Chapter XCIX: Part 99

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RIMMON. See NAAMAN.

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

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

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

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

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