Page images
PDF
EPUB

think, to death. The Ephraimites, sensible of their importance, made war with him because he had not consulted them in his movements, but they were defeated by him. Of all war, that amongst brethren is most to be deprecated. Jephthah ruled six years. İbzan, Elon, and Abdon, judged Israel for some twenty-five years; and as we hear of no war it may be hoped that the reformation which preceded the defeat of the Ammonites, was lasting and beneficial; though it should seem that while these rulers were exercising their jurisdiction beneficially in the northeast of the land, the south-west was subject, in some degree, to the control of the Philistines.

Our attention is next called to one of the most extraordinary characters mentioned in the sacred pages, whose amazing strength and prowess, and the deeds in which they were displayed, are supposed to have given origin to the fables of the heathen god, Hercules, and who is ever known as the strongest of men-Samson. He was a singular example of strength and weakness. While his physical power was prodigious and unexampled, he was mentally and morally so feeble as to be the slave and victim of his own passions. So true it is, that he who conquers himself and his depraved propensities, is stronger than Samson. But even the weaknesses and follies of Samson were made subservient to the end for which he was raised up, viz., to humble and weaken the Philistines, who then enslaved Israel. So God, as in the case of Jephthah, sometimes uses and employs persons of mixed and doubtful character, for the execution of his own will, and the deliverance of his people.

It is not necessary to notice all the events recorded in the very strange career of Samson, and which are given in the thirteenth and three following chapters of the book of Judges. Some of them would not be suitable in this place. A few of the chief shall suffice. He was of the tribe of Dan. His birth was by an extraordinary promise of God. He was a Nazarite, or one unshaven, by the special direction of God perhaps to distinguish him from others; and the condition on which his strength was granted, was that he should remain a Nazarite. But as he grew to maturity, his habits, and the timidity of his breth

ren, prevented him from being a leader of their forces, and even induced them on one occasion to deliver him bound into the hands of the Philistines. He was never subdued by his enemies, until he foolishly and wantonly violated the conditions on which his great strength was given him. His force was astounding. The following are some of his exploits. He killed a lion that came on him as if it had been a kid. When he was delivered bound by the men of Judah into the hands of the Philistines through fear of their oppressors, his bands were broken as thread, and with the jawbone of an ass he then killed 1,000 armed Philistines. When in Gaza, the chief city of the Philistines, and they were all plotting how they might secure him, he arose in the night, trampled down all opposition, and, as the gates of the city were shut and barred, and guarded purposely to secure him, he lifted the massy gates, and carried them far away. These, and other deeds of a similar kind, are the evidences recorded of his matchless strength. But he was subdued. When his folly had caused him to fall into the hands of the Philistines, they bored out his eyes, bound him with fetters, and subjected him to the degrading drudgery of a prison; and after a short time, when the lords, ladies, and immense numbers of the Philistines, were assembled at the temple of Dagon, (a hideous idol, half man and half fish,) to sacrifice to him, and to revel, after the manner of the heathen, in honor of Dagon, as their deliverer from Samson, they sent for their captive, that they might insult him and his God, and pour contempt on their now fallen foe. Having been paraded about for a time, the laughing stock of the assembled multitude, as one who would kill no more of them, he rested between the two pillars which supported the projecting circle of the temple, now crowded above and below with the idolatrous Philistines. Thoughts of his own degradation and folly, sentiments of contrition, and zeal for God who had been dishonored through his folly and sin, deeply occupied his laboring breast. Calling to mind the fact, that, though his eyes were gone, his hair was returning, he felt the movings of his great strength once more within him, and silently lifting his prayer to God for help "this once,"

HEBREW HISTORY.

he devoted himself to death for God's glory. He laid his hands on the pillars, and bowed himself with all his might the pillars rocked, and were loosed-the whole building tottered to its fall, and, amid the screams and cries of those who trusted in Dagon, the temple fell with a tremendous crash, and buried 3,000 of the Philistines in its ruins. How soon were the shouts of revelry, the exultations of his enemies, and the honor of Dagon, covered with shame, defeat, and death! So thine enemies perish, O Lord! The greatest and best deed of Samson was his last. Samson's career continued for about twenty years, and, though he did not liberate the Israelites from the Philistines, yet he was a terror and a defence.

