Jerusalem. In the second year of Nehemiah’s government, the people being
assembled in the temple, at the feast of tabernacles, Ezra was desired
to read the law. He read it from morning till noon, and was accompanied
by Levites who stood beside him, and kept silence. The next day they
desired to know of Ezra how they were to celebrate the feast of
tabernacles. This he explained, and continued eight days reading the law
in the temple. All this was followed by a solemn renewal of the covenant
with the Lord. Josephus says that Ezra was buried at Jerusalem; but the
Jews believe that he died in Persia, in a second journey to Artaxerxes.
His tomb is shown there in the city of Zamuza. He is said to have lived
nearly one hundred and twenty years.
Ezra was the restorer and publisher of the Holy Scriptures, after the
return of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity. 1. He corrected the
errors which had crept into the existing copies of the sacred writings
by the negligence or mistake of transcribers. 2. He collected all the
books of which the Holy Scriptures then consisted, disposed them in
their proper order, and settled the canon of Scripture for his time. 3.
He added throughout the books of his edition what appeared necessary for
illustrating, connecting, or completing them; and of this we have an
instance in the account of the death and burial of Moses, in the last
chapter of Deuteronomy. In this work he was assisted by the same Spirit
by which they were at first written. 4. He changed the ancient names of
several places become obsolete, and substituted for them new names, by
which they were at that time called. 5. He wrote out the whole in the
Chaldee character; that language having grown into use after the
Babylonish captivity. The Jews have an extraordinary esteem for Ezra,
and say that if the law had not been given by Moses, Ezra deserved to
have been the legislator of the Hebrews.
FABLE, a fiction destitute of truth. St. Paul exhorts Timothy and Titus
to shun profane and Jewish fables, 1 Tim. iv, 7; Titus i, 14; as having
a tendency to seduce men from the truth. By these fables some understand
the reveries of the Gnostics; but the fathers generally, and after them
most of the modern commentators, interpret them of the vain traditions
of the Jews; especially concerning meats, and other things, to be
abstained from as unclean, which our Lord also styles “the doctrines of
men,” Matt. xv, 9. This sense of the passages is confirmed by their
contexts. In another sense, the word is taken to signify an apologue, or
instructive tale, intended to convey truth under the concealment of
fiction; as Jotham’s fable of the trees, Judges ix, 7–15, no doubt by
far the oldest fable extant.
FACE. Moses begs of God to show him his face, or to manifest his glory;
he replies, “I will make all my goodness pass before thee,” and I will
proclaim my name; “but my face thou canst not see; for there shall no
man see it and live!” The persuasion was very prevalent in the world,
that no man could support the sight of Deity, Genesis xvi, 13; xxxii,
30; Exod. xx, 19; xxiv, 11; Judges vi, 22, 23. We read that God spake
mouth to mouth with Moses, even apparently, and not in dark speeches,
Numbers xii, 8; “The Canaanites have heard that thou art among thy
people, and seen face to face,” Numbers xiv, 14. God talked with the
Hebrews “face to face out of the midst of the fire,” Deut. v, 4. All
these places are to be understood simply, that God so manifested himself
to the Israelites, that he made them hear his voice as distinctly as if
he had appeared to them face to face; but not that they actually saw
more than the cloud of glory which marked his presence. The face of God
denotes sometimes his anger: “The face of the Lord is against them that
do evil.” “As wax melteth before the fire, so let the wicked perish
before the face of God,” Psalm lxviii, 2. To turn the face upon any one,
especially when connected with the light or shining of the countenance,
are beautiful representations of the divine kindness and condescension.
To regard the face of any one, is to have respect of persons, Proverbs
xxviii, 21. The Apostle, speaking of the difference between our
knowledge of God here and in heaven, says, “Now we see through a glass
darkly; but then face to face,” 1 Cor. xiii, 12; by which he shows the
vast difference between our seeing or knowing God and divine things by
an imperfect revelation to faith, and by direct vision. This observation
of the Apostle is rendered the more striking, when it is recollected
that the Roman glass was not fully transparent as ours, but dull and
clouded. Of this, specimens may be seen in the glass vessels taken out
of Pompeii.
