.\n\nThe term Moloch--variously written Melech, Moloch, Malcom, Milcom--as a\ndesignation, refers to the same being as Baal; the literal import of the\nlatter being the same as that of _the Lord_, as the sun is lord of the\nday; and that of the former, the same as _the king_, as the sun is king\nof the day. The molten images, representative of Moloch, in the heated\nchest or arms of which, children offered in sacrifice were burnt, are\nsomewhat variously described, but generally as having the head of a calf\nand the body of a man, with an opening in the chest, into which, when\nheated from below, the victims were cast alive; and to drown their\ncries, as in the burning of widows in India, under the same general\nnotion, drums were beaten.\n\nIt appears evident from the passages in which they occur in the\nScriptures, that the terms Bel, Baal, and Baalim, are personal\ndesignations of the intelligence worshipped by the Chaldeans, and other\nidolaters, as their god, and by the Israelites in opposition to Jehovah.\nThus, Jer. l. 2: \"Declare ye among the nations, ... Babylon is taken,\nBel is confounded, Merodach is broken in pieces;\" and li. 44: \"I will\npunish Bel in Babylon.... The nations shall not flow together any more\nto him.\" That is, by the destruction of Babylon, Bel, the god of their\nidolatry, is confounded, punishment is inflicted on him; Merodach, the\nchief idol representative of Bel, is broken in pieces.\n\nIn most of the instances in which the same designation is rendered\n_Baal_, it has the article, making the personal reference emphatic.\n\n\"Throw down the altar of _the_ Baal that thy father hath, and out down\nthe grove [statue of wood, or pillar carved statue or image-like] that\nis by it: and build an altar unto Jehovah thy Elohe.... And when the men\nof the city arose in the morning, behold, the altar of _the_ Baal was\neast down, &c.... If he be an Elohim, let _him_ plead for _himself_....\nLet _the_ Baal plead against Gideon, because he hath thrown down _his_\naltar.\" Judges vi. 25, 26, &c.\n\nAhab \"went and served _the_ Baal, and worshipped _him_. And he reared up\nan altar for Baal in the house of _the_ Baal which he had built in\nSamaria.\" 1 Kings xiv. 31, 32.\n\n\"And Elijah said, If Jehovah be _the_ Elohim, follow him: but if _the_\nBaal, then follow him.\" 1 Kings xviii. 21.\n\nSo in the narrative of the destruction of the house, and the prophets,\npriests, and worshippers of _the_ Baal, by Jehu, 2 Kings x. 18-28, the\narticle occurs with the name in the successive verses. And chap. xi.\n18: \"All the people of the land went into the house of _the_ Baal and\nbrake it down; _his_ altars and _his images_ brake they in pieces.\"\n\nIt is manifest from these and other like passages, that while the\nstatues and images of Baal were many and various, in all countries and\nplaces, _the_ Baal, the real object of worship, represented by them, was\none. To him, under another of his designations, that of _Moloch_, human\nvictims offered in sacrifice were supposed to pass through the element\nof fire.\n\nNor does this conclusion appear to be invalidated by the occurrence of\nthe designation in a plural form, rendered Baalim. The usage in this\nrespect seems analogous to that of the word Elohim. In both cases the\narticle is often prefixed; and the reference is to one agent only. Thus,\nJudges viii. 33: \"The children of Israel turned again ... after _the_\nBaalim, and made Baal-berith their Elohim.\" Again, chap. x. 10-16, the\nchildren of Israel said: \"We have forsaken our Elohe, and also served\n_the_ Baalim. And Jehovah said, ... Ye have forsaken me, and served\nother Elohim.... Go and cry unto the Elohim which ye have chosen.... And\nthey put away the strange Elohe from among them, and served Jehovah.\"\n\nThe terms, _Baal-berith_, signify _the god of the covenant_, _i. e._, of\nthe covenant between Baal and his worshippers; as _Melach Berith_, Mal.\niii. 2, signifies _the Messenger of the Covenant_ of grace.\n\nIt is thus presumed to be evident beyond a doubt, that the whole system\nwas based upon a theory and a sense of the necessity of mediation; and\nwhether the earlier or later idolaters, the instructed or the ignorant,\nreferred in their worship to a being beyond or superior to Baal,\nregarding him as created by that superior being, and yet himself as\ncreator of the world, or whether their homage terminated in him, does\nnot affect the question under consideration.\n\nMosheim, in his Commentaries on the three first centuries of the\nChristian era, observes, with respect to the costly and sumptuous\nbuildings of the pagans, called temples, fanes, &c., and dedicated to\nthe worship of their gods, that internally \"they were ornamented with\nimages of the gods, and furnished with altars,\" &c. \"The statues were\nsupposed to be animated by the deities whom they _represented_; for\nthough the worshippers of gods like those above described must, in a\ngreat measure, have turned their backs upon every dictate of reason,\nthey were yet by no means willing to appear so wholly destitute of\ncommon sense as to pay their adoration _to a mere idol of metal_,\n_wood_, _or stone_; but always maintained that the statues, when\nproperly consecrated, were filled with the presence of those divinities\nwhose forms they bore.\" Vol. i. 16.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI.\n\n    Idolatry an imposing and delusive Counterfeit of the Revealed\n    System, in respect to the leading features of its Ritual, and\n    the prerogatives ascribed to the Arch-deceiver--Reference to the\n    Symbols of the Apocalypse.\n\n\nThis antagonist system was, in respect to the attributes and\nprerogatives impiously arrogated by the great Adversary, and in respect\nto the leading features of its ritual, a bold, seductive, and imposing\ncounterfeit of the revealed system taught and practised by Noah and his\ndescendants in the line of Shem.\n\nTo substitute a false appearance, a deceitful imitation, a resembling\ncounterfeit, a cheat, a lie, was as obviously expedient, and even\nnecessary, in such a case, as it is in keeping with the craft and\nsubtlety of Satan to deceive and beguile. He had to entice, allure, and\nimpose on those who knew what the true system was, and by what miracles\nand wonders it had been sanctioned; who witnessed its effects in the\nlives of those who practised it, were familiar with its institutions and\npublic observances; and whose understandings must have been more or less\ninfluenced by its inherent and its hereditary claims, and by its voice\nof encouragement and hope to the righteous, and of alarm and terror to\nthe wicked. Under such circumstances, to resist and counteract the\nsystem divinely prescribed and established, it was necessary to impose\non the understandings of men, as well as to enlist their feelings, give\nscope to their propensities, and gratify their passions. To have called\non them to worship him directly in his true character, without\ndisguise, or to worship him as a being of inferior claims to those of\nJehovah, or by rites and ceremonials less significant and imposing,\nwould not have been likely to secure their homage and allegiance. His\nown undisguised character would have been revolting; an inferior could\nnot protect them against the superior Being; to dispense with public and\nvisible rites and ceremonies would have been to disappoint and resist\ntheir propensities and passions; and no others but such as were already\nin use could be made to maintain a competition with them.\n\nAccordingly, he arrogated the name, power, prerogatives, works,\nrelations and government of Jehovah. He claimed to be god of this world:\nits creator, providential ruler, dispenser of benefits, protector of his\nfollowers, and rightful object of their homage and obedience, in\nopposition to Jehovah. He took the then current name in Babylon of the\nsun, Bel--or, as pointed and commonly rendered, Baal--Lord of Heaven,\nSupreme Ruler, like the sun in the visible heaven; afterwards, with the\nsame import, the Egyptian name of the same object, On, (often rendered\nAven.) Also, Moloch, (Melek,) King; Baal-Zebub, Lord of Hosts--Zebub\nbeing a corruption of Zebaoth, hosts, as in the formula, Jehovah\nZebaoth, Lord of Hosts; and among the Ph[oe]nicians, Baal Samen, Lord of\nHeaven.\n\nHe arrogated the sun as his tabernacle or shekina, and the solar fire\nand light as his element: imitating, we may well believe, in respect to\nthe first of these particulars, what had been exhibited in Eden, and\nfrom time to time prior to the age of Abraham, as it was afterwards, and\nespecially to Moses in Midian, in the pillar of cloud, at the Red Sea,\non Mount Sinai, and in the tabernacle. And in imitation of the\ntabernacle erected by Moses in the wilderness, the partisans of Baal\ncreated the tabernacle of Moloch, _i. e._, Baal under that name. Amos\nv.; Acts vii.\n\nPrideaux, Part I., Book 3, treating of the origin of idolatry, and yet\ndescribing it at an advanced stage, when, in addition to the sun, the\nplanets and stars had been brought into its service, observes: \"That\nthey took upon themselves to address the being whom they worshipped,\"\nand whom he supposes they regarded as the true God, \"by mediators of\ntheir own choosing. And their notion of the sun, moon, and stars being,\nthat they were the tabernacles or habitations of intelligences which\nanimated those orbs, in the same manner as the soul of man animates his\nbody, and were the causes of all their motions; and that those\nintelligence were of a middle nature between God and them; they thought\nthese the properest beings to become the mediators between God and them;\nand, therefore, the planets being the nearest to them of all these\nheavenly bodies, and generally looked on to have the greatest influence\non this world, they made choice of them in the first place for their\n_God's-mediators_, who were to mediate for them with the Supreme God,\nand procure from him the mercies and favors which they prayed for; and\naccordingly they directed divine worship unto them as such. And here\nbegan all the idolatry that hath been practised in the world. They first\nworshipped them _per sacella_, that is, by their _tabernacles_, and\nafterwards by images also. By these _sacella_ or _tabernacles_ they\nmeant the orbs themselves, which they looked on only as the _sacella_ or\n_sacred tabernacles_ in which the intelligences had their habitations.\nAnd therefore, when they paid their devotions to any one of them, they\ndirected their worship towards the planet in which they supposed he\ndwelt. But these orbs, by their rising and setting, being as much under\nthe horizon as above, they were at a loss how to address to them in\ntheir absence. To remedy this, they had recourse to the invention of\nimages, in which, after their consecration, they thought these\nintelligences, or inferior deities, to be as much present by their\ninfluence as in the planets themselves, and that all addresses to them\nwere made as effectually before the one as before the other. And this\nwas the beginning of image worship among them. To these images were\ngiven the names of the planets they represented.... After this, a notion\nobtaining that good men departed had a power with God also to mediate\nand intercede for them, they deified many of those whom they thought to\nbe such; and hence the number of their gods increased, in the idolatrous\ntimes of the world. This religion first began among the _Chaldeans_,\nwhich their knowledge of astronomy helped them to. And from this it was\nthat Abraham separated himself when he came out of _Chaldea_. From the\n_Chaldeans_ it spread itself over all the East, where the professors of\nit had the name of Sabians. From thence it passed into Egypt, and from\nthence to the Grecians, who propagated it to all the western nations of\nthe world; and therefore those who mislike the notion advanced by\nMaimonides, that many of the Jewish laws were made in opposition to the\nidolatrous rites of the Sabians, are much mistaken when they object\nagainst it that the Sabians were an inconsiderable sect, and therefore\nnot likely to be so far regarded in that matter.... Anciently, they were\nall the nations of the world that worshipped God by images. And that\nMaimonides understood the name in this latitude is plain from hence,\nthat he tells us the Sabians whom he spoke of were a sect whose heresy\nhad overspread almost all mankind.... That which hath given them the\ngreatest credit among the people of the East is, that the best of their\nastronomers have been of this sect, as Thebat Ebn Korrah, Albatani, and\nothers; for the stars being the gods they worshipped, they made them the\nchief subject of their studies. These Sabians, in the consecrating of\ntheir images, used many incantations to draw down into them, from the\nstars, those intelligences for whom they erected them, whose power and\ninfluence they held did afterwards dwell in them.\"\n\n\"Directly opposite to these were the Magians, another sect, who had\ntheir original in the same Eastern countries. For they, abominating all\nimages, worshipped God only by fire.\" These, instead of branching off\nfrom the Sabians, doubtless preceded them. \"Their chief doctrine was,\nthat there were two principles: one which was the cause of all good, and\nthe other the cause of all evil: that is to say, God and the Devil. That\nthe former is represented by light and the other by darkness, as their\ntruest symbols, and that of the composition of these two all things in\nthe world are made.... And concerning these two gods there was this\ndifference of opinion among them--that whereas some held both of them to\nhave been from eternity, there were others that contended that the good\nGod only was eternal, and that the other was created. But they both\nagreed in this, that there will be a continual opposition between these\ntwo till the end of the world. That then the good God shall overcome the\nevil god, and that from thenceforward each of them shall have his world\nto himself: that is, the good God his world, with all good men with him,\nand the evil god his world, with all evil men with him. That darkness is\nthe truest symbol of the evil god, and light the truest symbol of the\ngood God: and therefore they always worshipped him before fire, as being\nthe cause of light, and especially before the sun, as being, in their\nopinion, the perfectest fire, and causing the perfectest light. And for\nthis reason, in all their temples, they had fire continually burning on\naltars created in them for that purpose. And before these sacred fires\nthey offered up all their public devotions, as likewise they did all\ntheir private devotions before their private fires in their own houses.\nThus did they pay the highest honor to light, as being in their opinion\nthe truest representative of the good God, but always hated darkness, as\nbeing what they thought the truest representative of the evil god, whom\nthey ever had in the utmost detestation, as we now have the Devil.\"\n\nThe author's account of the origin and nature of idolatry is in most\nparticulars undoubtedly correct. The exceptions, however, are of great\nsignificance. He seems to suppose that the system was contrived and\nadopted by men, without the instigation of Satan, and that their object\nwas the worship of the true God, in opposition to that evil being. But\nthe intelligence whom they called the good God was Satan himself,\nsupposed to be in the sun as his tabernacle, and in fire and light as\nhis element. And as to what they termed the evil god, it was obviously\nnecessary to the success of his system, as a counterfeit of the true,\nthat it should pretend to have a devil and a perpetual antagonism. It\nwas probably as well known then, and perhaps more generally believed\nthan it is now, that there was such an evil being; and that he was and\nwould continue to be utterly opposed to the true God. And a false or\ncounterfeit system, in which the false god was to arrogate the name and\npass himself off for the true God, must provide also an antagonist, a\ncompetitor, a devil; and to carry out the cheat, assign to him darkness\nas his tabernacle, in opposition to light as his own.\n\nIt were superfluous to dwell on the imposing and plausible aspect of the\nscheme in the particulars above referred to, considered as addressed to\nthe depraved hearts, corrupt imaginations, and evil passions of men;\nopposed to the purity, the requirements, and the restraints of the true\nreligion, and willingly the followers and servants of the Evil One.\nWhile it imposed no restraint upon their corruptions, every point in the\ncontrast must have had its effect. It excluded mystery, and appealed\ndirectly to their senses; presenting in the sun an object of homage, not\nonly familiar to their view without causing fear, but apparently the\nbeneficent and constant source of their daily comforts and greatest\nblessings; and by means of fire and light, artificially produced,\nenabling every individual to avail himself of the immediate presence and\nthe beneficial influence and effects of that object, brought thus within\ntheir control, in their dwellings and on their hearths.\n\nThe ritual of worship prescribed the erection of altars, a priesthood,\nvarious offerings besides the sacrifice of animals, prayers, the burning\nof incense, feasts, celebrations, and other counterfeits of the revealed\nsystem. As a counterpart to the sacred oracle and the gift of prophecy,\nthe worshippers of Baal had auguries, divinations, and pretended oracles\nin every country. Their prophets prophesied in the name of Baal. Jer. ii.\n8; xxiii. 13. \"Ahaziah being sick, sent messengers, and said unto them, Go\nand inquire of Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron, whether I shall recover of\nthis disease.\" 2 Kings i. The responses of their oracles, which continued\ntill after the destruction of the first temple and the cessation of true\nprophets, and more or less down to the Advent, when they appear to have\nceased, were studiously contrived so as to admit equally well of different\ninterpretations, and so as not to be interpreted with any confidence till\nafter the event; and in this respect they were just what the great mass of\nlearned interpreters and expositors of the Scripture prophecies have for\nages taken them to be; imputing to them a double sense: to their literal\nlanguage a figurative meaning, to their definite local references a\nsymbolical import, capable only of being guessed at, and in general\nregarding them as enigmas--inspired indeed by Him who is head over all\nthings for the information and preservation of his Church, but not\nintended to be understood, unless by those who survive the events\npredicted.\n\nIt would be easy to show, by tracing the parallel in numberless other and\nmore minute details, that the false system was throughout a parody of the\ntrue; and to illustrate the ceaseless antagonism and rivalship which was\ncarried on, in the face of the universe, by the conflict of the two\nsystems, with their visible agencies, institutions, instrumentalities, and\neffects; occupying, directing and stimulating the attention and the\nenergies, the thoughts and feelings, the hopes and fears, and involving\nthe temporal well-being and the immortal destiny of the whole race:\npresenting a scene which, whether considered in relation to one period or\nanother, the past or the present, Paganism or Romanism, superstition or\nrationalism, can be accounted for, with or without the Bible, upon no\nassumption or theory but that of the enmity and opposition announced and\ncommenced in Eden, which is still in progress and still has a future.\n\nIn the progress of this war, the Devil and his angels, the Prince of\nthe power of the air, with the principalities, powers, and rulers of the\ndarkness of this world under him, has, from policy if not from\nnecessity, kept concealed behind his instruments. But the heads and\nleaders of his visible partisans among men, whether in the abominations\nof heathenism, the enormities of idolatry, the wars and butcheries of\nnations, the tyrannies of government, the horrors of anarchy, the\nimmolation of human victims, the persecution and slaughter of prophets\nand martyrs, or in the no less fatal systems of heresy, false theology,\nand false philosophy, have never scrupled or been backward to do the\nutmost he could wish in furtherance of his object. Many of them, like\nthe Cerinthians, Marcionites, Valentinians, and other prevalent sects in\nthe first ages of Christianity, ascribed to him the works of creation\nand providence; and there were not wanting such as worshipped him by\nname, and others under the designation of the Serpent; and still others\nwho paid the highest honors to Cain, Judas, and similar characters, as\nhis most conspicuous representatives.\n\nThe popular notion of idolatry, under the name of polytheism, as if it\ninvolved the supposition of a plurality of supreme deities, owes its\ninfluence, at least among those who read the English version of the\nScriptures, to the fact that the translators rendered the designations\nof the god of the idolatrous system as plural, though in the Hebrew they\nare written in the singular number. Knowing that there was but one true\nGod, they uniformly rendered Elohim as well as Elohe, when employed with\nreference to that Being, in the singular number; but when employed with\nreference to the rival usurper, the false god, their rendering is\nplural, _gods_; as if the molten images and numberless idols in other\nforms, instead of being all representative of one supposed deity, or\nbeing regarded as mediators, or representatives of mediators between\nthem and him, were themselves so many independent deities. Thus, in\nLaban's remonstrance with Jacob: \"Wherefore hast thou stolen my\n_Elohe_?\" rendered _gods_, and in Jacob's answer: \"With whomsoever thou\nfindest _thy Elohe_,\" rendered _gods_, the meaning plainly is, (though\nthere seems to have been more than one image, teraphim-images, v. 34,)\nthat which represents my Elohe. Gen. xxxi. 30-32. Again, Exod. xx. 1-23:\n\"And Elohim spake all these words: I am Jehovah thy Elohe; thou shall\nhave no other Elohim before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven\nimage. Ye shall not make with me Elohe of silver;\" an Elohe, a god,\nrendered _gods_. \"Neither shall ye make unto you Elohe of gold;\" an\nElohe, a molten image representative of me, rendered _gods._ \"Against\nthe _Elohe_ of Egypt I will execute judgment.\" Exod. xii. 12, rendered,\n\"against all the _gods_ of Egypt,\" &c. \"Thou shalt not bow down to their\nElohe,\" (_Eng. gods._) \"Ye shall serve Jehovah your _Elohe_,\" (_Eng.\nGod._) Exod. xxiii. 24, 25. \"Aaron made it a molten calf: and they said,\nThis is _thy Elohe_, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of\nEgypt.\" Exod. xxxii. 4, rendered, \"_These be thy gods_, O Israel.\"\nUndoubtedly the meaning is: This molten image is a visible token or\nrepresentative of Jehovah thy Elohe--a visible mediator or medium of\nintercourse with thy Elohe, in place of Moses. So Jeroboam, having made\n_two_ such images, two calves of gold, said: \"Behold thy _Elohe_, O\nIsrael, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.\" 2 Kings xii.\n28: rendered, Behold thy _gods_, O Israel. This usage characterizes the\ntranslation.