the Israelites: they were, probably, Mr. Faber thinks, the work of the
“Shepherds,” or Cushite invaders, who, at an early period, held
possession of Egypt for two hundred and sixty years, and reduced the
Egyptians to bondage, so that “a shepherd was an abomination to the
Egyptians” in Joseph’s time. The Israelites laboured in making bricks,
not in forming stones such as the pyramids are constructed with; and a
passage in Mr. Jowett’s “Researches,” before referred to, will throw
light upon this part of their history. Mr. Jowett saw at one place the
people making bricks, with straw cut into small pieces, and mingled with
the clay, to bind it. Hence it is, that when villages built of these
bricks fall into rubbish, which is often the case, the roads are full of
small particles of straws, extremely offensive to the eyes in a high
wind. They were, in fact, engaged exactly as the Israelites used to be,
making bricks with straw; and for a similar purpose, to build extensive
granaries for the bashaw; “treasure-cities for Pharaoh.” The same
intelligent missionary also observes: “The mollems transact business
between the bashaw and the peasants. He punishes them if the peasants
prove that they oppress; and yet he requires from them that the work of
those who are under them shall be fulfilled. They strikingly illustrate
the case of the officers placed by the Egyptian task-masters over the
children of Israel; and, like theirs, the mollems often find their case
is evil, Exodus v.”
8. It is not necessary to go over those parts of the Egyptian history
which occur in the Old Testament. The prophecies respecting this haughty
and idolatrous kingdom, uttered by Jeremiah and Ezekiel when it was in
the height of its splendour and prosperity, were fulfilled in the
terrible invasions of Nebuchadnezzar, Cambyses, and the Persian
monarchs. It comes, however, again into an interesting connection with
the Jewish history under Alexander the Great, who invaded it as a
Persian dependence. So great, indeed, was the hatred of the Egyptians
toward their oppressors, that they hailed the approach of the
Macedonians, and threw open their cities to receive them. Alexander,
merciless as he was to those who opposed his progress or authority, knew
how to requite those who were devoted to his interests; and the
Egyptians, for many centuries afterward, had reason to recollect with
gratitude his protection and foresight. It was he who discerned the
local advantages of the spot on which the city bearing his name
afterward stood, who projected the plan of the town, superintended its
erection, endowed it with many privileges, and peopled it with colonies
drawn from other places for the purpose, chiefly Greeks. But, together
with these, and the most favoured of all, were the Jews, who enjoyed the
free exercise of their religion, and the same civil rights and liberties
as the Macedonians themselves. Kindness shown to the people of Israel
has never, in the providence of God, brought evil on any country; and
there can be no doubt but that the encouragement given to this
enterprising and commercial people, assisted very much to promote the
interests of the new city, which soon became the capital of the kingdom,
the centre of commerce, of science, and the arts, and one of the most
flourishing and considerable cities in the world. Egypt, indeed, was
about to see better days; and, during the reigns of the Ptolemies,
enjoyed again, for nearly three hundred years, something of its former
renown for learning and power. It formed, during this period, and before
the rapid extension of the Roman empire toward the termination of these
years, one of the only two ancient kingdoms which had survived the
Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, and Macedonian empires: the other was the
Syrian, where the Seleucidæ, another family of one of the successors of
Alexander, reigned; who, having subdued Macedonia and Thrace, annexed
them to the kingdom of Syria, and there remained out of the four
kingdoms into which the empire of Alexander was divided these two only;
distinguished, in the prophetic writings of Daniel, by the titles of the
kings or kingdoms of the north and the south.
9. Under the reign of the three first Ptolemies, the state of the Jews
was exceedingly prosperous. They were in high favour, and continued to
enjoy all the advantages conferred upon them by Alexander. Judea was, in
fact, at this time, a privileged province of Egypt; the Jews being
governed by their own high priest, on paying a tribute to the kings of
Egypt. But in the reign of Ptolemy Epiphanes, the fifth of the race, it
was taken by Antiochus, king of Syria; which was the beginning of fresh
sufferings and persecutions; for although this Antiochus, who was the
one surnamed the Great, was a mild and generous prince, and behaved
favourably toward them, their troubles began at his death; his
successor, Seleucus, oppressing them with taxes; and the next was the
monster, Antiochus Epiphanes, whose impieties and cruelties are recorded
in the two books of Maccabees. But still, in Egypt, the Jews continued
in the enjoyment of their privileges, so late as the reign of the sixth
Ptolemy, called Philometor, who committed the charge of his affairs to
two Jews, Onias and Dositheus; the former of whom obtained permission to
build a temple at Heliopolis. The introduction of Christianity into
Egypt is mentioned under the article ALEXANDRIA.