FAITH, in Scripture, is presented to us under two leading views: the
first is that of _assent_ or _persuasion_; the second, that of
_confidence_ or _reliance_. The former may be separate from the latter,
but the latter cannot exist without the former. Faith, in the sense of
an intellectual assent to truth, is, by St. James, allowed to devils. A
dead, inoperative faith is also supposed, or declared, to be possessed
by wicked men, professing Christianity; for our Lord represents persons
coming to him at the last day, saying, “Lord, have we not prophesied in
thy name” &c, to whom he will say, “Depart from me, I never knew you.”
And yet the charge in this place does not lie against the sincerity of
their belief, but against their conduct as “workers of iniquity.” As
this distinction is taught in Scripture, so it is also observed in
experience: assent to the truths of revealed religion may result from
examination and conviction, while yet the spirit and conduct may remain
unrenewed and sinful.
2. The faith which is required of us as a condition of salvation always
includes confidence or reliance, as well as assent or persuasion. That
faith by which “the elders obtained a good report,” was of this
character; it united _assent_ to the truth of God’s revelations with a
noble _confidence_ in his promise. “Our fathers trusted in thee, and
were not confounded.” We have a farther illustration in our Lord’s
address to his disciples upon the withering away of the fig tree: “Have
faith in God.” He did not question whether they believed the existence
of God, but exhorted them to confidence in his promises, when called by
him to contend with mountainous difficulties: “Have faith in God; for
verily I say unto you, that whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be
thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea, and shall not doubt in his
heart, but shall believe (trust) that these things which he saith shall
come to pass, he shall have whatsoever he saith.” It was in reference to
his simple confidence in Christ’s power that our Lord so highly
commended the centurion, and said, “I have not found so great faith, no,
not in Israel,” Matt. viii, 10. And all the instances of faith in the
persons miraculously healed by Christ, were also of this kind: their
faith was belief in his claims, and also confidence in his goodness and
power.
3. That faith in Christ which in the New Testament is connected with
salvation, is clearly of this nature; that is, it combines assent with
reliance, belief with trust. “Whatsoever ye ask the Father in my name,”
that is, in dependence upon my interest and merits, “he shall give it
you.” Christ was preached both to Jews and Gentiles as the object of
their trust, because he was preached as the only true sacrifice for sin;
and they were required to renounce their dependence upon their own
accustomed sacrifices, and to transfer that dependence to his death and
mediation,--and “in his name shall the Gentiles trust.” He is said to be
set forth as a propitiation, “through faith in his blood;” which faith
can neither merely mean assent to the historical fact that his blood was
shed by a violent death; nor mere assent to the general doctrine that
his blood had an atoning quality; but as all expiatory offerings were
_trusted in_ as the means of propitiation both among Jews and Gentiles,
faith or trust was now to be exclusively rendered to the blood of
Christ, as the divinely appointed sacrifice for sin, and the only refuge
of the true penitent.
4. To the most unlettered Christian this then will be very obvious, that
true and saving faith in Christ consists both of assent and trust; but
this is not a blind and superstitious trust in the sacrifice of Christ,
like that of the Heathens in their sacrifices; nor the presumptuous
trust of wicked and impenitent men, who depend on Christ to save them in
their sins; but such a trust as is exercised according to the authority
and direction of the word of God; so that _to know_ the Gospel in its
leading principles, and to have a cordial _belief_ in it, is necessary
to that more specific act of faith which is called _reliance_, or in
systematic language, _fiducial assent_. The Gospel, as the scheme of
man’s salvation, declares that he is under the law; that this law of God
has been violated by all; and that every man is under sentence of death.
