Sometime In Summer

Order directly from alibris.com

https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&offerid=1494105.26
539780316194518&type=15&murl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alibris.com%2Fsearch%2
Fbooks%2Fisbn%2F9780316194518
Sometime In Summer

ISBN: 9780316194518
Category: Media > Books
File Fomat: PDF, EPUB, DOC...
File Details: 9.6 MB
Language: English
Website: alibris.com
Short description: Very good A clean, cared for item that is unmarked
and shows limited shelf wear.

DOWNLOAD: https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&
offerid=1494105.26539780316194518&type=15&murl=http%3A%2F%2F
www.alibris.com%2Fsearch%2Fbooks%2Fisbn%2F9780316194518
 Sometime In Summer

• Click the link: https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&offerid=1494105.2653978031619451

• Don’t miss the chance to explore our extensive collection of high-quality resources, books, and guides on
our website. Visit us regularly to stay updated with new titles and gain access to even more valuable
materials.
.
 The only satisfactory conclusion on this subject, is that which
refers moral obligation to the will of God. Obligation,” says
Warburton, necessarily implies an obliger, and the obliger must be
different from, and not one and the same with, the obliged. Moral
obligation, that is, the obligation of a free agent, farther implies a
law, which enjoins and forbids; but a law is the imposition of an
intelligent superior, who hath power to exact conformity thereto.”
This lawgiver is God; and whatever may be the reasons which have
led him to enjoin this, and to prohibit that, it is plain that the
obligation to obey lies not merely in the fitness and propriety of a
creature obeying an infinitely wise and good Creator, (though such a
fitness exists,) but in that obedience being enjoined. For, since the
question respects the duty of a created being with reference to his
Creator, nothing can be more conclusive than that the Creator has
an absolute right to the obedience of his creatures; and that the
creature is in duty obliged to obey him from whom it not only has
received being, but by whom that being is constantly sustained. It
has, indeed, been said, that even if it be admitted, that I am obliged
to obey the will of God, the question is still open, Why am I obliged
to obey his will?” and that this brings us round to the former
answer; because he can only will what is upon the whole best for his
creatures. But this is confounding that which may be, and doubtless
is, a rule to God in the commands which he issues, with that which
really obliges the creature. Now, that which in truth obliges the
creature is not the nature of the commands issued by God; but the
relation in which the creature itself stands to God. If a creature can
have no existence, nor any power or faculty independently of God, it
can have no right to employ its faculties independently of him; and if
it have no right to employ its faculties in an independent manner, the
right to rule its conduct must rest with the Creater alone; and from
this results the obligation of absolute and universal obedience.
MORAVIANS, or UNITED BRETHREN. The name of Moravians, or
Moravian Brethren, was in England given to the members of a
foreign Protestant church, calling itself the Unitas Fratrum, or United
Brethren. This church formerly consisted of three branches, the
Bohemian, Moravian, and Polish. After its renovation in the year
1722, some of its members came to England in 1728, who being of
the Moravian branch, became known by that appellation; and all
those who joined them, and adopted their doctrines and discipline,
have ever since been called Moravians. Strictly speaking, however,
that name is not applicable to them, nor generally admitted, either
by themselves, or in any public documents, in which they are called
by their proper names, the Unitas Fratrum, or United Brethren.
The few remaining members of the ancient church of the United
Brethren in Bohemia, Moravia, and Poland, being much persecuted
by the popish clergy, many of them left all their possessions, and
fled with their families into Silesia and Saxony. In Saxony they found
protection from a Saxon nobleman, Nicholas Lewis, count of
Zinzendorff, who gave them some waste land on one of his estates,
on which, in 1722, they built a village at the foot of a hill, called the
Hut-Berg, or Watch-Hill. This occasioned them to call their
settlement Herrnhut, the watch of the Lord.” Hence their enemies
designated them in derision by the name of Herrnhuters, which is
altogether improper, but by it they are known in some countries
abroad. By their own account, the community derive their origin
from the ancient Bohemian and Moravian Brethren, who existed as a
distinct people ever since the year 1457, when, separating from
those who took up arms in defence of their protestations against
popish errors, they formed a plan for church fellowship and
discipline, agreeable to their insight into the Scriptures, and called
themselves at first, Fratres Legis Christi, or Brethren after the Law of
Christ; and afterward, on being joined by others of the same
persuasion in other places, Unitas Fratrum, or Fratres Unitatis. By
degrees, they established congregations in various places, and
spread themselves into Moravia and other neighbouring states.