\n\nBesides the absurdity of supposing that the Israelites, with the\nrevelation of the one Supreme Being by which they were distinguished, or\nthat the heathen should admit the notion of a plurality of such beings,\nit is apparent from the nature of the case that the counterfeit of the\ntrue system must originally, in order to its success, have been a\ncounterfeit in this, the first and most essential of all its\nparticulars. The very nature of the antagonism, and the false system of\nmediation by which idolatry was sustained and rendered practically\nsuccessful, required this. Even when Astarte, as Queen of heaven, was\nassociated with Baal, it was only in a subordinate relation, as\nmediatrix, the moon being her shekina, and her office being the\nprototype of that of the Popish Mary; while Baal arrogated the\nprerogatives of Jehovah, and the sun as his shekina.\n\nTo this evil being, among others, the following designations are applied\nin the Hebrew Scriptures: _Serpent_, as in Gen. iii.: \"Jehovah Elohim\nsaid unto the _serpent_, I will put enmity between thee and the woman,\nand between thy seed and her seed.\" Thee, the \"tempter,\" \"the dragon,\nthat old _serpent_ which is the Devil and Satan.\" Rev. xx. \"The great\ndragon, that old _serpent_, called the Devil and Satan, which deceiveth\nthe whole world.\" Rev. xii. The apostle expresses his fear \"lest by any\nmeans\" the false teachers should corrupt his converts, \"as the _serpent_\nbeguiled Eve through his subtlety.\" 2 Cor. xi. The original word, when\nnot employed as a personal designation, is often rendered \"enchantment,\ndivination,\" &c. _Satan_ is commonly rendered _adversary_; but\nfrequently Satan, as a personal designation of the Evil One, where his\nlocal agency is particularly mentioned, as Job i, and ii.; 1 Chron. xxi.\n1; Zech. iii. 1, 2.\n\n\"By collecting all the passages where Satan or the Devil is mentioned,\nit may be observed that he fell from heaven, with all his company; that\nGod cast him down from thence for the punishment of his pride; that by\nhis envy and malice, sin, death, and all other evils came into the\nworld; that by the permission of God he exercises a sort of government\nin the world over his subordinates, over apostate angels like himself;\nthat God makes use of him to prove good men and chastise bad ones; that\nhe is a lying spirit in the mouth of false prophets, seducers, and\nheretics; that it is he or some of his that torment or possess men; that\ninspire them with evil designs, as he did David, when he suggested to\nhim to number his people; to Judas, to betray his Lord and Master, and\nto Ananias and Sapphira, to conceal the price of their field. That he\nroves full of rage, like a roaring lion, to tempt, to betray, to destroy\nus, and to involve us in guilt and wickedness. That his power and malice\nare restrained within certain limits, and controlled by the will of God.\nIn a word, that he is an enemy to God and man, and uses his utmost\nendeavors to rob God of his glory and men of their souls.\" \"Devil--a\nmost wicked angel, the implacable enemy and tempter of the human race.\nHe is called Abaddon in Hebrew, Apollyon in Greek; that is, destroyer,\nRev. ix. 11. Angel of the bottomless pit, Prince of the world, John xii.\n31. Prince of darkness, Ephes. vi. 12. A roaring lion and an adversary,\n1 Pet. v. 8. A sinner from the beginning, 1 John iii. 8. Beelzebub,\nMatt. xii. 24. Accuser, Rev. xii. 10. Belial, 2 Cor. vi. 15. Deceiver,\nRev. xx. 10. Dragon, Rev. xii. 3. Liar, John viii. 44. Leviathan, Isa.\nxxvii. 7. Lucifer, Isa. xiv. 12. Murderer, John viii. 44. Serpent, Isa.\nxxvii. 1. Satan, Job ii. 6. Tormentor, Matt. xviii. 34. The god of this\nworld, 2 Cor. iv. 4. He is compared to a dog, Ps. xxii. 16. Fowls,\nMatt. xiii. 4. A fowler, Ps. xci, 3. Lightning, Luke x. 18. Locusts,\nRev. v. 3. A wolf, John x. 12. An adder, Ps. xci. 13. These names are\ngiven to the Prince of devils. Devil is put for, [1] Idols, Ps. cvi. 37;\n2 Chron. xi. 15. [2] A wicked man, John vi. 70. [3] Persecutor, Rev. ii.\n10.\" Cruden's Concordance, Art. \"Satan and Devil.\"\n\nThis fallen being was expressly worshipped in or through the form of the\n_serpent_, by the ancient Persians, under the name _Ahriman_; by the\nEgyptians, under that of _Typhon_; by the Greeks, under that of\n_Python_; and by the Syrians, Hindoos, Mexicans, and other nations,\nunder different designations.\n\nIn Leviticus xvii. 7, Satan and his angels appear to be referred to\nunder the word _devils_, where the children of Israel are commanded \"to\nsprinkle the blood of animals slain by them on the altar of Jehovah, at\nthe door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and to burn the fat for\na sweet savor unto Jehovah.\" \"And,\" it is added as a reason of the\ncommand, \"they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto _devils_, after\nwhom they have gone a whoring.\" Probably the images before which they\nthus offered sacrifices were those of goats, as the same word is often\nrendered _goats_. Again, 2 Chron. ii. 15, it is said of Jeroboam that\n\"He ordained him priests for the high places, and for the _devils_, and\nfor the calves which he had made.\" This may with propriety be rendered,\n\"and for the devils, _even_ for the calves,\" the representatives of\nSatan which he had made. A different original word is rendered _devils_,\nDeut. xxxii. 17, where it is said that Israel \"forsook God which made\nhim, and lightly esteemed the rock of his salvation. They provoked him\nto jealousy, &c. They sacrificed unto _devils_, not to God; to Elohim\nwhom they knew not.\" The word here translated _devils_ is often\nrendered _spoiler_, _destroyer_, _destruction_, &c. Doubtless the\nreference is to an intelligence beyond any visible image. The same word\noccurs, Ps. cvi. 36, 37: \"They served their idols, which were a snare\nunto them; yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto\n_devils_.\"\n\nSince the existence of the fallen angels and of their prince and leader\nwas known from the beginning; and that he was prince and leader also of\nthe party of the human race which was at enmity with the true\nworshippers of Jehovah; and since they manifested their hostility\nchiefly in their false system of religion, it seems reasonable and even\nnecessary to conclude that they followed and supported their leader in\nhis rivalship, and regarded him, however represented by images, as the\nobject of their worship, in opposition to Jehovah, the object, through\nsacrifices, of the homage of his worshippers. In this view of their\nconduct, it is easy to conceive that their serving and worshipping idols\nshould provoke Jehovah to jealousy. They served and worshipped an\nantagonist, a rival.\n\nLet the reader suppose himself to have been present as a disinterested\nspectator of the condition of the Hebrew Church in Egypt prior to the\nlegation of Moses; to have witnessed their practice of the rites and forms\nof the patriarchal worship, in contrast with the idol worship of the\nEgyptians; to have witnessed instances, like that of Moses, of individuals\n\"choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy\nthe pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the reproach of CHRIST\ngreater riches than the treasures of Egypt;\" to have heard their sighs and\ncries to God by reason of their bondage, and known that \"God heard their\ngroaning, and remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with\nJacob, and looked upon the children of Israel, and had respect unto them;\"\nand that the Messenger Jehovah said, \"I have surely seen the affliction of\nmy people, and have heard their cry by reason of their task-masters; for I\nknow their sorrows, and I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of\nthe Egyptians;\" and further, to have known that they were familiar with\nthe historical facts of the patriarchal history, and of the appearances of\nJehovah in the form and under the designation of man to Abraham and to\nJacob, and often visibly as the Messenger Jehovah; and that altars were\nerected, and sacrifices and prayers were offered to him in that form; and\nthat he was customarily recognized and worshipped in that form, at places\nspecially appropriated by him for that purpose, where he was to be invoked\nand acknowledged as Jehovah the Elohe of Abraham; and he will the more\neasily conceive, in some degree, of the enormity of the insult and\nprovocation offered by the partisans of the rival counterfeit system, in\nerecting altars, offering sacrifices, and bowing themselves down before\nmolten images as representatives of the great antagonist intelligence; or,\nas in the case of Aaron, Micah, Jeroboam and others, as representatives of\nJehovah. If the reader suppose himself to have witnessed the appalling\ndemonstrations against the false system, in the plagues of Egypt, at the\nRed Sea, at Mount Sinai, and in the wilderness, in connection with the\nvisible presence, agency, and glory of the Messiah; or under a vivid\nimpression of the reality and import of these scenes and wonders; to have\nbeen present at those periods and on those occasions when the defection of\nthe Israelites to image and Baal worship was specially marked and signally\npunished, his impression of the nature of the antagonism, and the\nenormity of the provocation and insult, cannot fail to be heightened.\n\nThe apostle Paul, treating (Rom. i.) of the defection of men to\nidolatry, says, \"they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an\nimage made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed\nbeasts, and creeping things:\" meaning, it is presumed, that they\nascribed to the images of those creatures--which they made and served as\nrepresentatives of the created intelligence whom they worshipped--the\nattributes, perfections, and prerogatives which he had conspicuously and\ngloriously manifested in his works of creation and providence. Whether\nthe formation of such images was co\u00ebval with the earliest practice of\nidolatrous rites or not, may be a question. But in the selection of men,\nbirds, and four-footed beasts as models of the forms of the images\nearliest employed in their idolatry, there is ground to presume that\nthey copied or simulated the cherubic figures so familiar to the\nIsraelites under the Levitical economy, and probably to the Church at\nall previous times, as a constituent of the instituted system of\nmanifestation and instruction, from the appearance of the cherubim at\nthe gate of Eden. That primeval appearance demonstrates that they were\nnot borrowed from any institution or example of the idolaters; and in so\ncapital a point as that of instituting representative images in their\nantagonist system, they would be sure to counterfeit, and to pervert\nfrom its office and meaning in the true system, whatever would serve the\npurpose of craft and deception. In respect to \"creeping things,\" they\nhad in the serpent a prototype altogether their own, which, when the\nimages previously mentioned had been adopted, and impiously consecrated\nto idolatry, might easily be brought into use.\n\nPankhurst, under the word Cherubim, in his Hebrew Lexicon, describes no\nless than sixty examples in which heads or other parts resembling the\ncherubic figures are incorporated in the objects of idolatrous homage of\ndifferent heathen nations.\n\nMaimonides, as quoted by Parkhurst, says that the first idolaters\nregarded the heavenly bodies as messengers or mediators of a supreme,\ninfinite, invisible Being. In the worship of those bodies, or rather of\nthe mediating intelligence supposed to reside in them, either because\nthey were often out of sight, or for other reasons, they selected\nrepresentative creatures, chiefly of the species comprised in the\nfour-faced cherubim, but sometimes of other species, and among them of\nthe serpent, and at length of mineral and metallic images of such\ncreatures.\n\nIn a number of the examples cited by Parkhurst, the serpent, or the\nserpent's head, appears conspicuous; and particularly in idol forms\nrepresentative of the sun or Baal. In most of the images, the human form\npredominates; around which the serpent often appears entwined. The\ncherubic wings are indifferently attached to the human and the leading\nanimal forms, and to the serpent. The combinations, especially of heads,\nin these representative images, strikingly suggest that the example of\nthe cherubic faces was perverted to be the basis of the system, and that\nthe serpent, when not exhibited as a distinct and sole object of homage,\nwas foisted in and superadded to the figures which were familiar in the\noriginal system of revealed religion. In most of the complex forms in\nwhich different animals are combined, reference appears to have been had\nto the sun or Baal, _i. e._ to Satan, the supposed mediating\nintelligence resident in the sun.\n\nIn a published account of two \"sculptured images\" disinterred by Mr.\nLayard from the ruins of ancient Nineveh, and forwarded by him to\nWilliams College, Mass., being supposed to have \"been buried in the\nruins of that city not less than twenty-five hundred years,\" and to be\nsamples of the earliest \"idols\" instituted in that capital, the date of\nwhich is supposed to be about one hundred and thirty years after the\ndeluge, the figure of one is described as \"that of _a man with wings and\nan eagle's head and beak_, well proportioned. The two wings, springing\nfrom the back of the shoulders, are gracefully spread.\" The other is a\nfigure simply of a man, seven and a half feet in height. They are\npronounced \"perfect of their kind. The slabs on which they are\nsculptured are dark gypsum, such as are described as lining the walls of\nthe rooms and passages of the ruin, which Layard regards as having\nconstituted at once the temple and palace of the king. One of the slabs\nis seven feet, and the other seven and a half feet high, and they are\neach three feet and two inches wide. The figures are the whole length of\nthe slabs.\"\n\nHere is a manifest, and in all likelihood a surreptitious combination of\ntwo of the figures in the cherubic emblem, which, without some\nprototype, and a prototype already associated with the religion which\nwas to be renounced, perverted, and counterfeited, would not be likely\nto occur, or to be easily brought into use and favor. An existing and\nfamiliar prototype might be copied exactly--as altars, sacrifices,\nincense, and various rites appear to have been--or with some\nmodifications, and yet be readily adopted. In this view it would be\nobvious to argue, that as Jehovah often appeared on earth in the\nsimilitude of man, and thereby taught and virtually anticipated his\nfuture predicted incarnation; and as that form was associated with\nothers in the cherubic emblem, therefore that emblem might be taken as\nrepresentative of the Intelligence to be worshipped, and as teaching the\ndoctrine of his incarnation not merely in the form and nature of man,\nbut also in birds, four-footed beasts, and all other creatures brought\ninto existence by him. Such pantheism undoubtedly resulted. But had the\nfirst forms of images been wholly an original device of the idolaters,\nthey would naturally have selected not complex, but simple ones. They\nwould have copied nature. They would in all probability have selected\nfirst the human form; but they would have taken that as it visibly\nappears, without a mysterious and inexplicable combination of inferior\nnatures with it.\n\nNext, they would very likely select the bird--the eagle--whose flight\ntranscends the clouds, and whose eye endures the blaze of solar light;\nand next, the most docile and most useful, and then the most powerful\nand sagacious quadrupeds; in all instances, as is held by Warburton and\nothers, and is highly probable in itself employing images and pictures\nlong before they idolized the animals themselves.\n\nA progress and an analogy of this kind--notwithstanding that the whole\nsubject of idolatry, its origin, its nature, its rationale, its import\nas an antagonism to the revealed religion, and as involving the reason\nand an intelligible and ample justification of the jealousy, wrath,\nindignation, judgments, retributions, and finally of exterminating\nvengeance against it, has been mystified and misrepresented, under the\nrabbinical and figurative systems formerly adverted to--might be traced,\nand indefinitely illustrated, by reference to the Sphinxes, Centaurs,\nPans, &c., of the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans; the Brahmas, the\nVishnus, the Sivas, and the incarnations and transmigrations of India,\nand the Boodism and Lamaism of the whole Eastern world.\n\nThe notion of local deities, national gods, &c., implied the doctrine of\nincarnation, and was no doubt suggested by the Theophanies of the\npatriarchal history and the Theocracy of the Mosaic, administered by the\nMessenger Jehovah, locally present in the tabernacle in a cloud-like\nform, where he was inquired of in respect to things future, and held\nconverse with Moses, Joshua, and their successors. In imitation, the\ndevotees of Baal conceived of him as present in their temples,\ninhabiting the forms of their idols, and hearing their statements and\nrequests.\n\nThus Moses returned to Jehovah as present in the burning bush, and said,\n\"O Adonai! wherefore,\" &c. Exod. v. 22. \"And David the king came and sat\nbefore Jehovah, [_i. e._, in the tabernacle,] and said,\" &c. 1 Chron.\nxvii. 16.\n\nSo, on the other hand, \"The Philistines took Saul's head and his armor,\nand sent into the land of the Philistines round about, to carry tidings\nunto their idols and to the people. And they put his armor in the house\nof their gods, and fastened his head in the temple of Dagon.\" 1 Chron.\nx. 9, 10.\n\nMr. Layard, in his recent account of \"Nineveh and its Remains,\"\nobserves, that the sculptured walls which he explored continually\nexhibited forms corresponding to the description of the living creatures\nseen in vision by Ezekiel, (chap. i.;) and also what he supposes may\nhave represented the wheel spoken of in that description--the former\nshowing the face of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle; and the latter,\na winged circle or globe, hovering above the head of the king, as an\nemblem of the supreme deity of the Assyrian nation; with a winged\nfigure in the middle, representing the sun. The king, he adds, may, as\nin Egypt, have been regarded as the representative on earth of the\ndeity, of whom the emblem is exhibited as above his head in battle,\nduring his triumphs, and when he celebrates the sacred ceremonies. The\nauthor, who supposes the station of Ezekiel by the river of Chebar to\nhave been in the immediate vicinity of Nineveh, absurdly indicates that,\n\"As the prophet had beheld the Assyrian palaces, with their mysterious\nimages and gorgeous decorations, it is highly probable that, when\nseeking to typify certain Divine attributes and to describe the Divine\nglory, he chose forms that were not only familiar to him, but to the\npeople whom he addressed, captives like himself in the land of Assyria.\nHe chose the four living creatures, with four faces, four wings,\" &c.\nThe forms which the prophet _saw_ in vision assuredly did not depend\nupon his choice; and if they had, he would not have represented the true\nGod by forms borrowed from idolatry. Nor is it likely that the captives\nwere admitted to the palaces of their Assyrian conquerors. These forms,\non the contrary, having been familiar in the patriarchal system of\nrevealed religion, had been simulated by the earliest idolaters.\n\nBut the most comprehensive and striking illustrations of idolatry, as a\nstudied, rival, antagonistic counterfeit of the revealed system and true\nworship, are to be derived from those symbols of the Apocalypse which\nrelate to Antichrist; to the two-horned wild beast and the image--the\ngreat Antagonist, and his Papal agents under that character; to his\narrogation of the attributes, prerogatives, rights, throne, dominion and\nhomage of God the Mediator, assumption of his titles and office, and\nexercise of authority as lawgiver over his people; and from those\nsymbols which relate to the fall and destruction of Great Babylon, and\nthe imprisonment of \"the ancient Serpent, who is the Devil and Satan;\"\nas those symbols are explained and rendered intelligible in \"An\nExposition of the Apocalypse, by David N. Lord;\" a work distinguished by\nits discovery of and adherence to scriptural interpretations of symbols,\nand by its originality in every respect. (See note A at the end.)\n\nThe great fabric of pagan idolatry, as a rival system to the true\nreligion, and a counterfeit Theocracy, combining the civil with the\nreligious administration, was the organism through which the Arch-usurper\ncarried on his rivalship in all the heathen nations down to the age of\nConstantine. Then, to meet the exigences of his case, in opposition to\nChristianity in the Roman Empire, he made the ecclesiastical hierarchies\nin union with the civil government the medium of his rule. When the empire\nwas divided, the eastern from the western portion, leaving the eastern\nunder the dragon sway of preceding ages, he assumed for the western that\nof the wild beast and false prophet--the civil rulers of the ten kingdoms\nand the Papal hierarchy. Under these organizations he has, in both\ndivisions of that empire, continued to exhibit more boldly and arrogantly\neven than in the regions of ancient paganism, his usurpations of the\nDivine prerogatives; warring against the Lamb, corrupting and opposing the\npropagation of the gospel, persecuting and slaughtering the saints; and\nwill continue that career till finally vanquished and imprisoned. The\nissue at the advent of the incarnate Word with the armies of heaven, the\nincarceration of the great Usurper, and the dejection of his followers\ninto the lake of fire, strikingly indicate the nature and purpose of his\nprevious antagonism and rivalship. Prolonged and desperate as his\nrebellion and usurpation had been, extended and arrogant as were his\npretensions and sway as god of this world, the mystery of his iniquity is\nat length terminated by the exercise, through visible agencies, of Divine\npower over his person. (See note B.)\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXII.\n\n    On the question, How it has happened, since the origin of the\n    Nicene Creed, that the Old Testament has been understood to\n    ascribe the Creation, not to the Christ, but to the Father.\n\n\nSince the New Testament distinctly ascribes the work of creation to the\nofficial Person called the Logos and the Christ, and, in harmony with\nthe Old, demonstrates his identity with Jehovah, Elohim, and the\nMessenger Jehovah, it may justly occasion surprise and deserve inquiry,\nhow it has happened that the Old Testament has, both by Jews and\nChristians, so long and so generally been construed, as in our own and\nother modern translations, to ascribe those works, not to Him,\npersonally or officially, but to the Father, or to the Deity\nirrespective of any personal distinctions or official relations.