Chapter XCVIII: Part 98

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELIGION. See CHRISTIANITY.

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