Being anxious to preserve among themselves regular episcopal
ordination, and, at a synod held at Lhota in 1467, taking into
consideration the scarcity of ministers regularly ordained among
them, they chose three of their priests ordained by Calixtine bishops,
and sent them to Stephen, bishop of the Waldenses, then residing in
Austria, by whom they were consecrated bishops; co-bishops and
conseniores being appointed from the rest of their presbyters. In
1468 a great persecution arose against them, and many were put to
death. In 1481 they were banished from Moravia, when many of
them fled as far as Mount Caucasus, and established themselves
there, till driven away by subsequent troubles.
In the mean time, disputes respecting points of doctrine, the
enmity of the papists, and other causes, raised continual
disturbances and great persecutions at various periods, till the
Reformation by Luther, when they opened a correspondence with
that eminent reformer and his associates, and entered into several
negotiations, both with him and Calvin, concerning the extension of
the Protestant cause. But their strict adherence to the discipline of
their own church, founded, in their view, on that of the primitive
churches, and the acknowledged impossibility of its application
among the mixed multitude, of which the Lutheran and Calvinist
churches consisted, occasioned a cessation of coöperation, and, in
the sequel, the Brethren were again left to the mercy of their
persecutors, by whom their churches were destroyed, and their
ministers banished, till the year 1575, when they obtained an edict
from the emperor of Germany, for the public exercise of their
religion. This toleration was renewed in 1609, and liberty granted
them to erect new churches. But a civil war, which broke out in
Bohemia in 1612, and a violent persecution which followed it in
1621, again occasioned the dispersion of their ministers, and
brought great distress upon the Brethren in general. Some fled into
England, others to Saxony and Brandenburg; while many, overcome
by the severity of the persecution, conformed to the rites of the
church of Rome.
About the year 1640, by incessant persecution, and the most
oppressive measures, this ancient church was brought to so low an
ebb, that it appeared nearly extinct. The persecutions which took
place at the beginning of the eighteenth century, were the occasion
that many of the scattered descendants of the Bohemian and
Moravian Brethren at length resolved to quit their native land, and
seek liberty of conscience in foreign countries. Some emigrated into
Silesia, and others into Upper Lusatia, a province of Saxony,
adjoining to Bohemia. The latter, as before observed, found a
protector in Nicholas Count Zinzendorff, a pious, zealous man, and a
Lutheran by education. He hoped that the religious state of the
Lutherans in his neighbourhood would be greatly improved by the
conversation and example of these devout emigrants; and he
therefore sought to prevail upon the latter to join the Lutheran
church altogether. To this the Brethren objected, being unwilling to
give up their ancient discipline, and would rather proceed to seek an
asylum in another place; when the count, struck with their steadfast
adherence to the tenets of their forefathers, began more maturely to
examine their pretensions; and being convinced of the justness of
them, he procured for the Brethren the renovation of their ancient
constitution, and ever after proved a most zealous promoter of their
cause. He is, therefore, very justly esteemed by them as the chief
instrument, in the hand of God, in restoring the sinking church, and,
in general, gratefully remembered for his disinterested and
indefatigable labours in promoting the interests of religion, both at
home and abroad. In 1735, having been examined and received into
the clerical order, by the theological faculty at Tuebingen, in the
duchy of Wurtemburg, he was consecrated a bishop of the
Brethren’s church.
After the establishment of a regular congregation of the United
Brethren at Herrnhut, multitudes of pious persons from various parts
flocked to it, many of whom had private opinions in religious
matters, to which they were strongly attached. This occasioned
great disputes, which even threatened the destruction of the society;
but, by the indefatigable exertions of Count Zinzendorff, these
disputes were allayed, and the statutes being drawn up, and agreed
to in 1727, for better regulation, brotherly love and union were
reëstablished, and no schism whatever, in point of doctrine, has
since that period disturbed the peace of the church.
Though the Brethren acknowledge no other standard of truth than
the sacred Scriptures, they in general profess to adhere to the
Augsburg Confession of Faith. Their church is episcopal; but though
they consider episcopal ordination as necessary to qualify the
servants of the church for their respective functions, they allow to
their bishops no elevation of rank or preëminent authority. The
Moravian church, from its first establishment, has been governed by
synods, consisting of deputies from all the congregations, and by
other subordinate bodies, which they call conferences. According to
their regulations, episcopal ordination, of itself, does not confer any
power to preside over one or more congregations; and a bishop can
discharge no office except by the appointment of a synod, or of its
delegate, the elders’ conference of the unity. Presbyters among them
can perform every function of the bishop, except ordination.
