Chapter XCVII: Part 97

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

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

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

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

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

QUAKERS. See FRIENDS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RABBI. See RAB.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lo, the young ravens, from their nest exiled,
On hunger’s wing attempt the aerial wild!
Who leads their wanderings, and their feast supplies?
To God ascend their importuning cries.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REBEKAH, the wife of Isaac. See ISAAC.

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

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

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