\n\nAs preliminary to this inquiry, it may be observed, that the office\nwhich belonged to him in his delegated character was constituted before\nthe creation of the world. That office included the redemption of his\npeople, who were chosen in him before the creation. His relation to\nthem, therefore, did not commence after the fall, nor after the\ncreation. For his official work includes the work of redemption; and\nsince those to be redeemed were before the creation chosen in him,\nwhatever in his mediatorial person, office and character belongs to him\nas their Redeemer, must have been constituted prior to the work of\ncreation. And since the works of creation and providence had, and\ncontinue to have, an intimate connection with the work of redemption,\nand are in some things identical with that work, we must conclude that\nwhatever belongs officially to his person and character was constituted\nprior to the creation; and that the covenant transaction, in which the\nsecond person of the Trinity was appointed and undertook to be the\nRedeemer, comprised all that appertains to the constitution of his\nperson and office as Mediator; so that thenceforth he was in a capacity\nto act officially in his delegated character as Mediator, as truly and\nperfectly as at any subsequent period. The connection and consistency of\nthe entire plan of creation, providence, and redemption, in its\nrelations to him in the progress of its execution, require this\nconclusion; and hence the particularity and emphasis with which the\napostles, in setting forth his prerogatives as Mediator and Redeemer,\nfor the conviction of those who saw him only as man, assert that he was\nin the beginning--_i. e._, in the delegated official character which\nthey then ascribed to him; that he was before all things; that by him\nall things consist; that in the beginning he laid the foundation of the\nearth, created the heavens and the earth, brought into existence all\ncreatures visible and invisible; that he was in respect to the entire\nsystem the Alpha and Omega, First and Last. Their object required that\nall this should be believed of him in the official person and character\nin which for the suffering of death he appeared incarnate. _It was in no\nrespect to their purpose_ to assert of him that _as Divine_, or in his\n_Divine nature_, he existed prior to the creation, and exercised\ncreative power. The whole question was as to the complex, delegated\nofficial person and character of him who visibly appeared, wrought\nmiracles, and was called Jesus, the Christ. It is with reference to this\nthat they assert his pre\u00ebxistence, ascribe to him the works of creation\nand providence, and declare him to be the only Mediator between God and\nman--the only medium of relations and intercourse between the invisible\nDeity and creatures.\n\nThis is what the apostate, idolatrous and infidel world, in subserviency\nto the great Adversary and his followers, have over opposed. This is the\nquestion to be decided to the full and final conviction of the whole\nuniverse, in the battles described in Rev. xix. and xx.; in the first of\nwhich the Mediator, in the person of Jesus, _clothed with a vesture dipped\nin blood_, and called _The Word of God_, appears in his glory, and\nvanquishes the Arch-enemy and all his adherents; and in the second, fire\nfrom heaven devours his enemies of the human race, and the Devil that\ndeceived them is cast into the lake of fire, to be tormented for ever and\never. Then, every tongue will acknowledge the true character of this\nPersonage. Then will be solved the mystery concerning the creation of all\nthings by Jesus Christ, to the intent that unto the principalities and\npowers in heavenly places might be known by the Church--_i. e._, by the\nredemption of the Church, as comprising substantially all the works of\nprovidence--the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose\nwhich he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord. Ephes. iii.\n\nThe great purpose of the works of creation, providence and redemption\nis, to manifest the Divine perfections to intelligent creatures; so to\ninstruct them in the knowledge of God, and so to display his\nrighteousness and the nature and evil of sin, that they might discern\nthe glorious excellency, holiness, loveliness, amiableness and beauty of\nthe character revealed, and cordially love, obey and enjoy him for ever.\nThis purpose is from the beginning executed by the Mediator, in the\ndelegated character in which he appears at its consummation.\n\nHis office, accordingly, placed him as the medium of all relations and\ncommunications between the invisible Deity and creatures; and his\nofficial undertaking comprised the works of creation, providence, and\nredemption; the manifestation of the Divine perfections; the vindication\nof the Divine prerogatives, laws, and government; the redemption of lost\nmen; the union, confirmation and blessedness of all holy creatures under\nhim as King, and the subjection and punishment of Satan, the fallen\nangels and wicked men.\n\nFrom the nature of intelligent creatures, and their relations to one\nanother and to material objects, the execution of this undertaking\nrequired a course of external and visible facts connected both with his\nand their agency. They were to be instructed both in respect to\nthemselves and to him; and as the visibility of their persons and acts\nwas necessary to their instruction concerning one another, the\nvisibility of his person and acts was necessary on the same account.\n\nIt is evident that the Mediator has, officially, relations to the holy\nangels, not only as their Creator, but in other respects. They are\nrequired to worship him in that character, _i. e._, in the character in\nwhich he came into the world. Heb. i. 6. They are employed in executing\nthe measures of his mediatorial administration. Heb. i. 14. They\nattended his person on the occasion of his advent, his temptation, his\nsufferings and resurrection, and join his people in their songs and\npraises, in view of his final triumph and exaltation.\n\nAs Mediator, he is invested with all power in heaven and earth. All\njudgment is committed to him in that capacity, \"because he is the Son of\nman,\" the official Person; and we must conclude that his official work\ncomprises all Divine operations relating to creatures.\n\nIn the phraseology both of the Old and New Testaments, where God is\nrepresented as acting or speaking, the expression in most cases is such as\nwould occur were there no distinction of persons in the Godhead, unless we\nunderstand, wherever the text does not in terms or in the nature of the\nsubject indicate another reference, that the appellations, Elohim,\nJehovah, Messenger Jehovah, &c., are employed to designate the Mediator,\npersonally and officially. But so understood, he stands forth the external\nrepresentative, the visible image, the outward manifestation, the official\nagent, the messenger of the Father, and as such reveals Him; and by the\nmission and co\u00f6peration of the Holy Spirit in the work of redemption, that\nDivine Person is made known. The entire scheme respecting the creation and\ngovernment of creatures being in the counsels of eternity assigned to the\nsecond Person, as the official agent and messenger delegated and sent of\nthe Father, it appertained to him to make known to creatures all that they\nare to know of the being and perfections of the One God and the\ndistinction of persons in the Godhead.\n\nAccordingly the Deity, without any special indication of personal or\nofficial relations, is often referred to under the terms Jehovah and\nElohim, where the object required only a distinction of divine from\ncreature attributes or agency. In this way, in one class of passages,\nGod is said to do the same things which in another class are expressly\nascribed to the Messenger Jehovah, the Christ, the Word.\n\nBut where a reference is made to any thing in the economy of redemption,\nor any thing involving official acts or relations, official titles are\nintroduced, or a phraseology is employed, by which the intended meaning\nis expressed. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are clearly\ndistinguished, or their personality, relations and agency are indicated\nby the nature of the things recorded, or by the connections in which\nthey occur.\n\nIt is in this view that we understand all those passages in which the\ndivine names and the official titles of the Mediator are interchangeably\napplied to the same Person. In all such cases the things affirmed are in\nother passages affirmed of the Messiah, under titles which exclusively\nbelong to him. He is in this manner announced in the Old Testament as\nJehovah, the Elohe of Abraham, the Creator, &c. The patriarchs and\nprophets knew God, as manifested in him in his delegated, official,\npersonal character. That they were enlightened in respect to the\ninvisible Deity absolutely considered, and in respect to the distinction\nof Persons, is no more to be doubted than that they were enlightened as\nto the great Revealer. The sublime conceptions proper to this subject\nwere undoubtedly so imparted, received, and cherished as to render the\ndoctrine of mediation and of the delegated personal character of the\nMediator an intelligible and practical doctrine. This may be inferred,\nnot only from all that is recorded concerning the religion of the\npatriarchs, the sacrifices, prayers, types and symbols connected with\ntheir worship, but also from the theory of the earliest idolatry, which\nwas a rival system, and was based upon the idea of mediation between a\nsupreme invisible Deity and creatures, and consisted in regarding as\nmediators created intelligences, supposed to reside in the planetary\norbs, and in images or idols as their representatives. It is obvious,\nindeed, from the nature of the case, that where any notion of mediation\nand a Mediator prevailed, and was indicated in the rites and\ninstitutions of worship, there, and, above all, under a system of\nrevealed religion and acceptable worship, an apprehension more or less\ndistinct, enlarged and just of the invisible Deity, of the concealed as\nwell as of the revealed God, must have been entertained.\n\nNevertheless, concerning this subject much was reserved to be taught by\nthe Mediator in his incarnate state, when the distinction of Persons in\nthe Godhead and their official designations could be rendered plain by\nhis visible personal acts, his verbal explanations, and the agency and\ngifts ascribed to the Holy Spirit. This was in accordance with the\nprogress and analogy of revelation in other respects. Besides, we may\nwell believe that there was originally, and during the Mosaic period,\nextreme difficulty in instructing men on those high themes concerning\nthe invisible and spiritual, as may be inferred from the rooted and\nlasting propensity of the Israelites to visible symbols and material\nimages, and from the limited prevalence of the clearer inculcations of\nthe gospel down to the present day. Men did not and do not like to\nretain God in their knowledge.\n\nHence the language of our Saviour in teaching the Divine unity and\nspirituality, and the distinction, offices and relations of the Persons\nof the Godhead. He taught that God is a Spirit, invisible, infinite,\neternal, unchangeable; of himself, that he came out from God; came forth\nfrom the invisible to the visible world; that he should withdraw from\nthe visible to the invisible, so as not to be seen; that he should\nafterwards visibly re\u00e4ppear; that God the Father sent him; that the\npower which he exercised in his miracles was a divine attribute, and\nproved his divinity; that those who witnessed his miracles, witnessed\nthe exercise of the power of the invisible Deity, which was the power of\nthe Father who had sent him, as well as his own; and therefore they saw\nthe Father in the same works in which they saw him; for in respect to\ntheir nature as divine, He and the Father were one.\n\nBut even his disciples did not at first understand his meaning. \"Philip\nsaith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus\nsaith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not\nknown _me_, Philip? He that hath seen _me_ hath seen the Father.\" That\nis, I act officially, exercising the power of the Deity, which is\ndelegated to me by the Father. He who sees in my works a demonstration\nof my personality and divinity, sees at the same time in those works the\nonly outward and visible demonstration that can be made to men of the\npersonality and divinity of the Father. The power which I exercise is\npossessed by me in common with the Father, though personally and\nofficially exercised by me. That power is a divine attribute, and in\nrespect to it as an attribute, I and the Father are one.\n\nTo confirm this instruction, he promises to do for his disciples what\nthey should ask of the Father in his name; and informs them that he\nshould leave them, as to his visible presence, and go the Father, and\nthat he would manifest himself to them by the official personal agency\nof the Holy Spirit, whom the Father would send in his name, to dwell\nwith them, be in them, show them the things which respected himself,\nteach them all things, and bring all things to their remembrance. John\nxiv.\n\nContinuing to instruct them on this subject, in the two next chapters,\nhe says, \"When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into\nall truth. He shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine, and shall\nshow it unto you. At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not\nthat I will pray the Father for you; for the Father himself loveth you,\nbecause ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God. I\ncame forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave\nthe world and go to the Father. A little while, and ye shall not see me;\nand again a little while, and ye shall see me.\" Such was his mode of\nteaching the distinction of Persons in the Godhead--the doctrine of the\nTrinity.\n\nThe apostles were slow to learn these truths concerning the divine\nPersons respectively, and their offices and relations. They expected in\nthe Messiah a temporal deliverer, who should assume the government of\ntheir nation, and continue personally and visibly among them. In certain\nrespects they appear not to have understood his character till after his\nascension, nor till after the Spirit had enlightened and convinced them\nthat the Christ who had been crucified was indeed the Lord of glory,\nJehovah, the Elohe of Abraham, in whom Abraham and David believed unto\njustification. Being at length fully satisfied of this, they testified\nit to the Jews on the day of Pentecost, and subsequently, with\noverwhelming effect; for the people being also convinced and cut to the\nheart, cried, Men and brethren, what shall we do? In their testimony to\nthis end they declared to the Jews that Jesus whom they had crucified\nwas both the Lord (Jehovah) and the Christ; and quoted David as saying\nconcerning him, \"I foresaw Jehovah always before me.\"\n\nSubsequently the apostles, more fully instructed in \"the mystery of\n_God_, and of the _Father_, and of _the Christ_,\" Col. ii., more clearly\ndistinguished the Persons of the Trinity in all that concerned their\nrelations to the work of redemption; though, conformably to the Hebrew\nusage, they often, as the context shows, designated the Mediator under\nthe name of _God_, while they also by that name referred to the Father\nand to the one invisible Deity. Thus, speaking of the Christ, Paul says,\n\"Who is over all, God blessed for ever.\" Rom. ix. 5. Again: \"There is\none God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.\" 1\nTim. ii. 5. And, treating of the economy of grace, and the gifts\nbestowed on the Church by the Redeemer, he says: \"There is one Spirit,\none Lord, one God and Father of all.\" Eph. iv. 4-6. See also the\ndoxologies, and the formulas of grace and peace introductory to the\nEpistles.\n\nThese observations and references may, perhaps, sufficiently show the\noccasion there was for the reiterated statements, at the opening of the\nNew Dispensation, _that no man had seen the Father_, and that he was\ndeclared and made known only by the Son. The Jews, to whom these things\nwere said, were familiar with the Scriptures which record the visible\nappearances of Jehovah, the Elohe of Abraham. The first thing, as has\nbeen observed, that was necessary, on his appearance in human nature,\nwas to convince those who had seen and heard him that he was the same\npersonally and officially as He who appeared to and conversed and\ncovenanted with the patriarchs, and dwelt with the Church in the\nwilderness and in the first temple. He was accordingly from the first,\nby inspired direction, designated by names of the same import as the\nJehovah and Immanuel of the earlier dispensation; and he himself\nappealed to the ancient Scriptures, as testifying of him. The apostles\nreferred to him as the Jehovah of the Old Testament; and Stephen says,\nthat Moses \"was in the Church in the wilderness, with _The Messenger_\nwho spoke to him in mount Sinai.\" Acts vii.\n\nThe Shekina, and all visible Divine appearances, having long been\ndiscontinued, the Jews seem not to have expected any recurrence of the\nlike, or of analogous interpositions. Their religion consisted in a\nformal observance of rites and traditions, and a blind reliance on their\nbeing descendants of Abraham; and in the Messiah, whom they desired and\nexpected, they looked only for a human chieftain, a temporal deliverer\nfrom the Roman yoke. Their notions of the Divine Being, the invisible\nDeity, do not appear to have differed essentially from those common to\ntheir descendants ever since. They appear, indeed, to have degenerated\nso far from the ancients, as to have retained no ideas of a distinction\nof Persons in the Godhead. When they spoke of God as their Father, they\nhad reference only to the invisible Deity as their Creator. They were\nalike destitute of the faith of Abraham and of all correct knowledge of\nJehovah, the promised Seed, the Messenger, the personal Word. The\ncommon people were as sheep without a shepherd, and their teachers as\nblind leaders of the blind. \"We all, says Trypho, expect a Messiah to be\nborn, that will be man _of man_.\" Brown's Justin Martyr, section 49.\n\nEvidences to almost any extent might be easily adduced to show that the\nJews of our Saviour's time had generally, as a people, lost or perverted\nby their traditions the knowledge which their ancient predecessors\npossessed, were blind to the meaning of their own Scriptures, and were\nplunged in gross and inveterate errors.\n\nTheir errors soon began to be widely propagated by Judaizing teachers of\nChristianity, and by Gentile heretics; and with respect to the teachings\nof the Old Testament concerning the Creator, the Messiah, mediation, the\nUnity, Trinity, and other subjects, became at an early period\nextensively prevalent. The Gnosticism which, under Cerinthus and others,\nassailed the Jewish converts in the apostles' days, and was propagated\nduring that and several succeeding ages, under many leaders, and with\nvarious modifications, was a compound of Oriental philosophy and\nJudaizing infidelity. To that, in its original form, succeeded, in the\nsecond century, the modifications of the Asiatic and Egyptian sects, and\nthe heresies of the Monarchins, or Patripassians; the sects of\nTheodotus, Artemon, Hermogenes and others; in the third, the Manich\u00e6ans,\nthe Sabellians, and the followers of Paul of Samosata; and in the\nfourth, the Arians, Semiarians, Pelagians, and others, which, with an\noccasional change of name, have come down to the present day, and\nconstitute, in relation to the leading doctrines and object of the Holy\nScriptures, one comprehensive heresy, of which the cardinal feature is\na denial or derogation of what belongs to the official Person,\ncharacter, and works of the Mediator. In the controversies to which\nthose heresies gave occasion, owing to the nature of the questions which\nwere discussed, the character and objects of the parties brought into\nconflict, the want of familiarity with the theology of the Hebrew\nScriptures on the part of the orthodox, Gentile controvertists; owing to\nthese and the like causes, the ascription, common in the patriarchal,\nMosaic, and prophetic history, and in the first period of Christianity,\nof all the works of creation and providence to the official mediatorial\nPerson, was gradually discontinued, and at length wholly dropped, even\nby those who believed in his divinity.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIII.\n\n    Continuation of the subject of the foregoing Chapter--Reference\n    to the Heresies, respecting the Creator, of the three first and\n    ensuing centuries.\n\n\nThe heresy of the Gnostic philosophers, like that of the geologists of\nthe present day, had to do with the question of a creator and creation\nas its starting theme. \"They boasted,\" says Mosheim, \"of being able to\nrestore mankind to the knowledge of the true and supreme Being, [_i.\ne._, the Deity, as superior to the evil being, regarded by them as\ncreator,] which had been lost in the world, and foretold the approaching\ndefeat of the _evil principle_, _i. e._, the Devil, to whom they\nattributed _the creation_ of this globe.\" Their Unitarianism, like that\nof later times, could tolerate the notion of _divine creatures_, a\n_created creator_; but they could not allow that such a world as this\nwas or could have been created by the true Supreme Being.\n\n\"The Gnostic doctrine,\" adds the author above quoted, \"concerning the\ncreation of the world by one or more inferior beings of an evil, or at\nleast an imperfect nature, led that sect to deny the divine authority of\nthe books of the Old Testament, whose accounts of the origin of things\nso palpably contradicted this idle fiction. Through a frantic aversion\nto those books, they lavished their encomiums upon the _Serpent_, the\nfirst author of sin, and held in veneration some of the most impious and\nprofligate persons of whom mention is made in sacred history.\"\n\nThose boasters furnished a notable example for all pretenders to\nphilosophy and rationalism in religion, who take reason for their guide,\nand deem it competent to determine what it is proper for the Supreme\nBeing to do; who or what kind of being it is most proper should be the\ncreator of such a world as this; at what time, in what manner, of what\nmaterials, and for what ends the world should be created; and whether\nthe Mosaic record should be wholly rejected, or only so far as this\nsubject, that of miracles, inspiration, the universality of the Deluge,\nthe doctrine of vicarious atonement, and a few others, are concerned.\n\nThe controlling influence to which the heretics and theorists of the\nfirst centuries were manifestly subject, was that of their philosophy.\nAssuming that their philosophical dogmas were true and founded in the\nnature of things, they argued, as do our modern geologists, from their\nassumptions, that the Scriptures must be consistent with them; and since\nthey were not taught in Scripture, nor consistent with the apparent\nimport of the language of Scripture, they found it necessary to imagine\nan occult, allegorical, tropical, or spiritual meaning, couched under\nthe forms of the natural language. Thus Origen held \"that, under cover\nof the words, phrases, images, and narratives of the Scriptures, the\nHoly Spirit had concealed the internal reasons and grounds of things;\nthat in the body of Holy Writ [so he denominates the _proper sense_ of\nthe words] there was a _soul_, [a recondite sense,] and that this soul\nexhibits, to careful contemplators of it, as it were in a mirror, the\ncauses, connections, and dependences of both human and Divine wisdom.