10. The prophecies respecting Egypt in the Old Testament have had a
wonderful fulfilment. The knowledge of all its greatness and glory
deterred not the Jewish prophets from declaring, that Egypt would become
“a base kingdom, and never exalt itself any more among the nations.” And
the literal fulfilment of every prophecy affords as clear a
demonstration as can possibly be given, that each and all of them are
the dictates of inspiration. Egypt was the theme of many prophecies,
which were fulfilled in ancient times; and it bears to the present day,
as it has borne throughout many ages, every mark with which prophecy had
stamped its destiny: “They shall be a base kingdom. It shall be the
basest of kingdoms. Neither shall it exalt itself any more among the
nations: for I will diminish them, that they shall no more rule over the
nations. The pride of her power shall come down; and they shall be
desolate in the midst of the countries that are desolate; and her cities
shall be in the midst of the cities that are wasted. I will make the
land of Egypt desolate, and the country shall be desolate of that
whereof it was full. I will sell the land into the hand of the wicked. I
will make the land waste and all that is therein, by the hand of
strangers. I the Lord have spoken it. And there shall be no more a
prince of the land of Egypt,” Ezek. xxx, 5, 7, 12, 13. “The sceptre of
Egypt shall depart away,” Zech. x, 11.
11. Egypt became entirely subject to the Persians about three hundred
and fifty years previous to the Christian æra. It was afterward subdued
by the Macedonians, and was governed by the Ptolemies for the space of
two hundred and ninety-four years; until, about B. C. 30, it became a
province of the Roman empire. It continued long in subjection to the
Romans,--tributary first to Rome, and afterward to Constantinople. It
was transferred, A. D. 641, to the dominion of the Saracens. In 1250 the
Mamelukes deposed their rulers, and usurped the command of Egypt. A mode
of government, the most singular and surprising that ever existed on
earth, was established and maintained. Each successive ruler was raised
to supreme authority, from being a stranger and a slave. No son of the
former ruler, no native of Egypt, succeeded to the sovereignty; but a
chief was chosen from among a new race of imported slaves. When Egypt
became tributary to the Turks in 1517, the Mamelukes retained much of
their power; and every pasha was an oppressor and a stranger. During all
these ages, every attempt to emancipate the country, or to create a
prince of the land of Egypt, has proved abortive, and has often been
fatal to the aspirant. Though the facts relative to Egypt form too
prominent a feature in the history of the world to admit of
contradiction or doubt, yet the description of the fate of that country,
and of the form of its government, may be left, says Keith, to the
testimony of those whose authority no infidel will question, and whom no
man can accuse of adapting their descriptions to the predictions of the
event. Volney and Gibbon are our witnesses of the facts: “Such is the
state of Egypt. Deprived, twenty-three centuries ago, of her natural
proprietors, she has seen her fertile fields successively a prey to the
Persians, the Macedonians, the Romans, the Greeks, the Arabs, the
Georgians, and, at length, the race of Tartars distinguished by the name
of Ottoman Turks. The Mamelukes, purchased as slaves, and introduced as
soldiers, soon usurped the power and elected a leader. If their first
establishment was a singular event, their continuance is not less
extraordinary. They are replaced by slaves brought from their original
country. The system of oppression is methodical. Every thing the
traveller sees or hears reminds him he is in the country of slavery and
tyranny.” “A more unjust and absurd constitution cannot be devised than
that which condemns the natives of a country to perpetual servitude,
under the arbitrary dominion of strangers and slaves. Yet such has been
the state of Egypt above five hundred years. The most illustrious
sultans of the Baharite and Borgite dynasties were themselves promoted
from the Tartar and Circassian bands; and the four-and-twenty beys, or
military chiefs, have ever been succeeded, not by their sons, but by
their servants.” These are the words of Volney and of Gibbon; and what
did the ancient prophets foretel?--“I will lay the land waste, and all
that is therein, by the hands of _strangers_. I the Lord have spoken it.