It should seem that Eli was the high priest about the time of Samson's exploits. He is the only high priest, except Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, whose name is mentioned in the period now under review. The tabernacle was yet in Shilo, where it had been set up by Joshua; and it is reasonable to suppose, that the solemn and appointed rites of religion had never been entirely suspended. They might, at some seasons, be very much deserted, on account of the prevalence of idolatry and confusion; but surely he who had reserved to himself 7,000 men, in the corrupt days of Ahab, who had not bowed the knee to Baal, saw, among the thousands of Israel, many, in every generation, who were uncontaminated by the pollutions around them, and who, mourning over the abominations of the land, worshipped him in sincerity and truth.

Concerning the administration of Eli, we read but little. His sons, Hophni and Phinehas, seemed as if they were disposed, by their lawlessness and vices, to convert the tabernacle of God into a heathen temple; and, by their atrocious wickedness, the sanctuary was dishonored in the estimation of the people; but their father, instead of causing summary justice to be inflicted on them, only mildly rebuked them. His foolish and timid fondness offended God, who forewarned him by a prophet, that great evils would come upon his house for his sin. A more marked threatening was conveyed to the prophet through the medium of Samuel, a young man who was his attendant from childhood. Samuel was the child of a Levite, given

403

in answer to prayer. His mother devoted him to God; and, from his infancy, he was with the high priest, attending upon him. When God called him, by a special revelation of himself, the sad fate of Eli's family was revealed to him; and, as he attained to maturity, he began to be recognized by the people as a prophet of the Lord.

About this time it was, when Eli was old, and some suppose soon after the death of Samson, that the Israelites determined to be rid of the yoke of the Philistines. They accordingly assembled their forces at Mizpeh, some twenty miles west of Jerusalem, but were defeated by their enemies. Without the sanction of God, they resolved to bring the ark into the field of battle, in the hope, that the fortune of a succeeding struggle would thus be turned in their favor. It would have been better to have humbled themselves before God than thus to treat his sacred ark, as if it was an idol. Hophni and Phinehas brought the ark into the camp, and, though it rang with their shouts, the Philistines overcame them with great slaughter, slew the priests, and even took the ark itself, and placed it in the temple of their god, Dagon, in Ashdod. The news of these calamities so affected Eli, who had trembled when the ark was removed, that he fell down and died; and all felt as if the greatest calamity had happened to Israel. "The glory was departed." But the idol Dagon fell down before the ark, and when set up, it fell again, and was broken to pieces. So God dishonored their daring folly. He also smote the inhabitants with plague and disease; and, when the ark was removed to Gath, the same evils followed; and the same again at Ekron. God's people were dishonored for their disobedience; but God asserted his own honor among their foes. After seven months' suffering, the Philistines took counsel, and the ark was sent to the people of Israel, with presents; and, at Bethshemesh, the Levites took the milch kine, that had gone of their own accord thither when yoked to the carriage that contained the ark, and offered them a sacrifice unto the Lord. A sinful curiosity led the men of Bethshemesh to look into the ark, and they were smitten of God for their presumption. It was removed thence to Kirjath-jearim, and was placed

under the custody of an appointed per son, and there it remained for many years, until David, in happier times, brought it to the house of the Lord.

After the death of Eli and his sons, Samuel devoted himself diligently to the reformation of the people, and travelled from place to place, to execute judgment, and to exhort them to turn to God. His labors were successful, and when, at a fixed time, they were assembled in Mizpeh, solemnly to ratify their devotion to God, the Philistines, supposing them met for battle, came upon them, and the people were afraid; but God heard their cry, and, by his thunder, assisted them to discomfit their foes, who were at that time compelled to give up several cities they had taken from the Israelites, and, for a considerable period, were kept in awe. This victory was properly ascribed unto God; and Samuel took a stone, and set it up between Mizpeh and Shen, and called the name of it Ebenezer, or "the stone of help," saying, "Hitherto the Lord hath helped us." So did God deliver his people when they cried unto him.

When Samuel was old, he made his sons judges over Israel; but they were corrupt, and perverted judgment; so that the elders of the people complained to Samuel, and desired that a king might rule over them. This request resulted in the appointment of Saul, of the tribe of Benjamin, which took place about the year 1096, B. c. Into the particulars of this change of government, we shall not now enter, but call your attention, by way of conclusion, to a few obvious reflections.