\"\nMurdock's Commentaries of Mosheim, II. 156, 165. He took up \"the ancient\ndoctrine of the Pharisees and Essenees, that of a double sense in Holy\nScripture;\" and to confirm his philosophical notions by the authority of\nthe sacred oracles, by \"bending the sense of Scripture to suit his\npurpose, eliminated from the Bible whatever was repugnant to his\nfavorite opinions.\" Ibid. 165.\n\n\"It is very certain that the Jews, and among them the Pharisees\nespecially, and Essenees, before the birth of our Saviour, believed that\nin the language of the Bible, besides the sense which is obvious to the\nreader, there is another more remote and recondite, concealed under the\nwords of Scripture.\" Murdock's Commentaries of Mosheim, II. 166.\n\nEssene es account of the doctrines of Cerinthus, a Gnostic Jew, who,\nabout the close of the first century, appeared as the leader of those\nwho sought to merge Christianity in Judaism, indicates the confusion and\nuncertainty which then, probably to a great extent, perplexed the minds\nof the Jewish and Gentile proselytes to the Christian faith. \"He taught\nthat the Creator of this world, whom he considered also as the sovereign\nand lawgiver of the Jewish people, was _a being_ endowed with the\ngreatest virtues, and derived _his birth_ from the _Supreme God;_ [thus\nconceding that the Jehovah of the Old Testament was the same as the\nChrist;] that this being fell, by degrees, from his native virtue, and\nhis primitive dignity; [referring, no doubt, to the withdrawment of the\nMessenger Jehovah, the Creator, with the visible Shekina, from the\ntemple, and his apparent abandonment of the Jewish people, as they\nthemselves considered;] that the Supreme God, in consequence of this,\ndetermined to destroy his empire, [meaning, probably, that as he no\nlonger appeared as the protector of the Jews, but rather as their\nenemy, he was to be superseded,] and sent upon earth for this purpose\none of the ever-happy and glorious _\u00e6ons_, whose name was Christ; that\nthis Christ chose for his habitation [alluding to the doctrine, then\nextensively prevalent, of the metempsychosis, or transmigration of one\nbeing into another] the person of Jesus, a man of the most illustrious\nsanctity and justice, the son of Joseph and Mary, and descending in the\nform of a _dove_, entered into him while he was receiving the baptism of\nJohn in the waters of Jordan; that Jesus, after his union with Christ,\nopposed himself with vigor to the _God of the Jews_, [_i. e._, He whom\nthe Jews originally worshipped as their Creator and Lawgiver, the Angel\nJehovah, now fallen,] and was, by his instigation, seized and crucified\nby the Hebrew chiefs; that when Jesus was taken captive, [_i. e._, by\nthe instigation of Jehovah the Creator,] Christ ascended upon high, so\nthat the man Jesus alone was subjected to the pains of an ignominious\ndeath. Cerinthus required of his followers that they should worship the\nFather of Christ, even the _Supreme God_, in conjunction with the Son;\n[_i. e._, the _\u00e6on_ whom he calls Christ;] that they should abandon the\nLawgiver of the Jews, whom he [from his knowledge of the Hebrew\nScriptures, or of the Chaldee paraphrases] looked upon _as the Creator\nof the world_; that they should retain a part of the law given by Moses,\nbut should, nevertheless, employ their principal attention and care to\nregulate their lives by the precepts of Christ,\" [_i. e._, the glorious\n_\u00e6on_.] To encourage them to this, \"he promised the resurrection of the\nbody;\" [_i. e._, though he denied the death, and therefore the\nresurrection of Christ, he held to that of man at the second coming;]\nand held \"that Christ will one day return upon earth, and, renewing his\nformer union with the man Jesus, [_i. e._, by then raising him from the\ndead,] will reign with his people in the land of Palestine during a\nthousand years.\" Cent. I. part 2, chap. 5, sec. 16. There can be no\nmistake as to the source of what is correct in this creed, nor as to the\nstate of mind in which its stupendous errors were conceived and\npropagated.\n\nMarcion, Basilides, and others among the Gnostic leaders of the\n_Asiatic_ and _Egyptian_ sects in the second century, held, in respect\nto a creator and creation, sentiments very similar to those of\nCerinthus. The Valentinians, a very numerous sect, were taught by\nValentine their chief, as is recorded in Mosheim, \"_That the Creator of\nthis world_,\" whom, in common with most of the heretics of that period,\nhe took to be a creature, \"_came by degrees to imagine himself to be God\nalone_, or, at least, to desire that mankind should consider him as\nsuch.\" He therefore \"sent forth prophets to the Jewish nation, to\ndeclare his claim to the honor that is due to the Supreme Being.\" The\nPatripassians asserted the unity of God in such a manner as to exclude\nall distinction of Persons; and in this respect they were imitated by\nthe Sabellians of the ensuing century.\n\nThe leading features of nearly all the heresies of the first three\ncenturies, especially those which were widely diffused and long\nperpetuated, whether invented by minds imbued by the Oriental philosophy\nor with hereditary Jewish opinions and prejudices related to the Creator\nand the works of creation. The best of them were in that particular, for\nsubstance, like the heresy of Arius in the fourth century, who taught\n\"that the Son was the _first_ and _noblest_ of these beings, whom God the\n_Father_ had created out of nothing, and was the instrument by whose\nsubordinate operation the universe was made.\" The Council of Nice,\nconvened in 325 to suppress this heresy, appears scarcely to have checked\nits progress; and during the protracted discussions and contests which\nensued, and which agitated both the eastern and western divisions of the\nChurch, there is probably no single instance of a simple scriptural\nstatement respecting the Trinity, and the Person and work of the Mediator,\nexcept in the case of such as dissented and seceded from the Established\nChurch, and were persecuted by all parties in that Church. The attention\nof those whom the Councils called orthodox, in distinction from heretics,\nwas absorbed by attempts to explain the inexplicable questions in\ncontroversy. They sought in this way to answer and confound their\nopponents. The heretics nowhere in these controversies bring into view\nanything scriptural, anything better than Paganism, with respect to a\nMediator; nor could they, consistently with the nature of the dogmas and\nopinions which they contended for.\n\nThe disciples of the reformed Magianism of Zoroaster ascribed the\ncreation to the one supreme, invisible Deity, who was to be worshipped\ndirectly, not through images, nor through a Mediator, nor any\nintermediate agencies.\n\nThe Gentile Gnostics, in distinction from Cerinthus and other Judaizers,\nin their attempts to subordinate Christianity to their system--which\ntaught that all evil resided in and proceeded from matter, and therefore\nthat the world could not have been created by a good being--ascribed the\ncreation to a created evil being, the evil principle, Satan. They\ntherefore rejected the Old Testament as irreconcilable with this system.\nPrior to the Advent, they worshipped Satan as creator, and as having\nchief control in the whole course of things in the world, and being an\nover-match for the antagonist, good principle: and honoring him in this\nway, they held Cain, and his other most conspicuous followers and\nsupporters, in the highest veneration. Yearning for some relief from the\nunmitigated and intolerable miseries which they suffered in their\nwarfare with their bodies, which, as matter, they deemed the seat of\ncorruption, they hailed the appearance of the good principle in\nChristianity, supported as it was by demonstrations of resistless power,\nas likely to defeat the antagonist evil principle, the Devil, to whom\nthey still ascribed the creation of the world. Instead of longer\nworshipping him, therefore, they now taught _that the Supreme Deity, the\nCreator of the Devil, was to be worshipped. This was the doctrine which\nundoubtedly had been lost to all idolaters, and which they now promised\nto restore_.\n\nCerinthus, in his attempts to combine Gnosticism and Christianity with\nJudaism and the Hebrew Scriptures, as he understood them, maintains, not\nthat the world was created by the supreme, invisible Deity, for he did\nnot so understand those writings, but that the Being to whom Moses\nascribes the creation and government of the world (and whom he calls\nJehovah) was a derived, begotten, created being, and therefore liable to\ndegenerate; that though originally endowed with the greatest virtues, he\nfell; (he had forsaken the Jews, and they had renounced him;) that his\nCreator, the Supreme Deity, had therefore determined to destroy his\nempire, (the dominion and rule which he exercised, prior to his quitting\nthe temple, and also after becoming, in their opinion, the enemy of the\nJews;) that the Christ, so far from being the same person, Son of the\nSupreme Deity, and Creator, was a wholly different being in all\nrespects, a created being, sent expressly to supersede and destroy the\nCreator and Jewish lawgiver; that, taking possession of the person of\nJesus, he set himself vigorously to oppose Jehovah the Creator, who, in\nself-defense, contrived to induce the Jews to crucify the man Jesus, the\nChrist in the mean time having forsaken him. Accordingly, he taught his\nfollowers that they \"should abandon the Lawgiver of the Jews, whom he\nlooked upon as the Creator of the world,\" _i. e._, the Jehovah of the\nOld Testament; and that they should worship the Supreme Deity as the\nFather of the \u00c6on whom he called Christ, in conjunction with that\nChrist, or \u00c6on, assuming him to be the same with him whom the Christians\ncalled the Christ and the Son; conformably to his notion that Christ,\nhaving entered the man Jesus at his baptism, withdrew from him before\nhis death. He denied his resurrection, and was, very probably, a\ndisciple of the false teacher referred to and refuted in Paul's\nargument, 1 Cor. xv.\n\nTo show that the Oriental philosophy, which comprehended the leading\nprinciples of the false, in opposition to the revealed system of\nreligion, and that the early heresies, which, being founded on the\nOriental philosophy, passed under the imposing title of Gnosticism,\nascribed the creation and government of the world to Satan, the\nfollowing quotations are made from Mosheim's Commentaries, Cent. I.,\nsec. 60, 61:\n\n\"By none of its adversaries or corrupters was Christianity, from its\nfirst rise, more seriously injured; by none was the Church more\ngrievously lacerated, and rendered less attractive to the people, than\nby those who were for making the religion of Christ accommodate itself\nto the principles of the Oriental philosophy respecting the Deity, the\norigin of the world, the nature of matter and the human soul. We allude\nto those who, from their pretending that they were able to communicate\nto mankind, at present held in bondage by the Architect of the world, a\ncorrect knowledge (_gnosis_) of the true and ever-living God, were\ncommonly styled Gnostics. Intoxicated with a fondness for these\nopinions, not a few of the Christians were induced to secede from all\nassociation with the advocates for the sound doctrine, and to form\nthemselves into various sects, which, as time advanced, became daily\nmore extensive and numerous, and were for several ages productive of\nvery serious inconveniences and evils to the Christian commonwealth....\nIt is by no means difficult to point out the way in which these people\ncontrived to make the religion of Christ appear to be altogether in\nunison with their favorite system of discipline. All the philosophers of\nthe East, whose tenets, as we have seen, were, that the Deity had\nnothing at all to do with matter, the nature and qualities of which they\nconsidered to be malignant and poisonous; that the body was held in\nsubjection by a being entirely distinct from Him to whom the dominion\nover the rational soul belonged; that the world, and all terrestrial\nbodies, were not the work of the Supreme Being, the Author of all good,\nbut were formed out of matter by a nature either evil in its origin, or\nthat had fallen into a state of depravity; and lastly, that the\nknowledge of the true Deity had become extinct, and that the whole race\nof mankind, instead of worshipping the Father of Light and Life, and\nsource of every thing good, universally paid their homage to the Founder\nand Prince of this nether world, or to his substitutes and agents: I say\nall these looked forward with earnest expectation for the arrival of an\nextraordinary and eminently powerful Messenger of the Most High, who,\nthey imagined, would deliver the captive souls of men from the bondage\nof the flesh, and rescue them from the dominion of those genii by whom\nthey supposed the world and all matter to be governed; at the same time\ncommunicating to them a correct knowledge of their everlasting Parent,\nso as to enable them, upon the dissolution of the body, once more to\nregain their long-lost liberty and happiness. An expectation of this\nkind even continues to be cherished by their descendants of the present\nday. Some of these philosophers, then, being struck with astonishment at\nthe magnitude and splendor of the miracles wrought by Christ and his\napostles, and perceiving that it was the object of our Lord's ministry\nboth to abrogate the Jewish law--a law which they conceived to have been\npromulgated by the Architect or Founder of the world himself, or by the\nchief of his agents--and also to overthrow those gods of the nations\nwhom they regarded as genii, placed over mankind by the same evil\nspirit; hearing him, moreover, invite the whole world to join in the\nworship of the one Omnipotent and only true God, and profess that he\ncame down from heaven for the purpose of redeeming the souls of men, and\nrestoring them to liberty, were induced to believe that he was that very\nMessenger for whom they looked, the Person ordained by the Everlasting\nFather, to destroy the dominion of the founder of this world as well as\nof the genii who presided over it; to separate light from darkness, and\nto deliver the souls of men from that bondage to which they were\nsubjected, in consequence of their connection with material bodies. To\nvarious articles propounded in the Christian code as essential points of\nbelief, they utterly refused their assent: such, for instance, as that\nwhich attributes the creation of the world to the Supreme Being, and\nthose respecting the divine origin of the Mosaic law, the authority of\nthe Old Testament, the character of human nature, and the like: for it\nwould have amounted to nothing short of an absolute surrender of the\nleading maxims of the system to which they were devoted, had they not\npersisted in maintaining that the creator of this world was a being of a\nnature vastly inferior to the Supreme Deity, the Father of our Lord, and\nthat the law of Moses was not dictated by the Almighty, but by this same\ninferior being, by whom also the bodies of men were formed and united to\nsouls of ethereal mould, and under whose influence the various penmen of\nthe Old Testament composed whatever they have left us on record.\" Again,\n\"according to the Gnostic scheme, an absolute and entire dominion over\nthe human race, and the globe we inhabit, is exercised by the founder of\nthe material world, a being of unbounded pride and ambition, who makes\nuse of every means in his power to prevent mankind from attaining to any\nknowledge of the true God.\"\n\nIt is too plain to require a comment, that the fallen creature to whom,\nin this religious system, the creation of the world is ascribed, and to\nwhom the nations universally paid their homage, was Satan; and that the\ngenii, his subordinates, were the angels who fell with him. On the other\nhand, the Divine Messenger expected as the antagonist and conqueror of\nSatan, could be no other than the Messenger Jehovah, appointed and sent\nby the Everlasting Father.\n\nMosheim, in his Commentaries, Introduction, chap. 2, observes, that the\nJewish religion, at the time of our Saviour's appearance, \"was\ncontaminated by errors of the most flagrant kind; even in the service\nof the temple itself, numerous ceremonies and observances, drawn from\nthe religious worship of heathen nations, had been introduced and\nblended with those of Divine institution; and in addition to\nsuperstitions like these of a public nature, many erroneous principles,\nprobably either brought from Babylon and Chaldea by the ancestors of the\npeople at their return from captivity, or adopted by the thoughtless\nmultitude in conformity to the example of their neighbors the Greeks,\nthe Syrians, and the Egyptians, were cherished and acted upon in\nprivate.\"\n\nAgain, \"To the prince of darkness, with his associates and agents, they\nattributed an influence over the world and mankind of the most extensive\nnature; so predominant, indeed, as scarcely to leave a superior degree\nof power even with the Deity himself.\"\n\n\"At the time of Christ's appearance, many of the Jews had imbibed the\nprinciples of the Oriental philosophy respecting the origin of the\nworld, and were much addicted to the study of a recondite sort of\nlearning derived from thence, to which they gave the name of _Cabbala_.\nThe founders of several of the Gnostic sects, all of whom, we know, were\nstudious to make the Christian religion accommodate itself to the\nprinciples of the ancient Oriental philosophy, _had been originally\nJews_, and exhibited in their tenets a strange mixture of the doctrines\nof Moses, Christ, and Zoroaster. This is of itself sufficient to prove\nthat many of the Jews were in no small degree attached to the opinions\nof the ancient Persians and Chaldeans. Such of them as had adopted these\nirrational principles would not admit that the world was created by God,\nbut substituted, in the place of the Deity, _a celestial genius_\nendowed with vast powers; from whom, also, they maintained that Moses\nhad his commission, and the Jewish law its origin. To the coming of the\nMessiah, or deliverer, promised by God to their fathers, they looked\nforward with hope, expecting that he would put an end to the dominion of\nthe being whom they thus regarded as the maker and ruler of the world.\"\nMosheim, Int., Com., chap. 2.\n\nIt would be alike tedious and useless much further to multiply citations\nfrom the history of Gnostic and other Oriental writers, to show that the\nnations represented by those writers regarded Satan as the creator of\nthe world and god of their idolatry.\n\n\"Beyond that vast expanse, refulgent with everlasting light, which was\nconsidered as the immediate habitation of the Deity and those natures\nwhich had been generated from him, these philosophers placed the seat of\nmatter, where, according to them, it had lain from all eternity, a rude,\nundigested, opaque mass, agitated by turbulent, irregular motions of its\nown provoking, and nurturing, as in a seed-bed, the rudiments of vice\nand every species of evil. In this state it was found by a genius or\ncelestial spirit of the higher order, who had been either driven from\nthe abode of the Deity for some offense, or commissioned by him for the\npurpose, _and who reduced it into order, and gave it that arrangement\nand fashion which the universe now wears_. Those who spoke the Greek\ntongue were accustomed to refer to this _creator of the world_ by the\nname of _Demiurgus_. Matter received its inhabitants, both men and other\nanimals, from the same hand that had given to it disposition and\nsymmetry.... When all things were thus completed, Demiurgus, _revolting_\nagainst the great First Cause of every thing, the all-wise and\nomnipotent God, _assumed to himself the exclusive government of this\nnew state_, which he apportioned out into provinces or districts;\nbestowing the administration and command over them on a number of genii\nor spirits of inferior degree, who had been his associates and\nassistants.\" Mosheim, Intro., sec. 34.\n\n\"In the following respects, they [the Gnostic sects] appear to have been\nall of one mind; namely, that in addition to the Deity, _matter_, the\nroot and cause of every thing evil and depraved, had existed from all\neternity, that this corrupt matter had not been reduced into order by\nthe Supreme and all-benevolent Deity, but by a nature of a far inferior\nrank; that the founder of the world, therefore, and the Deity, were\nbeings between whom no sort of relationship whatever existed.\" Ibid.,\n1., sec. 65.\n\nThese representations of the sentiments of the Orientals may suffice to\nshow that the Arch-apostate claimed to be the creator and prince of this\nworld, and led his followers to adopt that usurped and impious claim as\na primary article of their faith, and to worship and serve him\naccordingly. Nor does it otherwise seem possible to account for the\norigin and adoption, at a very early period, of the doctrine of two\nantagonist principles or powers, one as the creator of the world and\nauthor of all evil, the other as an ineffectually counteracting agent of\ngood.\n\nDivested of Eastern figure, and of bias from Western notions of\nmythology and polytheism, the Oriental doctrine plainly exhibits Satan\nas the creator and ruler of this world, and, on that ground, as exacting\nthe homage of its population. This primary arrogation on his part is the\nground of all idolatry, and of the great heresies of Gnostic and Popish\norigin. Accordingly, the great antagonism which, since the fall, has\nbeen in progress in the view of the whole universe, and of which the\ntermination is to fill the hosts of heaven with adoring and rapturous\necstacy, and the ransomed Church with ceaseless exultation and praise,\nexhibits the great Adversary as chief of a rebel faction of his own\nspecies, instigating the original revolt, and ruling as his vassals the\nrace of man, arrogating the titles and prerogatives of the Creator and\nSovereign of the world, and persisting in his rebellion, usurpation, and\nrivalship, till finally vanquished and imprisoned, his purposes\ndefeated, and his works destroyed; and at length displays, on the other\nhand, the majesty and power, the titles, prerogatives, and rights, the\nsupremacy, rectitude and glory of the self-existent Creator, Proprietor\nand rightful Sovereign, effectually re\u00e4sserted, vindicated, and\nuniversally acknowledged.\n\nIn these earliest and most prevalent systems of heresy are contained the\nperversions and false doctrines against which the contemporaries and the\nimmediate and later orthodox successors of the apostles were called to\ncontend; and they present in bold relief the points brought into\ncontroversy, as they are indicated in the creeds and decrees of Councils\nspecially convened to condemn and suppress them.\n\nTo meet the doctrine advanced by the earliest and adopted by the later\nheretics, that the creation and government of the world was the work of\na creature, supposed by some to be the Evil One; by others, a being\noriginally good, but afterwards degenerate; by some, to be one of two\nrival creatures; by others, to have derived his birth from the Supreme\nGod; they, rejecting with abhorrence such ideas of the Creator, and all\nthe notions associated with them, and impelled by their philosophy, as\nwell as by their knowledge and regard for the Scriptures, to assert in\nthe plainest manner that the Creator of all things is himself\nuncreated--God, in distinction from creatures--planted themselves upon\nthat as an impregnable position.