Deacons are assistants to presbyters, much in the same way as in
the church of England. Deaconesses are retained for the purpose of
privately admonishing their own sex, and visiting them in their
sickness; but they are not permitted to teach in public, and, far less,
to administer the sacraments. They have also seniores civiles, or lay
elders, in contradistinction to spiritual elders or bishops, who are
appointed to watch over the constitution and discipline of the unity
of the Brethren, &c. The synods are generally held once in seven
years; and beside all the bishops, and the deputies sent by each
congregation, those women who have appointments as above
described, if on the spot, are also admitted as hearers, and may be
called upon to give their advice in what relates to the ministerial
labour among their own sex; but they have no decisive vote in the
synod. The votes of all the other members are equal. In questions of
importance, or of which the consequence cannot be foreseen,
neither the majority of votes, nor the unanimous consent of all
present, can decide: but recourse is had to the lot, which, however,
is never made use of except after mature deliberation and prayer;
nor is any thing submitted to its decision which does not, after being
thoroughly weighed, appear to the assembly eligible in itself.
MORDECAI was the son of Jair, of the race of Saul, and a chief of
the tribe of Benjamin. He was carried captive to Babylon by
Nebuchadnezzar, with Jehoiachin, or Jeconiah, king of Judah, A. M.
3405, Esther ii, 5, 6. He settled at Shushan, and there lived to the
first year of Cyrus, when it is thought he returned to Jerusalem, with
several other captives; but he afterward returned to Shushan. There
is great probability that Mordecai was very young when taken into
captivity. The book of Esther gives the whole history of Mordecai’s
elevation, the punishment of Haman, and the wonderful deliverance
of the Jews, in clear and regular narrative. But it may be asked, For
what reason did Mordecai refuse to pay that respect to Haman, the
neglect of which incensed him against the Jews? Esther iii, 1–6.
Some think the reason was, because Haman was an Amalekite; a
people whom the Israelites had been commissioned from God to
destroy, because of the injuries they had formerly done them, Deut.
xxv, 17–19. But this scarcely seems to be a sufficient account of
Mordecai’s refusing civil respect to Haman, who was first minister of
state; especially when by so doing he exposed his whole nation to
imminent danger. Beside, if nothing but civil respect had been
intended to Haman, the king need not have enjoined it on his
servants after he had made him his first minister and chief favourite,
Esther iii, 1, 2; they would have been ready enough to show it on all
occasions. Probably, therefore, the reverence ordered to be done to
this great man was a kind of divine honour, such as was sometimes
addressed to the Persian monarchs themselves; which, being a
species of idolatry, Mordecai refused for the sake of a good
conscience. And perhaps it was because Haman knew that his
refusal was the result of his Jewish principles, that he determined to
attempt the destruction of the Jews in general, knowing they were
all of the same mind. As to another question, why Haman cast lots,
in order to fix the day for the massacre of the Jews, Esther iii, 7;
from whence the feast of purim, which is a Persic word, and signifies
lots, took its name, Esther ix, 26; it was no doubt owing to the
superstitious conceit which anciently prevailed, of some days being
more fortunate than others for any undertaking; in short, he
endeavoured to find out, by this way of divining, what month, and
what day of the month, was most unfortunate to the Jews, and most
fortunate for the success of his bloody design against them. It is
very remarkable, that while Haman sought for direction in this affair
from the Persian idols, the God of Israel so over-ruled the lot as to
fix the intended massacre to almost a year’s distance, from Nisan
the first month to Adar the last of the year, in order to give time and
opportunity to Mordecai and Esther to defeat the conspiracy.
 MORIAH, Mount. A hill on the north-east side of Jerusalem, once
separated from that of Acra by a broad valley, which, according to
Josephus, was filled up by the Asmoneans, and the two hills
converted into one. In the time of David it stood apart from the city,
and was under cultivation; for here was the threshing floor of
Araunah, the Jebusite, which David bought, on which to erect an
altar to God, 2 Sam. xxiv, 15–25. On the same spot Solomon
afterward built the temple, 2 Chron. iii, 1; when it was included
within the walls of the city. Here, also, Abraham is supposed to have
been directed to offer his son Isaac, Gen. xxii, 1, 2. Moriah implies
vision;” and the land of Moriah,” mentioned in the above passage in
the history of Abraham, was probably so called from being seen afar
off.” It included the whole group of hills on which Jerusalem was
afterward built.