1. What an illustration is here given of the important maxim, "The path of duty is that of safety." Had the Israelites been resolutely obedient, God would have been with them, "their enemies would have been found liars unto them," and they would have trodden on their high places! But, for want of this courage and zeal, they were dishonored, their children corrupted, and often ruined. This should teach us, in our spiritual warfare, to make no compromise with sin. "He that walketh up

rightly walketh surely" Throughout this book we see a faithful and merciful God. He defended his people when they were obedient, he delivered them when penitent, and he punished them when they were rebellious.

2 What an infatuated proneness is here displayed to idolatry! In every age, in spite of admonition, and trouble, and sorrow. Why was this? The answer is obvious-the deep corruption of the human heart. Idolatry sanctions crime; true religion condemns it. Idolaatry exists and luxuriates in pollution; the service of the true God is holiness. The latter appeals to our reason and conscience; the former, to the corrupt propensities of fallen man. This is the true secret. As in Hindostan, in the present day, the temple is a brothel, and the priests and priestesses the vilest of creatures; so it was in Judea; and the groves connected with their idols indicate their debased purpose. Great must have been the sorrows of the faithful amongst these abominations. Like Lot in Sodom, their righteous souls would be vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked.

3. Do we not see even here types and indications of the coming Messiah? Like Samson, that strange and inexplicable character, the Lord Jesus Christ's birth was previously announced; he annoyed and disturbed the enemies of God by his discourses and miracles; and, like him, he effected more by his death than his life. Thus, he "spoiled principalities and powers, and made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it;" and, just at the period when they exulted over him, and thought their triumph complete, was their confusion and defeat secured.

4. Lastly. Let us not be unmindful of the deliverances and mercies we experience, but from time to time erect our Ebenezer, and say, Hitherto the Lord hath helped us."

66

"My grateful soul, on Jordan's shore, Shall raise one sacred pillar more; Then bear, in his bright courts above, Inscriptions of immortal love."

PATRISTICAL AND EXEGETICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE QUESTION RESPECTING THE REAL BODILY PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE ELEMENTS OF THE LORD'S SUPPER.

BY THE REV. J. J. OWEN.

IN our preceding articles, it has been our aim, to present an epitome of the opinions of the early fathers on this important subject. We have also endeavored to shew that their views cannot possibly be the standard by which we are to regulate our faith. If we have a revelation from heaven, it evidently follows that human authority must ever give way before its unerring decision. It deserves however special notice, that supposing our theological creed is to be deduced from the lucubrations of the men to whom we have referred, it is peculiarly unfortunate for the abettors of this sentiment that their dogmas on the point in question, have no place in the writings of those whom they thus take for their guides. It is a palpable fact that the fathers, though often vague and obscure in their phraseology, and almost always disposed to indulge in the marvellous, knew nothing of transubstantiation, nor of its twin doctrine, consubstantiation. And while we are ready to support this assertion, and could, if necessary, furnish a variety of proofs, in addition to those already introduced, we feel no hesitation in acknowledging that though many of the most eminent early teachers of the church regard the eucharistic elements merely as symbolic, yet their views are so encumbered with puerilities, extravagancies, and direct violations of truth, that Protestants cannot rely on, nor boast of this slight coincidence.

-

All attempts to settle this question from the fathers must prove abortive. We then hasten to an examination of the word of God. The leading passages bearing on the subject are the following:"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples and said, Take eat; this is my body. And he took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Matt. xxvi. 26-28. "And as they did eat, Jesus took bread and VOL. 6.-N. S.

[ocr errors]

blessed, and brake it and gave to them, and said, Take eat: this is my body; and he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many." Mark xiv. 22, -24. And he took bread and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you; this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you." Luke xxii. 19, 20. "For I have received of the Lord, that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: and when he had given thanks, he brake it and said, Take eat this is my body, which is broken for you; this do in remembrance

of me.