\n\nBut they had at the same time to maintain the doctrines of the Trinity\nand the Divinity of Christ. They were to assert the Deity of Christ,\nwhom the heretics held to be a creature, and yet ascribed to him the\nworks of creation. It is at least natural to suppose that, to avoid\ngiving the heretics any advantage in popular argument, and to use\nexpressions importing the broadest contrast to theirs, they at first\nascribed the creation to God, without any reference to the distinction\nof Persons in the Godhead; or, to maintain that doctrine at the same\ntime, and to meet the point in question as to the Deity of the Creator,\nthey ascribed the works of creation and providence to God the Father.\nWhatever may have been the process, this was the result. It is not\nunlikely that, at the date of the Apostles' and the Nicene Creeds, there\nwere many who at length joined in adopting them, who from ignorance, or\nfrom the sway of heretical influences, were greatly confused upon these\nsubjects; many, more or less perverted by Gnostic and Judaizing dogmas;\nmany who saw no possibility of maintaining the doctrines which they held\nconcerning the Father, as the Father of Christ the Son by _eternal\ngeneration_, and as the fountain of all authority and power, without\nspecifically ascribing to him the works of creation and providence; many\nwho, relying on the doctrine of the _eternal_ generation of the Son, as\nthe most conclusive and unanswerable proof of his Divinity, confined\ntheir attention to that, and saw no possibility of meeting and\ncounteracting the dogmas of Cerinthus, or of other heretics, if they\nascribed the creation to the Son.\n\nIt must be considered that the terms which they employed were adopted\nexpressly to meet the growing and fatal errors which infested the\nChurch; and that they had, at the date of the Nicene Creed, a most\npowerful motive to concession and accommodation for the sake of unity,\nin the notion already prevalent concerning schism--defection from the\nfaith of the dominant or Catholic Church, or separation from that body\non that account--as a mortal sin.\n\nIt was pointedly to their purpose to maintain, in opposition to\nCerinthus, that the Christ was the Son of God, and the only being\ndesignated by that title; and equally to their purpose, in opposition to\nArius, to maintain that he was not created. They were to meet these\npoints somehow, or accomplish nothing against the most formidable\nheresies. They hit upon a phraseology which, if it be not wholly\nunintelligible to mortals, was probably then deemed to be unanswerable,\nin the assertion that he was the Son by _eternal generation_; begotten,\nnot made, &c.\n\nThe language of the creeds, hereafter more particularly referred to, is\npresumed to have become gradually familiar to the opposers of heresy\nbefore it was embodied in those formularies. They express in a condensed\nform the sentiments and terms by which the leading controvertists\nrepelled the dominant heresies of the time.\n\nIt is worthy of a passing notice, that from the origin of the Assyrian\nempire down to the Christian era, the sway, over the whole Pagan world,\nof the Oriental doctrines, embodied in the Sabian, Magian, Brahminical,\nLamaist, Boodhist, and other systems, laid the foundation and prepared\nthe way for the rise and spread of the Mohammedan imposture, after those\ndoctrines had, by the propagation of Christianity, been in some degree\nintercepted and modified within, and in some directions beyond, the\nlimits of the Roman empire. The theory of the system of Mohammed, like\nthat ascribed to Zoroaster, which aimed to unite the Sabians, who\nworshipped images, and the Magians, who refused them, with the Jews of\nBabylon and its provinces after they had renounced idolatry and the\ndoctrine of mediation, involved a union of the same school of Jews in\nthe seventh century, with the nominal but already apostate churches\n(churches characterized by Gnostic heresies and Pagan corruptions) of\nBabylonia, Syria, Asia Minor, Egypt, Northern Africa, Spain, &c.\n\nHence the first and, with respect to the Divine Being, the only article\nof the Mohammedan faith is that of THE UNITY. For this, the Jews, the\njudaizing professors of Christianity, the Cerinthians, Arians, &c., were\nprepared; and in like manner for the exclusion of the doctrine of\nmediation and the consequent proscription of images and sacrificial\nofferings.\n\nWho that considers the character and mission of Mohammed, as depicted\nRev. ix. 1-12, and illustrated by the histories of his time, can fail to\nregard him as, in the hands of the great Adversary, one of the most\nextraordinary visible agents of his antagonism. With no preliminary\nindications, like a meteor fallen to the earth, he suddenly appears on\nthe scene. He receives the key and opens the abyss of darkness. The\nblinding smoke of the pit ascends, and generates a locust army with the\npower of scorpions, led on by Satan as their king, \"whose name in Hebrew\nis Abaddon, and in Greek, the Destroyer.\" As visible head of the\napostate faction, he subdues, and with enduring chains of mental\ndarkness manacles and holds fast the Eastern empire: while, in the\nWestern, essentially the like results, under the same leadership, are\naccomplished by the head of the Papal hierarchy.\n\nThese great systems of influence and control, by which, in the Eastern\nworld, the Arch-deceiver held the human mind in bondage, required and\ndepended on implicit, unquestioning faith. Thus, throughout the Roman\nempire prior to the Advent, and subsequently in the eastern division,\nunder the Mohammedan, and in the western, under the Popish faith.\n\nThe shock of the Reformation awaked and roused up the mind of western\nEurope, and brought new antagonist influences into operation, which, by\nrecalling attention to the Scriptures as the only rule of faith, by\ngiving prominence to the cardinal doctrines of redemption, and by a\nrevival of learning, threatened wholly to subvert the dominion of Popish\nsuperstition and imposture.\n\nThis aspect of his affairs required a new course of tactics on the part\nof the great Adversary, by which the tendencies, intellectual,\nspeculative, philosophical, scientific, which were rising and spreading,\nmight be so perverted as to counteract the objects of the Reformation,\nand, in place of the former outward and vulgar superstition, to give\nsway to infidelity; a course of tactics adapted to the intellects of\nmen, stimulated to inquiry and earnest in the pursuit of knowledge; a\ncourse by which the peculiar doctrines of the Scriptures and of the\nReformation, and the reality of inspiration and of miracles, might be\nexplained away, and by which, in effect, the arrogations of the\nArch-deceiver and the Pope, of lordship over men's minds, and over the\nprovince of theological dogma, together with an ascendency of influence\nin the seats of intellectual and physical science, might be imputed and\ntransferred to HUMAN REASON.\n\nREASON, thus deified and installed as in a pontifical chair,\n_progressively developed_ its hierarchs and suffragans in the seats of\nlearning, secular and sacred, in every part of the Protestant world.\nWitness the rise, progress and results of this course of tactics in\nGermany itself. Witness the infidel and atheistic fruits of this homage\nof reason, in the departments of German metaphysics, theology,\ncriticism, physical science, &c. Witness the stealthy, insidious,\ninfectious inculcation and progress of this infidelity, in the same\ndepartments, on this side of the Atlantic,--in some universities and\ncolleges under cover of the principles and discoveries of natural\nscience; in some theological schools, in the name of the science of\ncriticism, interpretation, &c. in lyceums and halls of popular resort,\nby scientific lectures; and at the doors and in the face of all, by the\nceaseless issues of the press.\n\nCan any observer within the precincts of Protestantism account, upon any\nother view of the subject, for the progress and effects of this\ninfection, with its intuitional, conceptional, subjective and\ntranscendental cant; for its fascinating and transforming power over men\npreviously trained in schools of an opposite character; for its\nleavenous working in scientific and ecclesiastical fraternities, or its\npopular effects as administered orally and by the press? Must we not\nsuppose a subtle and powerful agency behind the scenes, as truly as in\nthe case of Gnosticism, Mohammedanism, Romanism, Mormonism? Has not\nexperience shown that a teacher from the pulpit or from a theological or\nliterary chair, who, notwithstanding his knowledge of the Scriptures\nand of their peculiar doctrines, begins to exhibit signs of his\nconversion to German rationalism in any respect; to pantheism, idealism,\nneology, infidelity under any of its designations; soon becomes\nconfident, pertinacious, progressive, and at length is recognized as\nhaving ceased to be restrained either by his former principles and\nprofessions, or by the authority of the sacred oracles? In short, if the\nEvil One is still abroad, seeking whom he may devour; if he is what the\nScriptures represent him to be; and if, through the great organisms and\nmediums of domination above referred to, he still carries on his\nwarfare, we must needs conclude, from its nature and results, that he is\nequally the prime mover and the actuating power of this rationalistic\nsystem, deceiver of the educated through their idolatry of reason; as of\nthe ignorant through the imposing forms of superstition and the arts of\npriestcraft.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIV.\n\n    Subject of the last Chapter continued--Results of the earliest\n    and most prevalent Heresies.\n\n\nDuring the first age after the apostles, the Scripture doctrines\nrespecting the Trinity, and the Person and work of the Mediator, appear\nto have prevailed in the Church generally; afterwards a change of\nphraseology among the leaders and teachers of the Church took place, and\nthe work of creation came to be ascribed, not to the Son, but to the\nFather.\n\nTertullian, about the close of the second century, in his answer to\nPraxeas, who founded the sect of Monarchians, expressed himself in\nscriptural terms respecting the Trinity and the Person of Christ; and\ndescribes the faith which he held in that respect, as that which had\nobtained from the beginning of the gospel; _i. e._, among those admitted\nto be orthodox. He soon after separated from the Catholic Church. About\nfifty years later, the Bishop of Carthage procured the excommunication\nof the Reformer Novatian, founder of the Cathari, or Puritans of that\nday, who, following his example, formed numerous seceding churches all\nover the empire, which flourished during the two succeeding centuries,\nand a succession of them down to the Reformation. \"He was,\" says\nMosheim, \"a man of uncommon learning and eloquence.\" He wrote a work\nupon the subject of the Trinity, of which the first eight sections\nrelate to the Father; the next twenty to Christ: the Old Testament\nprophecies concerning him--their actual accomplishment--his nature--how\nthe Scriptures prove his divinity--confutes the Sabellians--shows that\nit was Christ who appeared to the patriarchs, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, &c.\n\nFrom the character ascribed to Novatian by ecclesiastical historians;\nfrom the censures cast upon him by the Popish writers, who represent him\nas the first antipope, author of the heresy of Puritanism, and parent of\nan innumerable multitude of seceding Puritan congregations all over the\nempire; from his work above alluded to, written in 257, six years after\nhis separation from the dominant Church; and from the known character of\nthe Cathari, he is doubtless to be regarded as an eminent example of\nprimitive scriptural faith, and a distinguished leader of those who,\ndriven into the wilderness by persecution, perpetuated that faith\nessentially and in most particulars down to the era of Luther.\n\nThe Paulicians, whose rise is dated in the seventh century, appear to\nhave been of similar character. To these succeeded the Waldenses,\nAlbigenses, and other true worshippers in the valleys of Piedmont.\n\nThe Waldenses, in their creed of 1120, adopt all the articles of the\nso-called Apostles' Creed. They distinctly express their faith in the\nTrinity and in the canonical books of Scripture, which, they say, \"teach\nus that there is one God, almighty, unbounded in wisdom and infinite in\ngoodness, and who in his goodness has made all things.\" In another\nConfession, dated 1544, they say: \"We believe that there is but one God,\nwho is a spirit--the Creator of all things--the Father of all, who is\nabove all,\" &c.\n\nThe Confessions of the Waldenses were approved by Luther and the other\nReformers. Luther published them in 1533, with a preface.\n\nBut the Creed called the Apostles', which the Waldenses in their first\narticle adopt, expressly ascribes the work of creation to the Father: \"I\nbelieve in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and in\nJesus Christ his only Son our Lord.\" Probably this formula should not be\ndated so early as the first, or even the second century. The Creed\ncalled the Nicene, which was in 325 adopted by the Council of Nice in\nopposition to the Gnostics, the Judaizers, and the heresy of Arius,\ncomprises various terms explanatory of the views then held concerning\nthe Son, while it speaks of the Father as the maker of all things. \"We\nbelieve in one God, _the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible\nand invisible_. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only\nbegotten: begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance of the\nFather. God of God; Light of Light; true God of true God; begotten, not\nmade; consubstantial with the Father,\" &c.\n\nThe Second General Council, which was held at Constantinople in 383,\ndetermined that the Nicene Creed should be the standard of orthodoxy.\n\nThis creed continued to be held by the Roman Catholic Church, and was\nadopted and still continues in use by the Protestant Episcopal Churches\nboth of Great Britain and this country.\n\nProbably the phraseology both of the Nicene and the Apostles' Creed, in\nrespect to the ascription of the works of creation _to God the Father_,\nhaving been adopted and followed by all succeeding writers of authority,\nwas received and acquiesced in by all the Reformers and the different\nProtestant denominations, and thus, coinciding essentially with the\nTalmudists and Rabbinical Doctors, was in every way sanctioned and\ncommended as an example to our translators.\n\nIn the Confession of Faith and Catechism of the Presbyterian Church of\nScotland and that of this country, there is indeed, in respect to the\nsubject under consideration, a less exact copy than in earlier\nConfessions of the phraseology of the Nicene formula. The work of\ncreation is, however, in no respect ascribed to the Mediator personally.\nThe doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son is very distinctly\navowed; and the works of creation are ascribed to God, though not with\nany restricted reference to the Father, as distinguished from the other\nPersons.\n\nThese brief references may serve to show that the ascription of the work\nof creation by some to the Father, in such a manner as to indicate that\nit is his personally, and by others to the Deity, in distinction from\nthe delegated official Person and work of the Mediator, owed its origin\nprimarily to the nature of the heresies and controversies by which the\nChurch was agitated, and the methods of the orthodox in defending the\ndoctrines of the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ, against the\nJudaizers, the Gnostics, the Arians, and others; and was handed down in\ntheir treatises and creeds from one age to another. In the same way the\ndoctrine of _eternal_ generation, and all the phraseology in the Nicene\nCreed, for example, respecting the Son, which is not to be found in like\nterms in the Holy Scriptures, appears to have arisen. And it is to be\nobserved that, in close connection with these opinions as adopted by\nProtestants, is the doctrine that the personal and official work of the\nMediator had respect only to the redemption of man, and commenced in\npersonal acts not till his appearance incarnate.\n\nIn view of the origin, nature, and tendency of the heresies above\nreferred to, their extended influence, and the manner in which they\nwere controverted, one can hardly avoid the conclusion, that the order\nof Divine instruction in the most essential particulars was inverted, by\nthe assumption of some and the acquiescence therein of others, that the\nOld Testament revealed only the one invisible Deity absolutely\nconsidered, as the Creator and Governor of the world, whose oneness or\nunity was so regarded by one class as to preclude the idea of any\npersonal distinction in the Godhead; and so regarded by many others, who\nheld both the unity and the distinction of Persons, as to lead them,\nirrespective of that distinction, to ascribe the works of creation and\nprovidence to the one Supreme Deity, or to the Father.\n\nOf the class first above mentioned were the Jews at the period of the\nIncarnation. They therefore opposed and rejected the Messiah, on account\nof his Divine pretensions, making himself a distinct Person of the\nGodhead, equal with God. They looked not for a Messiah of such a\ncharacter, nor for deliverance from sin through faith in his vicarious\nsufferings, nor for a salvation which was to be extended to the\nGentiles. They held to justification by their ritual services and\nobedience to the law of Moses, and desired only a Messiah or leader who\nshould deliver them from temporal evils.\n\nThere were, at that period, considerable numbers of Jews resident in the\nseveral provinces of the Roman empire, who, following the early examples\nof their kindred in Judea, opposed and persecuted those who believed in\nthe Divinity of Jesus the crucified, as the true Messiah. At the same\ntime they professed the utmost zeal for the doctrine of the Unity, and\nfor the exclusive worship of the one Supreme Deity, and associated their\nrejection of the gospel and its Author with their vehement opposition\nto idolatry. As the preaching of the gospel was extended from Jerusalem\nto the provinces, many Jews professed to receive it, who, retaining\ntheir former religious opinions and prejudices, and setting up to be\npreachers, endeavored to subvert the peculiar doctrines of Christianity,\nand to subject the converts, real and nominal, to their notions of\nJudaism and of the ritual of Moses. These Judaizing teachers still\ninsisted on justification by the works of the law, held firmly to their\nnational prejudices, exclusive privileges, and hatred of the Gentiles,\nand to fortify themselves, joined with those Gentile heretics whose\nerrors were consistent with their own.\n\nThe Jews themselves far exceeded all others in opposing the doctrines of\nthe gospel, and persecuting those who embraced them. \"Other nations,\"\nsays Justin Martyr to Trypho, [A. D. 115 or 120,] \"are not so culpable\nfor the injury that is done to us and to Christ himself, as you, who\nfirst caused them to entertain so great a prejudice against that Just\nOne, and us his disciples and followers. For after you had crucified him\nwho alone was unblamable and just, by whose stripes they are healed who\ncome unto the Father by him; after ye knew that he was risen from the\ndead and ascended up into heaven, as the ancient prophecies foretold\nconcerning him; ye were so far from repenting of those evil deeds which\nye have committed, that even then _ye dispatched from Jerusalem, into\nall countries, select missionaries, to inform them that the impious sect\nof Christians, lately sprung up, worshipped no God_; and to spread\nabroad those false and scandalous reproaches which all that are\nunacquainted with us and our religion do even to this day lay to our\ncharge.\" Brown's Version, sec. 17. The Jews denounced the Christians as\natheists, because they worshipped the Christ as God, instead of\nrestricting their homage to Him whom they regarded as the one Supreme,\ninvisible Creator.\n\nUnder the influence so widely diffused from this source, and that of the\nheresies above referred to, the Church passed into the dark cloud of\nPopish superstition, ignorance, and imposture. The era of inspiration\nand miracles had passed. The idolatrous forms of paganism were\ntransferred from the heathen to the so-called Christian temples. The\ntheory of religion then, combining elements from Judaism, Oriental\nphilosophy, Paganism, and Christianity, was practically accommodated to\nthe heart of man in his natural state. Modes of interpretation were\nintroduced, by which truth, so far as it was admitted, was made to serve\nall the ends and purposes of error. The Popish system, for example,\nwhile it retains, in terms, the doctrine of the Trinity, denies all\nthose collateral and dependent truths which render that doctrine of any\nvalue in the affair of man's salvation. It allows the Divinity of Jesus\nChrist, but supersedes him in respect to his sacerdotal and regal\noffices, and in effect denies his personality. In place of his\natonement, it substitutes the Mass. To supersede or obviate his personal\nmediation, it offers, like Paganism, a thousand creature mediators. To\nnullify his personality, and the admission of his Divinity, it professes\neven to create him.\n\nThe subjects of controversy to which these heresies gave rise were such\nas, under the influence of certain controlling circumstances,\nunavoidably to change or modify the faith, in respect to some doctrines,\nof those who continued to be in the main evangelical. The circumstances\nreferred to resulted from the nationalization of the Church, the\nassumption by the civil power of legislative authority over its\ndoctrines and all its concerns, and the consequent prescription, under\nthe severest penalties, of entire uniformity of faith and worship.\nHence, when heresies arose and spread, Councils were called to suppress\nthem, and to prescribe the rule of faith which was to be enforced. Their\ndeterminations, of course, must be in conformity not only with the\nopinions of a majority of those convened, but with the sentiments of the\nreigning emperor. Whenever he and the majority of those summoned to a\nCouncil were inclined to Arianism, image worship, and the like, those\nwho held the primitive faith had to choose between a surrender of their\nprinciples and deposition, banishment, or death. The tendency of this\ncourse of things to drive the true confessors of Christ into the\nwilderness, and to induce the best of those who remained in the\nso-called Catholic Church to dissemble, and to adopt the sentiments and\nphraseology of those whom they deemed to be in error, is too apparent to\nrequire any illustration.\n\nNow those controversies from the first with the Gnostics, the\nCerinthians, Valentinians, Monarchians, Sabellians, Manich\u00e6ans, Arians,\nand various others, related to the character of the Supreme Being, the\nCreator; the mode of Divine existence; the Trinity; the Person of\nChrist; and topics intimately connected with these. The changes and\nmodifications of phraseology and sentiment which, for the sake of unity,\nor for other reasons, the more evangelical adopted, as in the Nicene\nCreed and in their theological writings, were regularly handed down to\nthe period of the Reformation. These writings were studied, and had\ntheir influence with the Reformers, on their receding from the\ncorruptions of Popery.