MOSES. This illustrious legislator of the Israelites was of the tribe
of Levi, in the line of Koath and of Amram, whose son he was, and
therefore in the fourth generation after the settlement of the
Israelites in Egypt. The time of his birth is ascertained by the exode
of the Israelites, when Moses was eighty years old, Exod. vii, 7. By a
singular providence, the infant Moses, when exposed on the river
Nile, through fear of the royal decree, after his mother had hid him
three months, because he was a goodly child, was taken up and
adopted by Pharaoh’s daughter, and nursed by his own mother,
whom she hired at the suggestion of his sister Miriam. Thus did he
find an asylum in the very palace of his intended destroyer; while his
intercourse with his own family and nation was still most naturally,
though unexpectedly, maintained: so mysterious are the ways of
Heaven. And while he was instructed in all the wisdom of the
Egyptians,” and bred up in the midst of a luxurious court, he
acquired at home the knowledge of the promised redemption of
Israel; and, by faith” in the Redeemer Christ, “refused to be called
the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; choosing rather to suffer affliction
with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a
season; esteeming the reproach of Christ,” or persecution for Christ’s
sake, greater riches than the treasures of Egypt: for he had respect
to the recompense of reward,” Exodus ii, 1–10; Acts vii, 20–22; Heb.
xi, 23–26; or looked forward to a future state.
When Moses was grown to manhood, and was full forty years old,
he was moved by a divine intimation, as it seems, to undertake the
deliverance of his countrymen; for he supposed that his brethren
would have understood how that God, by his hand, would give them
deliverance; but they understood not.” For when, in the excess of his
zeal to redress their grievances, he had slain an Egyptian, who
injured one of them, in which he probably went beyond his
commission, and afterward endeavoured to reconcile two of them
that were at variance, they rejected his mediation; and the man who
had done wrong said, Who made thee a judge and a ruler over us?
Intendest thou to kill me, as thou killedst the Egyptian yesterday?”
So Moses, finding it was known, and that Pharaoh sought to slay
him, fled for his life to the land of Midian, in Arabia Petræa, where
he married Zipporah, the daughter of Jethro, or Reuel, prince and
priest of Midian; and, as a shepherd, kept his flocks in the vicinity of
Mount Horeb, or Sinai, for forty years, Exodus ii, 11–21; iii, 1; xviii,
5; Num. x, 29; Acts vii, 23–30. During this long exile Moses was
trained in the school of humble circumstances for that arduous
mission which he had prematurely anticipated; and, instead of the
unthinking zeal which at first actuated him, learned to distrust
himself. His backwardness, afterward, to undertake that mission for
which he was destined from the womb, was no less remarkable than
his forwardness before, Exod. iv, 10–13.
At length, when the oppression of the Israelites was come to the
full, and they cried to God for succour, and the king was dead, and
all the men in Egypt that sought his life, the God of glory” appeared
to Moses in a flame of fire, from the midst of a bush, and announced
himself as the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob,” under the
titles of Jahoh and Æhjeh, expressive of his unity and sameness;
and commissioned him first to make known to the Israelites the
divine will for their deliverance; and next to go with the elders of
Israel to Pharaoh, requiring him, in the name of “the Lord, the God
of the Hebrews, to suffer the people to go three days’ journey into
the wilderness, to sacrifice unto the Lord their God,” after such
sacrifices had been long intermitted during their bondage; for the
Egyptians had sunk into bestial polytheism, and would have stoned
them, had they attempted to sacrifice to their principal divinities, the
apis, or bull, &c, in the land itself: foretelling, also, the opposition
they would meet with from the king, the mighty signs and wonders
that would finally compel his assent, and their spoiling of the
Egyptians, by asking or demanding of them (not borrowing) jewels
of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment, (by way of wages or
compensation for their services,) as originally declared to Abraham,
that they should go out from thence with great substance,” Gen. xv,
14; Exod. ii, 23–25; iii, 2–22; viii, 25, 26.