Serious consideration of our ways, confession of the fact, and sorrowful
conviction of the evil and danger of sin, will, under the influence of
divine grace, follow the cordial belief of the testimony of God; and we
shall then turn to God with contrite hearts, and earnest prayers, and
supplications for his mercy. This is called “repentance toward God;” and
repentance being the first subject of evangelical preaching, and then
the injunction to believe the Gospel, it is plain, that Christ is only
_immediately_ held out, in this divine plan of our redemption, as the
object of trust in order to forgiveness to persons in this state of
penitence and under this sense of danger. The degree of sorrow for sin,
and alarm upon this discovery of our danger as sinners, is no where
fixed to a precise standard in Scripture; only it is supposed every
where, that it is such as to lead men to inquire earnestly, “What shall
I do to be saved?” and with earnest seriousness to use all the appointed
means of grace, as those who feel that their salvation is at issue, that
they are in a lost condition, and must be pardoned or perish. To all
such persons, Christ, as the only atonement for sin, is exhibited as the
object of their trust, with the promise of God, “that whosoever
believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.” Nothing
is required of such but this actual trust in, and personal apprehension
or taking hold of, the merits of Christ’s death as a sacrifice for sin;
and upon their thus believing they are justified, their “faith is
counted for righteousness,” or, in other words, they are forgiven.
5. This appears to be the plain Scriptural representation of this
doctrine; and we may infer from it, (1.) That the faith by which we are
justified is not a mere assent to the doctrines of the Gospel, which
leaves the heart unmoved and unaffected by a sense of the evil and
danger of sin and the desire of salvation, although it supposes this
assent; nor, (2.) Is it that more lively and cordial assent to, and
belief in, the doctrine of the Gospel, touching our sinful and lost
condition, which is wrought in the heart by the Spirit of God, and from
which springeth repentance, although this must precede it; nor, (3.) Is
it only the assent of the mind to the method by which God justifies the
ungodly by faith in the sacrifice of his Son, although this is an
element of it; but it is a hearty concurrence of the will and affections
with this plan of salvation, which implies a renunciation of every other
refuge, and an actual trust in the Saviour, and personal apprehension of
his merits: such a belief of the Gospel by the power of the Spirit of
God as leads us to come to Christ, to receive Christ, to trust in
Christ, and to commit the keeping of our souls into his hands, in humble
confidence of his ability and his willingness to save us.
6. This is that qualifying condition to which the promise of God annexes
justification; that without which justification would not take place;
and in this sense it is that we are justified by faith; not by the merit
of faith, but by faith instrumentally as this condition: for its
connection with the benefit arises from the merits of Christ and the
promise of God. If Christ had not merited, God had not promised; if God
had not promised, justification had never followed upon this faith; so
that the indissoluble connection of faith and justification is from
God’s institution, whereby he hath bound himself to give the benefit
upon performance of the condition. Yet there is an aptitude in this
faith to be made a condition; for no other act can receive Christ as a
Priest propitiating and pleading the propitiation and the promise of God
for his sake to give the benefit. As receiving Christ and the gracious
promise in this manner, it acknowledgeth man’s guilt, and so man
renounceth all righteousness in himself, and honoureth God the Father,
and Christ the Son, the only Redeemer. It glorifies God’s mercy and free
grace in the highest degree. It acknowledges on earth, as it will be
perpetually acknowledged in heaven, that the whole salvation of sinful
man, from the beginning to the last degree thereof, whereof there shall
be no end, is from God’s freest love, Christ’s merit and intercession,
his own gracious promise, and the power of his own Holy Spirit.
7. Faith, in Scripture, sometimes is taken for the truth and
faithfulness of God, Rom. iii, 3; and it is also taken for the
persuasion of the mind as to the lawfulness of things indifferent, Rom.
xiv, 22, 23; and it is likewise put for the doctrine of the Gospel,
which is the object of faith, Acts xxiv, 24; Phil. i, 27; Jude 3; for
the belief and profession of the Gospel, Rom. i, 8; and for fidelity in
the performance of promises.