\n\nIn this way, a departure in some things from the patriarchal, the early\nJewish and the primitive Christian faith, is believed to have taken\nplace; particularly in the omission to ascribe the works of creation and\nprovidence to the Christ, in his delegated personal character as\nMediator, and ascribing those works to the Father; and in adopting the\nsentiments that the mediatorial work commenced after the fall, and had\nfor its sole object the salvation of men, and that his second coming and\nreign would not be personal and visible, but only spiritual, at least\nnot until the final judgment and consummation of all things.\n\nThe first of these errors--that of ascribing the creation to the Father\npersonally, or to the invisible Deity, irrespective of any distinction\nof Persons in the Godhead--is to be traced back in the line of the Jews\nto the period of the Babylonish exile, and to the influences and state\nof mind under which they renounced idolatry, and with it the entire\ndoctrine of mediation, and all belief in a divine, atoning, and\ninterceding Messiah; and, obscuring by their traditions and glosses, or\nwholly rejecting, those prophecies which relate to the first advent and\nsufferings of the Saviour, looked for a human deliverer and temporal\nchief, a king to resume the throne of David, in those predictions of the\nsecond advent which indicate a period of universal peace and happiness.\n\nThe Jews, previously to their exile, had both in respect to their\nknowledge of divine things and their practice, greatly degenerated. They\nhad long been addicted to idolatry. They had rejected their Divine\nProtector and King, and yielded themselves to the false notions and\ncorrupt practices of the heathen. The Divine presence and favor were\nwithdrawn. They were afflicted and driven out of their country.\nProphets were sent to instruct, admonish, and encourage them; but they\nrefused to hear, being hardened and blinded in unbelief. They regarded\nthe God of Abraham, the Jehovah who led them out of Egypt, and, in the\nShekina, presided over their nation, either as having become their\nenemy, or as having withdrawn from them for ever. Under these\ncircumstances, there is ground to conclude that they willingly settled\ndown in the notion of a Supreme Creator, invisible, far removed from the\nconcerns of mortals, and indifferent or inattentive to them. On\nabandoning the forms of idolatry, and rejecting the pretended mediators\nof idolatrous worship, while yet continuing impenitent, and maintaining\na proud and haughty spirit as Jews, though now depressed, and apparently\nabandoned of God; they are believed to have banished from their minds\nall near apprehensions of the Divine Being, and all ideas of a Divine\nMediator, and to have taken refuge in the abstract notion of a Supreme\nCreator, who, though no longer regarded as their covenant God and\npresent protector, had promised a leader, a Messiah, who should deliver\nthem from their temporal calamities.\n\nSuch is believed to have been their state of mind at the close of their\nexile; such the change attending their renunciation of idolatry; and\nthat the error and defect in question, respecting the teachings of the\nOld Testament, had its source with them. Their sentiments and state of\nmind having been perpetuated down to the period of the Advent, were\npropagated afterwards in the manner above referred to.\n\nThere was, indeed, a partial, outward reformation under Nehemiah, after\nthe return from Babylon, and the temple service was resumed; but the\nShekina did not re\u00e4ppear, and there was no general or lasting change\namongst the people. The Chaldee expositors, and afterwards the\nparaphrasts, labored to revive and perpetuate the lost meaning of the\nHebrew Scriptures; but though a few, a remnant, of such as rightly\napprehended and truly feared Jehovah were preserved and perpetuated, the\ntheology and religion of the nation generally underwent no important\nchange for the better.\n\nThe foregoing considerations may suffice to show how it has happened\nthat the Old Testament has, both by Jews and Christians, so long and so\ngenerally been understood to ascribe the works of creation and\nprovidence, not to the Mediator, but to the Father, or to the Deity,\nirrespective of any personal or official distinctions.\n\nThat this error, and others intimately associated with it, respecting\nthe person and work of Christ, should have arisen and been perpetuated\nin the manner specified, cannot reasonably be regarded with surprise.\nThe nature of the case, and the lights of the intervening history, are\nat war with the supposition that the true doctrines upon these subjects,\nconcerning which the governments, hierarchies, and people of the whole\nheathen world were in utter darkness and error, were preserved by the\nJews after their return from Babylon, and after their rejection of\nChrist, and by the apostate hierarchy of the Romish system imbued with\nthe spirit and degenerated to the level of Paganism, in all but the\nname. If, as is notorious, they did not truly teach the doctrines of\nScripture upon other subjects, least of all can it be believed that they\ntaught the truth concerning these.\n\n\nNOTE. Concerning the Work of Creation and its completion at one Epoch.\n\nIt is clear from Colossians, chap. i., that the work of creation, there\nand elsewhere ascribed to the Christ, included the invisible as well as\nthe visible worlds and all creatures; that they were called into\nexistence by him and for him, for the purposes he was to execute and the\nends which were to be accomplished by him. He is accordingly referred to\nas upholding and governing all things, as having all power in heaven and\nearth, as heir and Lord of all. Angels, principalities and powers are\nsubject to him; and to him in his official character (as visibly\nmanifested \"the Son of Man\") all judgment is committed.\n\nNow these comprehensive ascriptions to him in his delegated character,\nand in express connection with his work as Mediator and Redeemer, as in\nthe passage above referred to, and in Heb. i., render it preposterous to\nsuppose that worlds and creatures invisible to us, or any portion of the\nworks of creation, were brought into existence prior to that creation\nwhich is described in the Mosaic narrative. For if they were, what\nconceivable connection or relation could they have had with his person\nor character as Redeemer, Messiah, God-man? Did he sustain that official\ncharacter or exercise any of its offices ages prior to the creation of\nman?\n\nIn _the beginning_ He created the heavens and the earth. Gen. i. He was\nin _the beginning_; all things were made by him. John i. In _the\nbeginning_ he laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the\nwork of his hands. Heb. i. In six days he made _the_ heavens and the\nearth. Exodus xx. But if the phrase \"in the beginning,\" so frequently\nemployed in this connection, marks the epoch of the creation of the\nheavens, it refers that of the earth to the same epoch. The \"all things\"\ndoubtless include the invisible as well as the visible worlds, and the\nfoundations of the earth were laid _in the beginning_. \"Thou hast made\nheaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and all\nthings that are therein, the sea and all that is therein, and thou\npreservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.\" Neh. ix.\n7. \"The heaven and the heaven of heavens is Jehovah's, the earth also\nwith all that therein is.\" Deut. x. 14. In these and all similar\nconnections, as Gen. i. 1: Exod. xx. 11, where the Hebrew word is in the\nplural form, _heavens_, the universe of worlds visible and invisible is\nmeant. To preclude all doubt of this comprehensive reference, Moses and\nNehemiah, both having occasion to guard against the pretensions of\nidolatry, employ the phrase, heaven of heavens.\n\nAccordingly, wherever the work of creation is mentioned, whether\ndistinctively as the work of Jehovah, or historically, as including all\nworlds, the plural word, _the_ heavens, is employed, and put in contrast\nwith _the_ earth. \"Thus,\" at the close of the six days, \"the _heavens\nand the earth_ were finished, and all the host of them.\" Gen. ii. 1.\n\"These are the generations of _the heavens_ and of _the earth_ when they\nwere created, in _the day_ that the Lord God made the earth and the\nheavens.\" Gen. ii. 4. \"Thus saith God the Lord, he that created _the\nheavens_ and stretched them out, he that spread forth _the earth_, and\nthat which cometh out of it.\" Isaiah xlii. 5. \"Thus saith the Lord thy\nRedeemer, and he that formed thee: I am the Lord that maketh all things,\nthat stretcheth forth _the heavens_ alone, that spreadeth abroad _the\nearth_ by myself.\" Isaiah xliv. 24. \"Thus saith the Lord, the Holy One\nof Israel, and his maker, ... I have made _the earth_ and created man\nupon it: I, even my hands, have stretched forth _the heavens_, and all\ntheir hosts have I commanded.\" Ibid. xlv. 12. \"Thus saith the Lord that\ncreated _the heavens_; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he\ncreated it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord, and\nthere is none else.\" Ibid. xlv. 18. \"The Lord thy maker, that hath\nstretched forth _the heavens_ and laid the foundations of the earth.\"\nIbid. li. 13. \"The Lord is the true God, he is the living God, and an\neverlasting King.... The gods that have not made _the heavens_ and _the\nearth_, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these\nheavens.... He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the\nworld by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his\ndiscretion.\" Jer. x. 10, &c., also Psalm xcvi. 5; cii. 25, &c., &c.\n\nIn these and similar passages, where, in the most comprehensive and\nunequivocal manner, the creation of all things is asserted, the\nsimultaneous creation of all is clearly indicated in the collocation of\nthe words _the heavens_ and _the earth_, the latter being sometimes\nplaced before and sometimes after the former.\n\nThe same plural word is employed in other connections: \"Blessed be Abram\nof the Most High God, possessor of the heavens and the earth.... I have\nlifted up my hand unto the Lord, the Most High God, possessor of the\nheavens and the earth.\" Gen. xiv. \"Is not God in the height of the\nheavens?\" Job xxii. \"Look down from thy holy habitation, from the\nheavens, and bless thy people.\" Deut. xxvi. \"O God, look down from the\nheavens and behold.\" Psalm lxxx. \"The Lord he is God in the heavens\nabove and upon the earth.\" Deut. iv. \"Praise ye the Lord from the\nheavens.... Praise ye him, all his angels; praise ye him, all his hosts.\nPraise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light. Praise\nhim, ye heavens of heavens.... Let them praise the name of Jehovah: for\nhe commanded, and they were created. He hath also established them for\never and ever, he hath made a decree which shall not pass.\" Psalm\ncxlviii.\n\nThe Scriptures speak of one creation only; and of that, directly and\nincidentally, in such terms as to leave no room for the supposition that\nany portion of the material universe was called into existence prior to\nthe Mosaic epoch. They exhibit nothing from which an inference can be\nderived that all were not created at one epoch. The contrary supposition\nis not founded on any authority of inspiration, but upon conjecture or\nassumption. It is by some assumed that by _the heavens_ Moses meant the\norbs of our solar system only, or at most, the stars visible in the\nfirmament to the unassisted eye. They think it unreasonable to suppose\nthat in all past eternity nothing was created more than about six\nthousand years ago. They cannot imagine what the Creator was doing, if\nhe did not exercise his power in creating worlds. But the same\nsupposition might with equal reason be made with respect to any earlier\nconceivable epoch. For at any such earlier epoch there had been a past\neternity, a duration without beginning. The terms of the supposition are\nsolecistical and absurd, so far as relates to the Creator, and with\nrespect to the little mind of man, they are of no significance, unless\nthe invisible worlds are eternal.\n\nIt is more obvious than necessary to suggest an astronomical argument\nagainst the supposition of successive creations of suns and systems. It\nis a doctrine of astronomy that our sun with its dependent system\nrevolves round a central orb, as our planets revolve around the sun; but\nin an orbit of such immense extent as to require near two millions of\nyears, at the rate of thirty millions of miles a year, to accomplish one\nrevolution. From the observations and facts which verify this doctrine,\nit is legitimate to infer that there is a like revolution of all other\nsuns and systems, and that the laws which govern those vast and\ncomplicated movements were established at the creation. With these\nconsiderations in view, we may confidently infer that the infinite\nCreator did not call into existence and establish the relations,\nmotions, and revolutions of a portion of the celestial orbs at one\nepoch, and another portion at a later epoch, so as to derange all that\nhad been perfected, and require new adjustments, new relations, new\nmovements, new velocities, and peradventure enlarged forces of\nattraction and gravitation throughout the realms of space.\n\nTo judge of the force of this argument, one must, in view of the harmony\nof the existing material system under the well-known laws which govern\nit, consider what would be the necessary and inevitable effects of\nadding to that system new stars equal in number and dimensions to those\nvisible from the earth, or even one other solar system, equal to that to\nwhich the earth belongs. Undoubtedly, if our mathematics, our inductive\nphilosophy, and our astronomy are to be relied on, the addition to the\nexisting orbs of one globe like the earth would more or less disturb and\nderange the whole, or require an infinite miracle to prevent\ndisturbance.\n\nClosely connected with the supposition of worlds created longer ago than\nthe earth, is that of successive creations of plants and animals to\nsupply the defect of new or remote continents and islands. Many who,\nconformably to the Scriptures, hold to the identity of the human race as\ndescended from one primitive pair, though distributed over all the\ncontinents and islands, and exhibiting in many respects extreme\ndiversity, profess nevertheless to believe that there have been many\nsuccessive creations of brute animals since, if not prior to the deluge.\nThough pairs of the inferior races as well as of the human race were\npreserved in the ark, and for the same reason--\"to keep seed alive _upon\nthe face of all_ the earth,\" and though no greater obstacles existed, so\nfar as we know, to the dispersion of the inferior animals to all\nquarters of the globe than to that of man, they indulge the notion,\nwithout any authority from Scripture, or any demonstrable necessity, or\nany better reason than the exigency of a geological theory, that the\nCreator of the universe, in the course of his providence over this\napostate and blighted world, has, from time to time, exercised his power\nin creating races of brutes to be subject to the conditions of those who\nshared in the consequences of the apostasy of man.\n\nSuch a notion seems in every view incongruous and preposterous, without\nreason or necessity, inconsistent with the law of creation in respect to\nman, and unworthy of the perfections and of the moral purposes and\nadministration of the Creator. It seems to imply the further notion,\nthat the same providence which dispersed and preserved the human race in\nall quarters and climates of the world, was inadequate to the same\nresults in the case of the lower animals, and that it was of such moment\nto keep every locality stocked with savage and carnivorous beasts as to\ncall, from time to time, for the interposition of creative power.\n\nThe object of the works of creation, as the scene of the moral and\nprovidential administration of the Creator, would, in harmony with the\nannouncements of Scripture, seem to imply that they were brought into\nexistence at one epoch. That administration had a beginning: at the\nbeginning he created the scene and subjects of it. It extends to all\nworlds. It is one comprehensive, universal, perfect system, involving\nthe rights and prerogatives of the Supreme Ruler, which are founded on\nthe fact of his being the Creator of all; and the obligations and duties\nof intelligent creatures, which arise from the fact of their owing their\nexistence to him.\n\nNow, since there could be no conceivable obstruction to his bringing all\nthe worlds and creatures throughout the realms of space into being at\none epoch; and since the administration of which they were to be the\nscene was to comprehend them all, it would seem better to comport with\nthe admitted object of them and with his infinite perfections, to\nbelieve that he created them all at once, than to suppose that he laid\nthe foundation of his empire in part at one and in part at a later\nepoch. On the latter supposition, it would be easy, at least, to suggest\nvery plausible objections and difficulties, for which, on the former,\nthere is no room.\n\nThe passage in Job xxviii., \"Whereupon are the foundations of the earth\nfastened? or who laid the corner-stone thereof, when the morning stars\nsang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?\" is by some\nsupposed to imply, that when the earth was created, there were\npre\u00ebxisting worlds and intelligent creatures to witness and celebrate\nthe event. But if such were the meaning of this poetical description,\nthose morning stars must have been such as were visible from the earth,\nor else the earth could not be supposed to be visible from them. The\nScriptures, however, refer to the visible stars as being created at the\nsame time with the earth. In the narrative of the fourth day it is said,\n\"And God made two great lights; ... he made the stars also; and set them\nin the firmament of heaven, to give light upon the earth, and to rule\nover the day and over the night,\" &c. Gen. i. It is not conceivable that\nthe reference in Job should have been meant to exclude the visible\nstars; and if it included them, then it included celestial worlds which\nwere created simultaneously with the earth. The phrase, \"morning stars,\"\ndoubtless signifies stars visible in the morning. The terms employed in\nJob may, perhaps, be better rendered, \"The stars burst forth together as\nlight, or as the morning.\"\n\nFrom the narrative of the temptation in Eden, some imagine that Satan\nhad existed and fallen before the creation of Adam. But there is no\nreference to that evil being till after Adam and Eve were placed in the\ngarden. How long they were there before the temptation, we know not. It\nwas long enough, however, for them to receive instruction as to the\nprohibited tree, and for Adam \"to give names to all cattle, and to the\nfowl of the air, and to every beast of the field;\" long enough for them\nto become familiar with the place, and with the voice and other tokens\nof the Creator's presence. Now, on the supposition that all the angelic\nhosts were created simultaneously with the heavens and the earth, what\nwas there to hinder the apostasy of Satan between the date of that\ncreation and his assault upon Adam, which would not equally have\nhindered the apostasy of man so soon after his creation? Is it not, from\nthe nature of the case, more probable that Satan revolted very soon\nafter his creation, than at a remote period? As in the case of Adam,\nwho, had he continued holy for scores or thousands of years, would, we\nmay well presume, have been less likely to fall than at the outset of\nhis career, before he had formed habits of obedience, or had the benefit\nof experience.\n\nIt is remarkable with what facility the most preposterous assumptions\nhave been adopted and perpetuated respecting the Creator, the works of\ncreation, providence, moral government, &c., to aid in support of\npreconceived religious, philosophical, physical, and social theories.\nThe principal religious heresies, whether propounded under the garb of\ntheology or that of philosophy and science, falsely so called, have\nrested upon false assumptions respecting the character and condition of\nman as a fallen creature, and the one only Deliverer and way of\ndeliverance, and respecting the character, prerogatives, and rights of\nthe Creator and Ruler of the world, and the nature, epoch, and object of\nthe work of creation. Witness the Gnostic, Arian, Pelagian, Socinian,\nand other ancient religious heresies, on the one hand; and on the other,\nthe theory of our modern geologists, in its relation to the inspiration,\nauthority, and meaning of the Scriptures, the nature, date and purpose\nof the creation of the world, and the causes and reasons of the physical\nchanges it has undergone.\n\nThe fact that all the great heresies and false systems by which the\npost-diluvian world has been deceived and held in the bondage of\ncorruption, have risen from false assumptions and erroneous theories\nconcerning the Creator and the work of creation; and from those\nassumptions and theories, as starting-points, have diverged from the truth\nas revealed in Scripture; this fact, and the consideration that the rights\nand prerogatives of Jehovah, in relation to his creatures and their\nobligations and duties towards him, are founded in the fact of his being\nthe Creator, demonstrate that the account which he has given of his works\nis of equal authority with the other contents of his Word. It lies at the\nfoundation of his moral law and government, and of his providential\nadministration over all worlds, and is essential to his claim of supreme\nallegiance and homage from all intelligent creatures. It lies at the\nfoundation of all scriptural faith in God and in the doctrines of his\nWord, and is the basis of the true, in contradistinction to all false\nreligion.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXV.\n\n    The great Antagonism--in what manner will it terminate?\n\n\nThe great peculiarity in the history of the human race took its rise in\nthe apostasy of man, and is exhibited in the antagonism between the\nrightful Sovereign of the world and the instigator of that apostasy, and\nin the agency, relations and destiny of their respective followers. In\nthe progress of the conflict between the righteous and the wicked,\nholiness and sin, happiness and misery, light and darkness, truth and\nfalsehood, the desperate malevolence of the Evil One, and the guilt and\nruin of his followers, are made manifest to all observers; and on the\nother hand, the infinite riches of the wisdom, goodness, righteousness\nand mercy of the great Deliverer towards his followers, in their renewed\nallegiance and recovery to holiness and happiness, are equally made\npublic. In the announcements of his Word, and in the administration of\nhis moral and providential government over them, the wrath of God is\nrevealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of man. The angels\nwho kept not their first estate were reserved to an inevitable doom. The\nearly descendants of the first human pair wholly corrupted their way and\nfilled the earth with violence, and \"the world that then was, being\noverflowed with water, perished.