And there shall be no more a prince of the land of Egypt. The sceptre of
Egypt shall depart away.” The prophecy adds: “They shall be a base
kingdom: it shall be the basest of kingdoms.” After the lapse of two
thousand and four hundred years from the date of this prophecy, a
scoffer at religion, but an eye witness of the facts, thus describes the
self-same spot: “In Egypt,” says Volney, “there is no middle class,
neither nobility, clergy, merchants, landholders. A universal air of
misery, manifest in all the traveller meets, points out to him the
rapacity of oppression, and the distrust attendant upon slavery. The
profound ignorance of the inhabitants equally prevents them from
perceiving the causes of their evils, or applying the necessary
remedies. Ignorance, diffused through every class, extends its effects
to every species of moral and physical knowledge. Nothing is talked of
but intestine troubles, the public misery, pecuniary extortions,
bastinadoes, and murders. Justice herself puts to death without
formality.” Other travellers describe the most execrable vices as
common, and represent the moral character of the people as corrupted to
the core. As a token of the desolation of the country, mud-walled
cottages are now the only habitations where the ruins of temples and
palaces abound. Egypt is surrounded by the dominions of the Turks and of
the Arabs; and the prophecy is literally true which marked it in the
midst of desolation: “They shall be desolate in the midst of the
countries that are desolate, and her cities shall be in the midst of the
cities that are wasted.” The systematic oppression, extortion, and
plunder, which have so long prevailed, and the price paid for his
authority and power by every Turkish pasha, have rendered the country
“desolate of that whereof it was full,” and still show both how it has
been “wasted by the hands of strangers,” and how it has been “sold into
the hand of the wicked.”
12. Egypt has, indeed, lately somewhat risen, under its present spirited
but despotic pasha, to a degree of importance and commerce. But this
pasha is still a _stranger_, and the dominion is foreign. Nor is there
any thing like a general advancement of the people to order,
intelligence and happiness. Yet this fact, instead of militating against
the truth of prophecy, may, possibly at no distant period, serve to
illustrate other predictions. “The Lord shall smite Egypt: he shall
smite and heal it; and they shall return to the Lord, and he shall be
entreated of them, and shall heal them. In that day shall Israel be the
third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the
land,” &c, Isaiah xix, 22–25.
ELAM, the eldest son of Shem, who settled in a country to which he gave
his name, Gen. x, 22. It is frequently mentioned in Scripture, as lying
to the south-east of Shinar. Susiana, in later times, seems to have been
a part of this country, Daniel viii, 2; and before the captivity the
Jews seem always to have intended Persia by the name of Elam. Stephanus
takes it to be a part of Assyria, but Pliny and Josephus, more properly,
of Persia, whose inhabitants, this latter tells us, sprung from the
Elamites.
ELATH, or ELOTH, a part of Idumea, situate upon the Red Sea, the
emporium of Syria in Asia. It was taken by David, 2 Sam. viii, 14, who
there established an extensive trade. There Solomon built ships, 2
Chron. viii, 17, 18. The Israelites held possession of Elath one hundred
and fifty years, when the Edomites, in the reign of Joram, recovered it,
2 Kings viii, 20. It was again taken from them by Azariah, and by him
left to his son, 2 Kings xiv, 22. The king of Syria took it from his
grandson, 2 Kings xvi, 6. In process of time it fell to the Ptolemies,
and lastly to the Romans. The branch of the Red Sea on which this city
stood, obtained among Heathen writers the name of _Sinus Elaniticus_ or
Elanitic Gulf, from a town built on its site called Elana, and
subsequently Ala; which, as we are informed by Eusebius and Jerom, was
used as a port in their time. The modern Arabian town of Akaba stands
upon or near the site either of Elath or Ezion-Geber; which of the two
it is impossible to determine, as both ports, standing at the head of
the gulf, were probably separated from each other by a creek or small
bay only.
ELDAD and Medad were appointed by Moses among the seventy elders of
Israel who were to assist in the government. Though not present in the
general assembly, they were, notwithstanding, filled with the Spirit of
God, equally with those who were in that assembly, and they began to
prophesy in the camp. Joshua would have had Moses forbid them, but Moses
replied, “Enviest thou for my sake? Would God that all the Lord’s people
were prophets, and that God would pour forth his Spirit upon them!”
Numbers xi, 24–29.
ELDERS, a name given to certain laymen in the Presbyterian discipline,
who are ecclesiastical officers, and in conjunction with the ministers
and deacons compose the kirk sessions in Scotland. The number of elders
is proportioned to the extent and population of the parish, and is
seldom less than two or three, but sometimes exceeds fifty. They are
laymen in this respect, that they have no right to teach, or to dispense
the sacraments; and on this account they form an office in the
Presbyterian church inferior in rank and power to that of pastors. They
generally discharge the office which originally belonged to the deacons,
of attending to the interests of the poor. But their peculiar business
is expressed by the name ruling elders; for in every jurisdiction within
the parish they are the spiritual court, of which the minister is
officially moderator; and in the presbytery, of which the pastors of all
the parishes within its bounds are officially members, lay elders sit as
the representatives of the several sessions or consistories.