After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood. This do ye as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." 1 Cor. xi. 23-25. The reader in perusing the above passages will perceive that there are minute differences in all the details of the various narrators. Matthew has the words, "drink ye all of it," which Mark omits. Matthew also represents Jesus as saying in regard to his blood, "which is shed for many, for the remission of sins." Mark wants this clause, but records the following fact, "and they all drank of it." The account furnished by Luke also is somewhat different. Both Matthew and Mark say, "Take eat, this is my body." Luke merely says, "This is my body, which is given for you." Likewise of the cup the two first evangelists say, "This is my blood of the New Testament;" while Luke says, "This cup is the New Testament in my blood." Both the former say, "which is shed for many." Luke says, "which is shed for you;" on the other hand, Luke says of the bread, "this do in remembrance of me," which Matthew and Mark omit. Paul differs in some respects from the 2 W

whole three evangelists, though he approaches very near to the statements presented by Luke. The apostle inserts the words, "take eat," which Luke does not mention, but which are introduced by the other two evangelists. Paul repeats the words, "this do in remembrance of me," both after breaking the bread and distributing the cup, while Matthew and Mark omit these words entirely, and Luke has them only after the breaking of the bread.

It is worthy of notice that it cannot be pretended that in all these accounts there is the slightest contradiction. The case amounts simply to this. Here are four independent witnesses, and each relates the transactions under consideration for himself, and in his own way. It is a fact which cannot be controverted, that four different and independent men never relate a circumstance in the same identical words, or with a repetition of minute details precisely the same. "Such testimony, if it could be found, would be regarded in no other light than as a matter of mere collusion and concert between the narrators, and would consequently lose its credibility." So infinite wisdom has ordered it in this instance. "Each of the inspired writers preserves his own personal characteristics, his own style, his own views; each has inserted something omitted by the others, and omitted something inserted by them; and yet there is a harmony of method, in regard to the exhibition of all the essential facts of the case." All agree that Jesus said of the bread, "This is my body,"-two of them add, "which is given for you,”—“ which is broken for you." Substantially they all agree that Jesus said, respecting the cup, "This is my blood of the New Testament," or as Luke and Paul express it, "This cup is the New Testament in my blood." We regard both these statements as being essentially equivalent, for both declare the fact that the New Testament or covenant is established and confirmed by the blood of Jesus. Three of the witnesses also agree in re

"Take eat" (aßETE PAYETE). These words are not found in several MSS. of the western recension, such as Italic, Copt. and Sahidic versons, and are therefore cancelled by Griesbach and Scholz. But as the present account bears a strong similarity to that of Luke, by whom the words are not introduced,

lating the fact, that Jesus said concerning his blood, that "it was shed for many," (Luke, for you. ;) and Matthew adds, "for the remission of sins." And though Paul does not introduce this last declaration, still the whole tenor of his statement implies it.

Having premised these remarks, the question presents itself to our notice, What is the meaning of our Saviour's language at the institution of the ordinance? Our view of the matter may be embodied in the following language,— That the bread that was broken was a sign, symbol, or emblem of our Lord's body that was to be broken; and after his death, of his body that had been broken; and that the wine which was poured out was a symbol or emblem of his blood that was then to be shed and afterwards of his blood that had been shed. This statement, however, requires to be proved, inasmuch as it is not in accordance with the literal sense of the word. We therefore lay it down as a principle which we shall endeavour to illustrate and confirm, that it is impossible to interpret our Lord's words at the supper in a literal manner without renouncing the use of our reason and understanding, and without violating all sound principles of scriptural interpretation.

Is the Bible always to be understood in a literal sense? What then shall we make of the representation which the apocalypse contains of heaven, in which it is described as 375 miles square, having walls eighteen miles high, and gates of pearl, and streets of gold; and a river running through its centre, adorned with rows of trees on its banks? What shall be said of leaning on Abraham's bosom in the regions of glory, while reclining at the feast table; of the viands with which that table is spread; of the feasts of love there held; of the banqueting, and new wine there; of the crowns, and garlands, and palm branches, and white robes of saints, of harps and trumpets? Or what shall we say of hell? now a deep, and lonely, and dark pit, in which the wicked are confined

may we not suspect that the early critics omitted the words for the purpose of making that correspondence the stronger? Besides the MSS. in question are all of the altered sort, and not many in number. Vide Bloomfield in Loc.

« PreviousContinue »