\" The immediate successors of those who\nwere preserved in the ark, when, from the works of creation, the\nteachings of Noah, and the institutions of revealed religion, they knew\nGod, glorified him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in\ntheir imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing\nthemselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the\nincorruptible God--misrepresented his invisible attributes, eternal\npower and Godhead, and the glory of his perfections, visibly displayed\nin his works of creation and providence--by an image made like to\ncorruptible men, and to birds, and four-footed beasts and creeping\nthings; and changed the truth concerning God into a lie, and worshipped\nand served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for\never. Therefore, even as they did not like to retain the true God in\ntheir knowledge, he gave them over, in his righteous judgment, to a\nreprobate mind, to the indulgence of their evil propensities under the\ninstigation of their chosen leader, \"the Devil, who deceiveth the whole\nworld;\" assuming to be, and usurping the place of, God; leading his\ndeluded followers \"captive at his will,\" and foreshowing, by their\ncondition and conduct on earth, their ultimate doom, as the final\ndestiny of the angels who kept not their first estate is manifested by\ntheir conduct while under sentence of condemnation prior to the final\njudgment.\n\nThroughout the history of this antagonism as recorded in the Old\nTestament, the great question was, Who is the true God, the Creator,\nRuler, Benefactor, to whom all creatures owe allegiance--Jehovah or\n_the_ Baal? This question was specially and publicly tried on various\noccasions, as in the plagues of Egypt, in the controversy conducted by\nElijah, in that relating to the image erected by Nebuchadnezzar, and\nmany others of less notoriety. In several scores of instances it is the\ndeclared purpose of particular dispensations and events that those to\nwhom they referred might be made to know that He, the true God, in\nopposition to _the_ Baal, was Jehovah. And such, at the final\ntermination of the conflict, will be the resistless and universal\nconviction: \"every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus\nChrist is Lord to the glory of God the Father.\" Having, in his official\ncharacter and complex Person, maintained the conflict throughout all the\nperiods and in all the forms of its exhibition, vanquished the great\nAdversary, redressed the consequences of the fall, and destroyed even\ndeath itself, his triumph is complete and final; vindicating all his\noffices and agency, establishing the facts and doctrines, prerogatives\nand rights upon which his government is founded, securing for ever the\nloyalty and bliss of the unfallen and ransomed portions of his empire,\nand filling the universe with the glory of his person and his name, and\nwith the boundless riches of his wisdom, grace and love. Then will be\ndisplayed the vastness and grandeur of the scheme purposed in Christ\nJesus before the foundation of the world, and involving this conflict\nbetween the Divine Mediator and the Arch-rebel and his party, that\nthrough the redemption, resurrection, and final exaltation and glory of\nthe Church, the Divine perfections might be made known to the unfallen,\nthe principalities and powers in heavenly places.\n\nThe chief question which remains concerning this antagonism, relates to\nthe manner of its termination--the means and agencies by which it is to\nbe ended. That it is to end, there is no doubt. That it is to terminate\nin such a manner as to fill the universe with new and previously\ninconceivable demonstrations of the majesty, power, and glory of the\nMessiah, and his people with unprecedented exultation, joy, and praise,\nthe Scriptures abundantly testify. But from a period shortly subsequent\nto that of his ascension, there has been a difference of opinion in the\nChurch--more or less conspicuous at all times, but never, perhaps, more\nmarked than at present--concerning this great question. That difference\nof opinion, on the part of the great majority even in the Protestant\nchurches, is believed to be founded in the Rabbinical and figurative\ninterpretations of the Old Testament, formerly referred to; and to\ninclude among its principal elements a very defective estimate of those\nsacred oracles, and an inadequate and erroneous view of their teachings\nconcerning the Person, titles, prerogatives, manifestations, works and\npurposes of Christ.\n\nOn a point of this nature and importance, one might safely infer from\nthe analogy of the past, whether arguing from the history of the Jewish\nor that of the _nominally_ Christian Church, that the party composing\nthe great majority were not in the right. It is presumed to be quite\nsafe to say, that at every period of any considerable extent of the\nJewish Church, after its establishment in Canaan, and more especially\nafter the reign of Solomon, the majority, notwithstanding the writings\nof Moses and the instructions of the prophets, were under great delusion\nand error respecting the Messiah and his kingdom; and at the Advent,\nthose who were in the right were few in number compared with the busy\nscribes, the ostentatious Pharisees, and those doctors of the law who,\nsitting in Moses' seat, taught the traditions and commandments of men.\nAnd of what considerable division of the nominally Christian Church,\nfrom the second century to the Reformation, will any one affirm that a\ngreat majority were not under deep delusion and error in respect to\nimportant points of doctrine and practice? Or of the Romish Church\nbefore or since the Reformation, will any one, not a Papist, say that it\nhas not held flagrant and astounding errors concerning the offices and\nprerogatives of Christ, as Prophet, Priest, and King, the one only\nMediator, Lawgiver, and Head of his people?\n\nCan it be presumptuous, then, to suppose that the great majority in the\nProtestant churches are in error in holding that this antagonism is to\nterminate without any further visible personal manifestations of\nJehovah, the Messenger incarnate; that the usurping Adversary, whose\ndomination over the race prior to the deluge was checked by that\ncatastrophe only till fitting subjects of his delusions re\u00e4ppeared, and\nwhose sway over the Pagan, Mohammedan and Roman world has, with\noccasional change of forms and names, continued substantially intact, is\nto be vanquished and driven from the scene solely by moral and spiritual\ninfluence; that the system of idolatry which has, from the call of\nAbraham to the present hour, subjected most of the race to all the evils\nand miseries of sin which are possible to human beings in the present\nlife; which has been the organized medium and embodiment of rebellion\nagainst their rightful Sovereign, of denial of his claims, and of\nstudied provocation and affront; and which has withstood so many public\nand visible shocks and terrors of his wrath and power, is at length to\nyield and quietly disappear without any further visible demonstrations\nof his supremacy, or public vindications of his righteousness?\n\nIs there any thing more unlikely in the supposition that a misconstruction\nof the prophecies relating to the period and objects of the second advent\nshould prevail and be pertinaciously adhered to by many, than in the\nhistorical fact that the Jews and Jewish doctors misconstrued those\nprophecies relating to the period and objects of the first advent, which,\nto the faithful in the Gentile Church, have ever appeared unmistakably\nplain and definitive?\n\nIf such misconstruction and error do not prevail with the generality of\nProtestants, it is the first time in the history of the world that the\nmultitude, in opposition to the few on such a question, have held the\ntrue meaning of the Scriptures. If they do prevail, they will assuredly\nbe renounced at least by the true worshippers. Their teachers and guides\nwill cease to be of those who regard the Old Testament as a shadowy\nmyth, all figurative with reference to the future, all obsolete in\nrelation to the past--creation resolved into primordial elements and\nphysical laws, or superseded by the chronology of sediment and fossil\nbones--and miracles explained away as inconsistent with rationalism and\nwith the course of nature. On the other hand, the descendants of Israel\nwill recognize the Messiah in Jesus of Nazareth; the veil which, on\ntheir reading of Moses, is on their hearts, will be taken away, and the\ntabernacle of David, which is fallen down, will be re\u00ebrected; and Jesus\nthe Messiah, Adonai, Jehovah the Messenger, will come and reign as\nPriest and King upon his throne for ever and ever.\n\nIn their defection to idolatry, the Messiah, the Messenger Jehovah, became\nan offense to Israel. They ceased to seek salvation, righteousness,\njustification by faith in him, and trusted to the works of the law. They\nstumbled at him as a stumbling-stone and rock of offense. But have they so\nstumbled and fallen as to be utterly cut off? Far be it! Rather, through\ntheir fall salvation came to the Gentiles. And if their Fall was followed\nand counteracted by such benefits, what shall their recovery be but life\nfrom the dead? If on their stock, decayed and rejected through unbelief,\nthe Gentiles as a wild olive were engrafted, God is able to engraft them\nagain into their own olive tree. If blindness of heart hath befallen\nIsrael, it is only till the fulness of the Gentiles be come in; and then\nall Israel will be saved. \"As it is written, There shall come out of Zion\nthe Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my\ncovenant unto them when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the\ngospel, they are enemies for the Gentiles' sake; but as touching the\nelection, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. For the gifts and\ncalling of God are without repentance. For as in times past [before the\nMessiah came] the Gentiles believed not, but on his coming obtained mercy\nbecause of the unbelief of Israel; so Israel now continues disobedient to\nthe mercy shown to the Gentiles, that through their mercy Israel also may\nobtain mercy; that God may have mercy upon all. O the depth of the riches\nboth of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his\njudgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of\nthe Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? or who hath first given to him,\nand it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him,\nand to him are all things; to whom be glory for ever. Amen.\" Romans xi.\n\nBehold then, descendants of Israel, the Lamb of God who taketh away the\nsin of the world! Behold in Jesus the Christ, the Messiah whom your\nfathers crucified and pierced! Look to the Messenger Jehovah, who, when\nthe race in their primeval representative fell from the estate wherein\nthey were created, yielding to the will of the great Adversary,\nrenouncing their allegiance to God, and becoming heirs of his wrath and\ncondemnation, took their place as their representative and substitute,\nentered the lists as their champion, assumed the responsibility of\nencountering, counteracting, and finally subduing, vanquishing, and\ntriumphing over their destroyer, and by suffering in their stead, of\nrescuing, sanctifying, and raising from the dead all who by faith\nreceive, trust, love, and obey him; the God-man, the only Mediator, to\nwhom, as Prophet, Priest, and King of Zion, King of Kings and Lord of\nLords, every knee must bow, and every tongue confess that He is\nJehovah.\n\n\n\n\nNOTE A--Relating to the Exposition of the Apocalypse, by D. N. Lord.\n\n\nInstead of tracing the illustrations thus furnished, or making the\nrequisite citations, the writer can barely refer to them, and express,\nas far as may be fitting, his opinion of that work as an exposition,\nupon clear and indubitable principles, of a portion of the sacred\noracles previously sealed and unintelligible, to the opening of which no\nclew had been discovered, and towards a reliable or satisfactory\nexplanation of which, no progress had been made. And he cannot forbear\nto speak of it, even at the hazard of being supposed to have a motive\ninferior to that of impartial admiration of the work, as opening to the\nview a clear vision of the inner sanctuary, and vividly portraying the\nscenes, the agencies, and the events of the last great act of the drama\nbegun in Eden; and as surpassing all other efforts towards an exposition\nof any portion of the prophetic oracles, in the scriptural authority of\nits principles, the loftiness and grandeur of its conceptions, the\nadequacy of its representations of the Person, titles, offices,\nprerogatives, agency, purposes, dominion and glory of Jehovah the\nIncarnate Word; the luminousness of its descriptions, the relevancy of\nits proofs and illustrations, the clearness and brevity of its style,\nthe absence of every thing not pertinent, and the exhibition of every\nthing requisite to an exposition of \"The Revelation of Jesus Christ\nwhich God gave unto him to show unto his servants.\"\n\nSuch being the character of the work, it can occasion no surprise to\nthose who consider the reigning notions and prejudices of the times\nconcerning the import of some of the symbols, that it should be\nneglected by the many. It overturns prevailing theories and fixed\nopinions. Had it, with no settled rules of interpretation, followed the\nbeaten track, in conformity with those theories and opinions; its\naccurate scholarship, its thorough acquaintance with preceding authors,\nwith the records, institutions, import, and bearings of the earlier\ndispensations, with ancient and modern history, with the Greek and Latin\nFathers, and with collateral branches of literature and sources of\nillustration, would have insured it the ready suffrage of the learned\nand the public.\n\nBut it is from beginning to end an innovation. Instead of being an echo\nof prior expositions, it is wholly original. Instead of being a version\nof the conjectures and fancies of others, without settled and uniform\nprinciples of exposition, it differs from them very much as astronomy\ndiffers from astrology. It is based upon axioms and rules which are well\ndefined, and of certain and universal application to the subjects to\nwhich they relate. It lays down what no prior exposition ever attempted,\n\"The Laws of Symbolic Representation;\" and by a rigid and consistent\nadherence to those laws, as by a process of inductive demonstration,\nbrings out intelligibly to the reader the meaning of the successive\nsymbols: in each instance illustrating and confirming the exposition by\nreferences to history, and contrasting it with the views advanced by\npreceding writers. These laws of symbolic representation are neither\nless evidently founded in the nature of that mode of revelation, nor\nless essential as a clew to its meaning, than are the common rules of\ngrammar in relation to ordinary literal language; and they are\naccordingly sanctioned, and their reality and truthfulness are\ndemonstrated by numerous references to inspired expositions of\nprophetic symbols.\n\nA revelation by symbol is not a statement or description in words of what\nis foreshown, but a representative exhibition in a visible form; as for\nexample of a living agent, with certain known natural characteristics, and\ncertain official insignia or other accompaniments, between which agent, so\ndepicted in its appropriate attitude and sphere of action, and the agent\nor class of agents of a different nature and sphere of action which is\nrepresented and foreshown, there are such resemblances and analogies as to\nrender the first an expressive and fitting representative of the other.\nThus the beast described Rev. xiii. as emerging from the sea, having seven\nheads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the\nnames of blasphemy; his body being like a leopard, his feet like those of\na bear, and his mouth as that of a lion; is described chap. xvii. as\nrepresenting by its seven heads, seven kings, dynasties, or forms of\nexecutive power in the Roman Empire prior to its division; and by its ten\nhorns ten kings which as yet had received no kingdom; the ten kings,\nnamely, between whom the western empire was to be divided, and who, with\nthe relentless ferocity of lions, bears and leopards, were by persecution\nand otherwise to make war with the Lamb. So in the vision of Daniel, chap.\nviii., the ram with two horns is declared to represent the Kings of Media\nand Persia; and the goat with one horn, the King of Grecia.\n\nThese examples illustrate the laws of symbolic representation with\nreference to one class of symbols; and with respect to those symbols of\nwhich there is no inspired explanation, the expositor, under the control\nand guidance of those laws, is liable to no mistake, unless it be in\nhis inadequate discernment of analogies and erroneous selection of\nagents, events, or other phenomena, instead of those intended to be\nforeshown, and in which congruity with the characteristics and adjuncts\nof the symbol, harmony with other Scriptures and predictions, and\ncorrespondence with historical events and testimonies are confidently to\nbe expected.\n\nIf the reader can imagine any thing of the awe and wonder which\noverwhelmed the apostle in his visions, when, in his station on the\napocalyptic earth or in the heavenly sanctuary, he beheld the glorified\nPerson of his Lord in the effulgence of his Deity, seated on a throne,\nfrom which, as at Sinai, proceeded lightnings and thunderings and\nvoices, and around which were exhibited the representative and\ntriumphant witnesses and trophies of his redemptive work; and beheld\nthat Person symbolizing himself in his aspect and relations as\nincarnate, \"a Lamb, standing as slain;\" and saw, as on the revolving\ncanvas of a panorama, when the seals were opened, the symbolic forms\nemerging into view one after another, each by its representative\ncharacter revealing, as in cipher, the agents and events of its future\nappropriate and peculiar department; and witnessed the phenomena of\nrevolutions, tempests, earthquakes, darkness, fire and blood, foreshown\nunder the sounding of the trumpets; and successively the slaughter and\nresurrection of the witnesses, the war of Michael and the Dragon, the\nemergence of the ten-horned wild beast, the rise and career of the\ntwo-horned wild beast and false prophet, the harvest and vintage of the\nearth, the pouring out upon the earth of the plagues of the seven vials\nof the wrath of God, the fall and destruction of great Babylon, and the\nensuing scenes of wonder and glory, retribution and judgment,\nthanksgiving and triumph, he may in some degree conceive the effect of\nconverting the enigmatical portraitures of this panorama into\nintelligible literal language, assigning each to its relative and\nhistorical position, and reflecting on the version the light of earlier\nrevelations, that of ecclesiastical and secular history, and in a large\ndegree, in respect to the past, that of unmistakable events.\n\nIt is in respect to the result, as compared with that of preceding\nefforts, like Daniel's interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream,\ncompared with the fruitless endeavors of the magicians, astrologers, and\nChaldeans of Babylon; or like the finally successful effort to read the\nhieroglyphics of Egypt, compared with the fruitless attempts,\nbewildering theories, and abortive labors of preceding ages.\n\nHad this work been published at some transition-period, when the human\nmind was freeing itself from erroneous and long-cherished opinions; at\nthe revival of learning in Europe, when there were Luthers and Calvins\nto welcome it; or in England, when there were Latimers and Ridleys,\nBoyles and Newtons, or Owens and Howes; or in this country at the period\nof Edwards, it would have superseded and prevented the expositions to\nwhich it is opposed, or else it would have been answered in the same way\nas were the doctrines of Galileo. Such men under their circumstances\nwould not have been content to say, as many at present seem to be:\n\"Though we consider the Apocalypse a part of the inspired Word of God,\nand though it evidently relates to the future of the Church, the conduct\nof the redeemed and the destruction of their enemies, and above all to\nthe crowning, ultimate and eternal manifestation of the Person,\nprerogatives, supremacy, prophetical and sacerdotal works, and regal\nmajesty, glory, triumph and reign of Jesus Christ; yet we neither\nunderstand it, nor believe it will be understood in advance of its\nissues; and therefore are not disposed to examine anything new upon the\nsubject.\"\n\nBut the transition now going on is not against, but in favor of ancient\nand erroneous opinions. It is retrograde towards Pelagianism, Pantheism,\nNeology, Romanism, and among the best, to the omnivorous infection of\ninfidel Germanism. The partisans of these errors desire no lights but\nsuch as are reflected from the satellites of their respective systems.\nIn those exclusive and dubious lights, each is secure alike against the\narguments and examples of every other. They can controvert the doctrines\nof Scripture and those of each other upon all disputed points, without\nthe slightest danger of extorting concessions or producing conviction;\nfor no two of them see the same thing by the same light. All hope and\nexpectation of defeating or silencing any party by the arguments or\nScripture citations or interpretations of another, or of dislodging\ncherished and fixed opinions by any means short of a universal deluge,\nor an annihilation like that of the Egyptians by the Red Sea, or that of\nSodom and Gomorrha by fire, is given up. And so long as they nominally\nagree in respect to certain future issues, towards which they think the\nonward course of things in the physical, intellectual, scientific,\nmechanical, social and religious world is wafting them, their theories\nand their relative positions will allow them fearlessly to float down\nwith the current, without having in advance even the light of a moon.\nThere is a Millennium in prospect; a vast, undefinable Mediterranean of\nsomething better than the present, into which all the turbid streams of\nhumanity are tending, and towards which the preaching of the gospel to\nall nations is but a tributary.