FALL OF MAN. In addition to what is stated on this subject under the
article _Adam_, it may be necessary to establish the literal sense of
the account given of man’s fall in the book of Genesis. This account is,
that a garden having been planted by the Creator, for the use of man, he
was placed in it, “to dress it, and to keep it;”--that in this garden
two trees were specially distinguished, one as “the tree of life,” the
other as “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil;”--that from eating
of the latter Adam was restrained by positive interdict, and by the
penalty, “In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die;”--that
the serpent, who was more subtle than any beast of the field, tempted
the woman to eat, by denying that death would be the consequence, and by
assuring her, that her eyes and her husband’s eyes “would be opened,”
and that they would “be as gods, knowing good and evil;”--that the woman
took of the fruit, gave of it to her husband, who also ate;--that for
this act of disobedience they were expelled from the garden, made
subject to death, and laid under other maledictions.
2. That this history should be the subject of much criticism, not only
by infidels, but by those who hold false and perverted views of the
Christian system, was to be expected. Taken in its natural and obvious
sense, along with the comments of the subsequent Scriptures, it teaches
the doctrines of the existence of an evil, tempting, invisible spirit,
going about seeking whom he may deceive and devour; of the introduction
of moral corruptness into human nature, which has been transmitted to
all men; and is connected also with the doctrine of a vicarious
atonement for sin; and wherever the fundamental truths of the Christian
system are denied, attempts will be made so to interpret this part of
the Mosaic history as to obscure the testimony which it gives to them,
either explicitly, or by just induction. Interpreters have adopted
various and often strange theories; but those whose opinions it seems
necessary to notice may be divided into such as deny the literal sense
of the relation entirely; such as take the account to be in part literal
and in part allegorical; and those who, while they contend earnestly for
the literal interpretation of every part of the history, consider some
of the terms used, and some of the persons introduced, as conveying a
meaning more extensive than the letter, and as constituting several
symbols of spiritual things and of spiritual beings.
3. Those who have denied the literal sense entirely, and regarded the
whole relation as an instructive _mythos_, or fable, have, as might be
expected, when all restraint of authority was thus thrown off from the
imagination, themselves adopted very different theories. Thus we have
been taught, that this account was intended to teach the evil of
yielding to the violence of appetite and to its control over reason; or
the introduction of vice in conjunction with knowledge and the
artificial refinements of society; or the necessity of keeping the great
mass of mankind from acquiring too great a degree of knowledge, as being
hurtful to society; or to consider it as another version of the story of
the golden age, and its being succeeded by times more vicious and
miserable; or as designed, enigmatically, to account for the origin of
evil, or of mankind. This catalogue of opinions might be much enlarged:
some of them have been held by mere visionaries; others by men of
learning, especially by several of the semi-infidel theologians and
Biblical critics of Germany; nor has our own country been exempt from
this class of bold expositors. How to fix upon the moral of “the fable”
is, however, the difficulty; and the great variety of opinion is a
sufficient refutation of the general notion assumed by the whole class,
since scarcely can two of them be found who adopt the same views, after
they have discarded the literal acceptation.