ELDERS OF ISRAEL. By this name we understand the heads of tribes, or
rather of the great families in Israel, who, before the settlement of
the Hebrew commonwealth, had a government and authority over their own
families, and the people. When Moses was sent into Egypt to deliver
Israel, he assembled the elders of Israel, and told them that the God of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, had appeared to him, Exod. iii, 15; iv, 29,
&c. Moses and Aaron treat the elders of Israel as the representatives of
the nation. When God gave the law to Moses, he said, “Take Aaron, Nadab,
and Abihu, his sons, and the seventy elders of Israel, and worship ye
afar off,” Exod. xxiv, 1, 9, 10. They advanced only to the foot of the
mountain. On all occasions afterward, we find this number of seventy
elders. But it is credible, that as there were twelve tribes, there were
seventy-two elders, six from each tribe, and that seventy is set down,
instead of seventy-two; or rather, that Moses and Aaron should be added
to the number seventy, and that, exclusive of them, there were but four
elders from the tribe of Levi. After Jethro’s arrival in the camp of
Israel, Moses made a considerable change in the governors of the people.
He established over Israel heads of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and
tens, that justice might be readily administered to applicants; only
difficult cases were referred to himself, Exod. xviii, 24, 25, &c. But
this constitution did not continue long; for on the murmuring of the
people at the encampment called the Graves of Lust, Num. xi, 24–35,
Moses appointed seventy elders of Israel, to whom God communicated part
of that legislator’s spirit; they began to prophesy, and ceased not
afterward. This, according to the generality of interpreters, was the
beginning of the sanhedrim; but, to support this opinion, many things
must be supposed, whereby to infer, that this court of justice was
constantly in being during the Scripture history. It seems that the
establishment of the seventy elders by Moses continued, not only during
his life, but under Joshua likewise, and under the judges. The elders of
the people and Joshua swore to the treaty with the Gibeonites, Josh, ix,
15. A little before his death, Joshua renewed the covenant with the
Lord, in company with the elders, the princes, the heads, and officers
of Israel, Joshua xxiii; xxiv, 1, 28. After the death of Joshua, and the
elders who survived him, the people were several times brought into
bondage, and were delivered by their judges. We do not see distinctly
what authority the elders had during this time, and still less under the
kings who succeeded the judges.
ELEAZAR, the third son of Aaron, and his successor in the dignity of
high priest, Exod. vi, 23. He entered into the land of Canaan with
Joshua, and is supposed to have lived there upward of twenty years. The
high priesthood continued in his family till the time of Eli. He was
buried in a hill that belonged to the son of Phineas, Joshua xxiv.
2. ELEAZAR, the son of Aminadab, to whose care the ark was committed
when it was sent back by the Philistines, 1 Samuel vii. He is thought to
have been a priest, or at least a Levite, though he is not mentioned in
the catalogue of the sons of Levi.
ELECTION. Of a divine election, a choosing and separating from others,
we have three kinds mentioned in the Scriptures. The first is the
election of _individuals_ to perform some particular and special
service. Cyrus was “elected” to rebuild the temple; the twelve Apostles
were “chosen,” elected, to their office by Christ; St. Paul was a
“chosen,” or elected “vessel,” to be the Apostle of the Gentiles. The
second kind of election which we find in Scripture, is the election of
_nations, or bodies of people_, to eminent religious privileges, and in
order to accomplish, by their superior illumination, the merciful
purposes of God, in benefiting other nations or bodies of people. Thus
the descendants of Abraham, the Jews, were _chosen_ to receive special
revelations of truth; and to be “the people of God,” that is, his
visible church, publicly to observe and uphold his worship. “The Lord
thy God hath _chosen_ thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above
all people that are upon the face of the earth.” “The Lord had a delight
in thy fathers to love them, and he _chose_ their seed after them, even
you, above all people.” It was especially on account of the application
of the terms _elect_, _chosen_, and _peculiar_, to the Jewish people,
that they were so familiarly used by the Apostles in their epistles
addressed to the believing Jews and Gentiles, then constituting the
church of Christ in various places. For Christians were the subjects,
also, of this second kind of election; the election of bodies of men to
be the visible people and church of God in the world, and to be endowed
with peculiar privileges. Thus they became, though in a more special and
exalted sense, the chosen people, the elect of God. We say “in a more
special sense,” because as the entrance into the Jewish church was by
natural birth, and the entrance into the Christian church, properly so
called, is by faith and a spiritual birth, these terms, although many
became Christians by mere profession, and enjoyed various privileges in
consequence of their people or nation being chosen to receive the
Gospel, have generally respect, in the New Testament, to bodies of true
believers, or to the whole body of true believers as such. They are not,
therefore, to be interpreted according to the scheme of Dr. Taylor of
Norwich, by the constitution of the Jewish, but by the constitution of
the Christian, church.