\n\nThe aspect of things, accordingly, is much like that in the days of\nNoah, while the ark was preparing; as if Satan were already bound, and\nno deluge of wrath or terrors of retribution were impending; and as if\nwith science and art, ancient relics and now inventions, gold mines and\ntraffic, steam and electricity, as pioneers, the Ethiopian were about to\nchange his skin, and the leopard his spots, the wolf to lie down with\nthe lamb, and the lion to eat straw like the ox. The more startling the\nevents of Providence, the shattering of political fabrics, the excision\nand restoration of dynasties, the revival of Popish arrogations and\nintolerance, the pitched battle of despotism against liberty, the more\nsure they are to be construed as immediate signals of the universal\nprevalence and triumph of human hopes. The purple and scarlet robes of\nthe Babylonish Sorceress are seemingly changed to vestal whiteness, as\ngazed at through the spectrum of discolored glass, or seen in the\nsepulchral, bewildering, superstitious twilight of Baalistic tapers;\nwhile the murmurings of unearthly music, the chantings and mutterings of\nunintelligible words, and the spell of imputed and pretended mysteries,\nsubdue the victim to whatever the spiritual operator may prescribe or\ndenounce. The nations in the four quarters of the globe seem to many to\nbe about to renounce their idolatries, and to be released without a\nstruggle on the part of Satan, who has held them in bondage hitherto,\nand to be arranging to assume white robes and take their stations on the\nglass-like expanse before the throne. The partisans of such views\nneither realize nor believe that there is any thing to the contrary\nrevealed in Scripture; or if there is, it is so concealed in symbol and\nfigure as to preclude its being understood till all is over. And\naccordingly, like the Pharisees of old, who scrupulously paid tithes of\nmint and all manner of herbs, and omitted the weightier matters of\npractical righteousness, faith, and the love of God, they resolve\nreligion into outward action, the love of God into eclectic sympathy\nwith his creatures, and faith into their theory of particular duties.\n\nFormerly, in religious controversy, there was something positive on one\nside, against which an opposing negative was asserted. In the great\ncontroversy recorded in the Bible, the supremacy of Jehovah and the\nauthority of his Word were explicitly and constantly affirmed by one\nparty, and as directly and perseveringly denied by the other; and the two\nparties were therefore broadly and unmistakably distinguished. But at\npresent the case is widely different. No active partisan, theological or\nscientific, now denies the existence of a Supreme Being, or professes to\ndisbelieve the Scriptures. All claim to be believers in God and in the\nBible. What they differ about is as to what kind of Being that is whom\nthey call God; whether personality is one of his attributes, and what\nworks and purposes are to be ascribed to him: and as to what the\nScriptures teach, how they are to be understood; whether they are inspired\nor not; whether they are all typical, or what portion or whether the whole\nof them is in some way figurative; whether miracles were ever wrought;\nwhether the Mosaic account of the creation is to be understood literally,\nand the like. And if there is at this moment, in the compass of the world,\nor in the Protestant portion of it, one comprehensive error, conspicuous\nabove all others, it is that of inadequate, partial, defective\napprehensions, recognitions, and acknowledgments of what the Scriptures\nreveal concerning the Person, prerogatives, offices, works, dominion,\ntriumph and glory of the Messiah, and concerning his yet unended conflict\nwith the Arch-apostate.\n\n\n\n\nNOTE B--The primary ground of Mediation, &c.\n\n\nThe primary ground or reason of that mediation, in the economy of the\nuniverse, which is affirmed of the one Mediator in all the relations of\nGod to the World, is the infinite difference between the Deity and\ncreatures in nature, attributes, and mode of existence and action. The\nrelations implied in the existence and agency of creatures are such as\ncannot be conceived to subsist between beings so diverse in all respects\nas the infinite and finite, except through an intermediate agent, in the\nconstitution of whose person and office the opposite extremes are\nunited. For in creating, upholding, and governing finite beings, the\nagency of the Creator and Ruler connects itself with the conditions and\nrelations of time and space; the conditions and relations of matter; of\nsuccession of thought, feeling, and action; of that which is external,\nvisible, limited; that which begins and ends.\n\nIt may therefore be said, that in the nature of things such mediation,\nthe interposition of such an official Person, is necessary; and\naccordingly the agency of the Mediator in those relations is\npresupposed, assumed, or expressly recognized, throughout the\nScriptures.\n\nIn this system, the moral government which is administered by the\nMediator is founded on the perfections, prerogatives and rights of the\nDeity as manifested by him in the works of creation, providence and\ngrace, and applies to creatures in the relations which they sustain to\nhim.\n\nThe whole is therefore a system of manifestation; on his part of the\nperfections and rights of the Deity, and on theirs of holiness and\nhappiness, or of sin and misery, in the relations in which they exist.\nIn the progress of this system, all intelligent creatures will be\ninstructed in all that is knowable by them concerning the Deity, and all\nthat respects themselves, and the nature, tendency, and consequences of\nholiness on the one hand, and of apostasy and wickedness on the other.\n\nThe Deity thus made known will, by the holy, the unfallen and redeemed,\nbe eternally reverenced, supremely loved, and exclusively worshipped and\nobeyed; his rights and prerogatives will be acknowledged, and his\nperfections and the boundless emanations of his goodness be regarded\nwith ceaseless, adoring, grateful rapture and delight.\n\nIn the administration of his moral government over apostate creatures,\nand in their future punishment, the Mediator's sceptre is a sceptre of\nperfect righteousness.\n\nThe course of things eventually to be realized on earth will be such as\nwould have taken place from the beginning, had no apostasy occurred. The\napostasy and the curse on man and the earth will be overcome. The\nantagonism between the Mediator and the Adversary will cease. The earth,\nfreed from the curse and from all enemies, renovated, restored to its\noriginal beauty, will be the perpetual scene of holiness and happiness.\n\nUnder the past and present dispensations, the object has been to do away\nthe consequences of the fall of the first Adam as head of the race. When\nthe second Adam, (\"the Lord from heaven,\") as head of his elect people,\nshall have accomplished this at his second advent, and destroyed all\nenemies, he will be thenceforth _the head of the race_ for ever.\n\nThe apostasy was a violation of pre\u00ebxisting relations between the\nCreator and creatures. The victory gained by Satan over the first Adam\nas head of his race made him as much master of that Adam and his\ndescendants as he was of the angels who joined him in apostasy. By that\nvictory he had the power of death. Doubtless it was his object to\ndestroy, as to the purposes and mode of existence for which they were\ncreated, the race with which, by the constitution of his official\nPerson, the Mediator was connected; and thereby to defeat him.\n\nThe victory of the second Adam over Satan, utterly despoils him of all\nhe had taken from the first Adam, destroys all his works, and ends in\nthe destruction of himself and all enemies. As yet the results are but\npartially manifested. His victory as man--the victory of that nature in\nhis official Person which had been overthrown in Adam--was achieved by\nhis triumph over the direct personal temptation in the wilderness, and\nby his death, resurrection and ascension. The consummation of his\ntriumph by the final overthrow and banishment of all enemies, in which\nhis Divine attributes and prerogatives will be displayed, is yet future.\n\nThe administration of the Mediator in the government of this world,\nproceeds upon a definite and intelligible plan. It is one scheme, with\nwhich all agencies and events are connected, and of which the\nconsummation is distinctly foretold. The Mediator is, from the beginning\nto the end, the Divine Actor and Revealer, the Alpha and Omega, first\nand last.\n\nFrom the date of the apostasy this government relates to mankind as\nseparated into two classes or parties, the loyal and the rebellious. The\nresult of the first prolonged trial was the destruction of the whole\nrace as rebellious and incorrigible, Noah and his family excepted.\n\nOn the apostasy of the renewed race, shortly after the deluge, to the\nimpious rival system of idolatry, Abraham was called to be the head of a\nseparated race, who, by a system of external and visible rites,\ninstitutions, teachings, services, benefits and discipline, were to be\nvisibly--and as peculiarly dealt with, in contrast with the rest of the\nworld--the loyal party. As such, the Mediator was personally to dwell\nwith them and to exercise his offices, and rule them as Priest and King.\n\nHe accordingly, having brought the children of Israel into the\nwilderness of Sinai, entered, prior to the giving of the Law, into a\nformal covenant with them, as recorded in Exodus xix: \"Jehovah called\nunto Moses out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house\nof Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; Ye have seen what I did unto\nthe Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto\nmyself. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my\ncovenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people,\n(for all the earth is mine;) and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of\npriests, and a holy nation.\" Moses rehearsed these terms to the people:\n\"And all the people answered together, and said, All that Jehovah hath\nspoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto\nJehovah.\"\n\nDuring the trial under this covenant, the other nations were governed\nand dealt with as in a state of total and avowed rebellion, under\ncondemnation, and obnoxious to the demands of justice. Pursuant to this\nsystem, the nations of Canaan were first destroyed. After Egypt, Assyria\nwas for a long time the head of the rebellious party; then Babylon, and\nsubsequently the four empires predicted in Daniel.\n\nAll the nations and governments of that party were idolatrous. This was\nthe leading feature in their character as apostates and rebels. And to\nthis, by their relations to them, the Israelites.\n\nThe Messenger Jehovah, having executed judgment upon Egypt, and brought\nthe children of Israel into the wilderness of Sinai, appeared on the top\nof the mount in the brightness of lightnings, and with the voice of a\ntrumpet which shook the mountain. The people, who, after witnessing the\nwonders of Egypt and of the Red Sea, had exhibited a murmuring and\nrebellious spirit, were impressed and awed by this manifestation, while\nthe Law of the Ten Commandments was announced. \"They removed and stood\nafar off. And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will\nhear, but let not Elohim speak with us, lest we die. And Moses said unto\nthe people, Fear not; for _the_ Elohim is come _to prove you, and that\nhis fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not_. And the people\nstood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where _the_\nElohim was. And Jehovah said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the\nchildren of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from\nheaven. Ye shall not make with me Elohe of silver, neither shall ye make\nunto you Elohe of gold. An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and\nshalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings and thy peace offerings ...\nin all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will\nbless thee.\" Exod. xx.\n\nThus, at the outset of this trial, under the most appalling tokens of\nhis presence, Jehovah reiterates the prohibition expressed in the first\ntwo commandments against idolatry. Among the judicial laws prescribed at\nthe same time with the moral, there is one making idolatry a civil\noffense, to be punished with death. \"He that sacrificeth unto any\nElohim, save unto Jehovah only, he shall be utterly destroyed.\" Exodus\nxxii. 20. Again (xxiii. 13) they are enjoined to \"make no mention of the\nname of any other Elohim;\" and subsequently in the same chapter they are\ncommanded not to bow down to the Elohim of the nations of Canaan, but to\noverthrow them and break down their images.\n\nMoses having written out the moral and judicial laws thus far\nprescribed, the people consented to them and promised obedience; and\nhaving built an altar, and \"twelve pillars, according to the twelve\ntribes of Israel,\" he offered sacrifices, read the book of the covenant,\nand ratified it by sprinkling blood on the people. Exod. xxiv.\n\nAfter this proceeding, Moses with the elders ascended the mount, where,\nafter an extraordinary personal manifestation of Jehovah, the Elohe of\nIsrael, the ceremonial law was prescribed. Nearly forty days having\nelapsed, the people, impatient at Moses' absence, instigated Aaron to\nmake them a molten image--a golden calf. This being done under pretense\nthat the image represented Jehovah, \"they said, This is thy Elohe, O\nIsrael, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.\" Aaron built an\naltar before it, and appointed \"a feast to Jehovah; and upon the altar\nthey offered burnt offerings and peace offerings.\" Exod. xxxii.\n\nFor this audacious treason and unbelief, about three thousand men were\nslain: soon after which, Jehovah made a covenant with the people,\npromising to drive out the Canaanites before them, and renewedly\nenjoining them to break their images and destroy their altars and\ngroves. Chap. xxxiv.\n\nThe tabernacle having been erected and offerings made according to the\nritual, \"There came a fire out from before Jehovah, and consumed upon\nthe altar the burnt offering, ... which when all the people saw, they\nshouted and fell on their faces.\" Leviticus ix. On this occasion two of\nthe priests, Nadab and Abihu, sons of Aaron, in the spirit of the\nEgyptian idolatry, burnt incense with strange fire, _i. e._, such as\nidolaters used: \"And there went out fire from Jehovah and devoured them,\nand they died before Jehovah.\" Levit. x.\n\nThe constant recurrence of reproof, instruction and prediction, in the\nhistorical and Prophetic writings of the Old Testament, proceeds from\nthe nature of that dispensation, the conduct of the people under it, and\nthe manner of its final consummation.\n\nThe dispensation was one of outward and visible manifestation,\ndiscipline, trial, prefiguration and hope; disobedience under it was\nacted out visibly in idolatry and all practical abominations. Reproofs\nwere uttered according to actual circumstances, having respect to\npresent actual wickedness.\n\nA leading feature of that dispensation was that of the personal, local,\nvisible appearances and interpositions of the Mediator. The tendencies\nand results of the dispensation were thwarted and delayed by the\nidolatry and wickedness of the people. The predictions, founded in the\nnature and design of that visible economy, looked forward to the\ncircumstances, agencies and results which were to fulfil, complete and\nvindicate the nature and original design of the economy.\n\nHence the humiliation and vicarious sufferings of the Mediator, and the\nglory of his ultimate manifestations, judgments and triumph, are the\nprominent topics of prophetic announcement; and the latter chiefly, as\nmore in keeping with the analogy of the past, and as being ultimate and\nperfect. By the things thus predicted, the thwarted and delayed purposes\nand tendencies of the dispensation were to be adequately provided for,\nand rendered effective by the foreseen intervention of the agency and\npower of the Mediator in his incarnate state. The prophets accordingly\npass from the circumstances which gave rise to their predictions to the\ncircumstances and events of their fulfilment by the Mediator in his\nfuture visible manifestations.\n\nIt was, for example, provided in the Mosaic economy that the loyalty and\nobedience of the Israelites should have a trial under the government of\nthe Mediator as King; as Priest and King on his throne in the\ntabernacle. Being thus perfectly protected and provided for, they had\nevery facility and every inducement to be loyal and obedient. But they\nrebelled and rejected him as King.\n\nAt length they desired and solicited a human chieftain as king, after\nthe manner of the surrounding nations. This was granted, and a trial\nmade under vicegerents in the persons of David and Solomon, sitting on\nthe throne of Jehovah, as rulers in his place, and as types of his\nkingly office, when he shall at the latter day visibly resume it.\n\nThe rejection of the Mediator as King, and the consequent interruption\nand final discontinuance of the theocratic administration, gave occasion\nto the mission of the prophets; the earliest of whom, Hosea, prophesied\nin the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, about 800 years\nbefore Christ, and the latest, Malachi, about 440 B. C. Hosea flourished\nabout 180 years after the death of Solomon. The apostasy of all the\ntribes to idol worship was then nearly total. The restoration from the\nBabylonish exile having resulted in no reformation, both Jews and\nSamaritans, at the close of Malachi's mission, were, like the heathen\nnations, left to themselves.\n\nThe prophets and true worshippers all regarded the separation of the ten\ntribes as an apostasy from the theocratic government, the seat of which\nwas in the temple, and the representative vicegerent on the throne was\nto be in the line of David.\n\nElijah's taking twelve stones, according to the number of the tribes of\nIsrael, when he repaired the altar of Jehovah and offered acceptable\nsacrifices, showed that he considered the defection of the ten tribes as\na rejection of Jehovah as Mediator. 1 Kings xviii. 31. True worship was\nto be offered, in conformity with the system connected with the temple.\n\nThe reformation under Hezekiah and that under Josiah also virtually\nincluded, in respect to religion, a reunion of all the tribes. There\ncould be no return to Jehovah, but by returning to the temple worship,\nwhere He as Mediator presided. The separation of the ten tribes was\nequally a religious and a civil apostasy; for Jehovah, as Priest and\nKing on his throne, was at once the head of the religious and civil\nsystem. Hence the political revolt and the institution of a rival and\nhostile civil government, was necessarily connected with the institution\nof a rival and hostile religious system. A political revolt necessarily\ninvolved a religious one; and to maintain their political power in\nopposition to that of the line of David, Jeroboam and his successors\nfound it necessary to render the separation in respect to religion as\nwide as possible.\n\nThe prophets accordingly, while they speak of the chiefs of the revolted\ntribes as kings, in conformity with popular usage, never recognize them\nas such of right.\n\nTo effect an entire religious apostasy as a means of sustaining the\npolitical revolt, (1 Kings xii.) Jeroboam instituted the golden calves,\nunder pretense of their being symbols, representative of the Jehovah,\nand in place of the Shekina. The Levites appear to have refused to\nconcur in the imposture thus attempted, and being exiled as likely to\nhinder its success. Priests to officiate in this apostate worship were\nselected from the lowest of the people. So offensive and intolerable\nindeed to the true worshippers was this apostasy, \"that the priests, and\nthe Levites that were in all Israel ... came to Judah and Jerusalem....\nAnd after them out of all the tribes of Israel such as set their hearts\nto seek Jehovah, the Elohe of Israel, came to Jerusalem to sacrifice to\nJehovah, the Elohe of their fathers.\" 2 Chron. xi. 13-16. Jeroboam,\nhaving cast off the Levites, \"ordained him priests for the high places,\nand for the devils, and for the calves which he had made.\" Ibid.\n\nThe government of the ten tribes being founded in a total apostasy, and\nincluding a rival and hostile system of religion, is treated accordingly\nby the prophets as a rebellion. As a rebellion, it could not dissolve\nthe relation previously established, by solemn covenants, between\nJehovah, as Priest and King on his throne in the tabernacle, and the\npeople of Israel. That relation could be dissolved or discontinued on\nhis part, only by such events as afterwards took place in their\nrejection and exile. In the meantime, prophets were sent to them, and\nvarious dispensations of judgment and mercy were employed to reclaim\nthem from their idolatry and wickedness.\n\nSuch is the point of view in which the Israelites and their kings are to\nbe regarded in considering the language and predictions of the prophets.\nViewed in this light, the statements respecting their apostate\ncondition, the aggravations of their wickedness, the judgments inflicted\non them, their dispersion, and the predictions concerning their future\nrestoration under one head, are for the most part rendered plain; while\nthe fact that they revolted from the Theocracy, the system of local,\npersonal, visible manifestation of the Mediator as Priest and King, is\nthe manifest ground of the predictions that, in due time, what had been\nthwarted and delayed by their wickedness will be resumed and carried\ninto effect by a regathering of them under the Mediator as King, in his\nincarnate state and visible reign.\n\n                                Epoch.\n\n\n\n\n  Transcriber's Notes:\n\n  All obvious punctuation errors have been corrected.\n  Pg 19, the reference 'Isaiah l. 3, 5' has been changed to 'Isaiah xl.\n    3, 5'\n  Pg 26, 'burnt-offering' was changed to 'burnt offering.'\n  Pg 42, 'covenent' was changed to 'covenant.'\n  Pg 56, 'Padanaram' was changed to 'Padan-aram.'\n  Pg 67, 'Pharoah' was changed to 'Pharaoh.'\n  Pg 87, 'ill desert' was changed to 'ill-desert.'\n  Pg 97, 'El Shadai' was changed to 'El-Shadai.'\n  Pg 119, 'meditorial' was changed to 'mediatorial.'\n  Pg 121, 'no' was changed to 'not.'\n  Pg 132, missing quotation mark was placed before the word 'Adonai.'\n  Pg 132, missing quotation mark was placed at the end of this sentence:\n    \"And Moses spake _before_ Jehovah....\"\n  Pg 144, 'preceeding' was changed to 'preceding.'\n  Pg 166, removed final closing single quote.\n  Pg 172, 'coeval' was changed to 'co\u00ebval.'\n  pg 190, 'difficult' was changed to 'difficulty.'\n  Pg 244, 'coeval' was changed to 'co\u00ebval.'\n  Pg 267, 'up on' was changed to 'upon.'\n  Pg 297, missing opening quotation mark was added before, \"These are the\n    generations...\"\n  Pg 320, 'exscision' was changed to 'excision.'\n  Pg 327, 'Israelities' was changed to 'Israelites.'\n\n  The variant spellings, 'El-Shadai' and 'El-Shaddai,' have been retained.\n\n  All instances of 'i. e.' have been italicised to conform to the majority\n  of instances.\n\n  The original book omitted a paragraph on page 21 and was added back to\n  the book as an appendix. This paragraph has been added back to the text\n  in the place that it was originally intended to be placed. The paragraph\n  starts as follows, '\"Sometimes the same Divine appearance which at one\n  time is called Melach Jehovah....\"' This change has also been reflected\n  in the table of contents.\n\n  The titles of the end notes have been changed to match the table of\n  contents and because the original titles referenced page numbers from\n  the book that did not appear to be accurate.\n\n  The oe ligature has been rendered as [oe].\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"The Messiah in Moses and the Prophets","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":95142}