4. But that the account of Moses is to be taken as a matter of real
history, and according to its literal import, is established by two
considerations, against which, as being facts, nothing can successfully
be urged. The first is, that the account of the fall of the first pair
is a part of a continuous history. The creation of the world, of man, of
woman; the planting of the garden of Eden, and the placing of man there;
the duties and prohibitions laid upon him; his disobedience; his
expulsion from the garden; the subsequent birth of his children, their
lives, and actions, and those of their posterity, down to the flood;
and, from that event, to the life of Abraham, are given in the same
plain and unadorned narrative; brief, but yet simple; and with no
intimation at all, either from the elevation of the style or otherwise,
that a fable or allegory is in any part introduced. As this, then, is
the case, and the evidence of it lies upon the very face of the history,
it is clear, that if the account of the fall be excerpted from the whole
narrative as allegorical, any subsequent part, from Abel to Noah, from
Noah to Abraham, from Abraham to Moses, may be excerpted for the same
reason, which reason is merely this, that it does not agree with the
theological opinions of the interpreter; and thus the whole of the
Pentateuch may be rejected history, and converted into fable. Either
then the account of the fall must be taken as history, or the historical
character of the whole five books of Moses must be unsettled; and if
none but infidels will go to the latter consequence, then no one who
admits the Pentateuch to be a true history generally, can consistently
refuse to admit the story of the fall of the first pair to be a
narrative of real events, because it is written in the same style, and
presents the same character of a continuous record of events. So
conclusive has this argument been felt, that the anti-literal
interpreters have endeavoured to evade it, by asserting that the part of
the history of Moses in question bears marks of being a separate
fragment, more ancient than the Pentateuch itself, and transcribed into
it by Moses, the author and compiler of the whole. This point is
examined and satisfactorily refuted in Holden’s learned and excellent
work, entitled, “Dissertation on the Fall of Man;” but it is easy to
show, that it would amount to nothing, if granted, in the mind of any
who is satisfied on the previous question of the inspiration of the Holy
Scriptures. For let it be admitted that Moses, in writing the
pentateuchal history, availed himself of the traditions of the
patriarchal ages, a supposition not in the least inconsistent with his
inspiration or with the absolute truth of his history, since the
traditions so introduced have been authenticated by the Holy Spirit; or
let it be supposed, which is wholly gratuitous, that he made use of
previously existing documents; and that some differences of style in his
books may be traced which serve to point out his quotations, which is a
position that some of the best Hebraists have denied; yet two things are
to be noted: first, that the inspired character of the books of Moses is
authenticated by our Lord and his Apostles, so that they must
necessarily be wholly true, and free from real contradictions; and,
secondly, that to make it any thing to their purpose who contend that
the account of the fall is an older document, introduced by Moses, it
ought to be shown that it is not written as truly in the narrative
style, even if it could be proved to be, in some respects, a different
style, as that which precedes and follows it. Now the very literal
character of our translation will enable even the unlearned reader to
discover this. Whether it be an embodied tradition, or the insertion of
a more ancient document, (though there is no foundation at all for the
latter supposition,) it is obviously a narrative, and a _narrative_ as
simple as any which precedes or follows it.
5. The other indisputable fact to which I just now adverted, as
establishing the literal sense of the history, is that, as such, it is
referred to and reasoned upon in various parts of Scripture: “Knowest
thou not this of old, since man (Adam) was placed upon earth, that the
triumphing of the wicked is short, and the joy of the hypocrite but for
a moment?” Job xx, 4, 5. There is no reason to doubt but that this
passage refers to the fall and the first sin of man. The date agrees;
for the knowledge here taught is said to arise from facts as old as the
first placing of man upon earth, and the sudden punishment of the
iniquity corresponds to the Mosaic account: “The triumphing of the
wicked is short, his joy but for a moment.” “If I covered my
transgressions as Adam, by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom,” Job xxxi,
33. Magee renders the verse,
“Did I cover, like Adam, my transgression,
By hiding in a lurking place mine iniquity?”
and adds, “I agree with Peters, that this contains a reference to the
history of the first man, and his endeavours to hide himself after his
transgression.” Our margin reads, “after the manner of men;” and also
the old versions; but the Chaldee paraphrase agrees with our
translation, which is also satisfactorily defended by numerous critics.
“What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman,
that he should be righteous?” Job xv, 14. Why not clean? Did God make
woman or man unclean at the beginning? If he did, the expostulation
would have been more apposite, and much stronger, had the true cause
been assigned, and Job had said, “How canst thou expect cleanness in
man, whom thou _createdst_ unclean?” But, as the case now stands, the
expostulation has a plain reference to the introduction of vanity and
corruption by the sin of the woman, and is an evidence that this ancient
writer was sensible of the evil consequences of the fall upon the whole
race of man. “Eden” and “the garden of the Lord” are also frequently
referred to in the prophets. We have the “tree of life” mentioned
several times in the Proverbs and in the Revelation. “God,” says
Solomon, “made man upright.” The enemies of Christ and his church are
spoken of, both in the Old and New Testaments, under the names of “the
serpent,” and “the dragon;” and the habit of the serpent to lick the
dust is also referred to by Isaiah.