To vouch his divine commission to the Israelites, God enabled
Moses to work three signal miracles: 1. Turning his rod into a
serpent, and restoring it again: 2. Making his hand leprous as snow,
when he first drew it out of his bosom, and restoring it sound as
before when he next drew it out: and, 3. Turning the water of the
river into blood. And the people believed the signs, and the promised
deliverance, and worshipped. To assist him, also, in his arduous
mission, when Moses had represented that he was not eloquent, but
slow of speech,” and of a slow or stammering tongue, God inspired
Aaron, his elder brother, to go and meet Moses in the wilderness, to
be his spokesman to the people, Exod. iv, 1–31, and his prophet to
Pharaoh; while Moses was to be a god to both, as speaking to them
in the name, or by the authority, of God himself, Exod. vii, 1, 2. At
their first, interview with Pharaoh, they declared, Thus saith the
Lord, the God of Israel, Let my people go, that they may hold a feast
unto me in the wilderness. And Pharaoh said, Who is the Lord, that I
should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not,” or regard not, the
Lord, neither will I let Israel go.” In answer to this haughty tyrant,
they styled the Lord by a more ancient title, which the Egyptians
ought to have known and respected, from Abraham’s days, when he
plagued them in the matter of Sarah: “The God of the Hebrews hath
met with us: Let us go, we pray thee, three days’ journey into the
desert, and sacrifice unto the Lord our God, lest he fall upon us with
pestilence or with the sword:” plainly intimating to Pharaoh, also,
not to incur his indignation, by refusing to comply with his desire.
But the king not only refused, but increased the burdens of the
people, Exod. v, 1–19; and the people murmured, and hearkened
not unto Moses, when he repeated from the Lord his assurances of
deliverance and protection, for anguish of spirit, and for cruel
bondage, Exod. v, 20–23; vi, 1–9.
At their second interview with Pharaoh, in obedience to the divine
command, again requiring him to let the children of Israel go out of
his land; Pharaoh, as foretold, demanded of them to show a miracle
for themselves, in proof of their commission, when Aaron cast down
his rod, and it became a serpent before Pharaoh and before his
servants, or officers of his court. The king then called upon his wise
men and magicians, to know if they could do as much by the power
of their gods, “and they did so with their enchantments; for they
cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents; but
Aaron’s rod swallowed up their serpents.” Here the original phrase,
‫ויעשו כן‬, and they did so,” or in like manner,” may only indicate the
attempt, and not the deed; as afterward, in the plague of lice, when
they did so with their enchantments, but could not,” Exod. viii, 18.
And, indeed, the original term, ‫להטיהם‬, rendered their
enchantments,” as derived from the root ‫לאט‬, or ‫לוט‬, to hide or
cover, fitly expresses the secret deceptions of legerdemain, or
sleight-of-hand, to impose on spectators: and the remark of the
magicians, when unable to imitate the production of lice, which was
beyond their skill and dexterity, on account of their minuteness,-
-“This is the finger of a God!”--seems to strengthen the supposition;
especially as the Egyptians were famous for legerdemain and for
charming serpents: and the magicians, having had notice of the
miracle they were expected to imitate, might make provision
accordingly, and bring live serpents, which they might have
substituted for their rods. And though Aaron’s serpent swallowed up
their serpents, showing the superiority of the true miracle over the
false, 2 Thess. ii, 9, it might only lead the king to conclude, that
Moses and Aaron were more expert jugglers than Jannes and
Jambres, who opposed them, 2 Timothy iii, 8. And the heart of
Pharaoh was hardened, so that he hearkened not unto them, as the
Lord had said,” or foretold, Exod. vi, 10, 11; vii, 8–13. For the
conduct of Moses as the deliverer and lawgiver of the Israelites, see
Plagues of Egypt, Red Sea, and Law.
At Mount Sinai the Lord was pleased to make Moses, the
redeemer of Israel, an eminent type of the Redeemer of the world. I
will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto
thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto
them all that I shall command him: and it shall come to pass, that
whosoever will not hearken unto my words, which he shall speak in
my name, I will require it of him:” which Moses communicated to
the people. The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet, from
the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me: unto him shall ye
hearken,” Deut. xviii, 15–19. This prophet like unto Moses was our
Lord Jesus Christ, who was by birth a Jew, of the middle class of the
people, and resembled his predecessor, in personal intercourse with
God, miracles, and legislation, which no other prophet did, Deut.
xxxiv, 10–12; and to whom God, at his transfiguration, required the
world to hearken, Matt. xvii, 5. Whence our Lord’s frequent
admonition to the Jewish church, He that hath ears to hear, let him
hear,” Matthew xiii, 9, &c; which is addressed, also, by the Spirit to
the Christian churches of Asia Minor, Rev. iii, 22.
In the affair of the Golden Calf, (see Calf,) the conduct of Moses
showed the greatest zeal for God’s honour, and a holy indignation
against the sin of Aaron and the people. And when Moses drew nigh,
and saw their proceedings, his anger waxed hot, and he cast away
the tables of the covenant, or stone tablets on which were engraven
the ten commandments by the finger of God himself, and brake
them beneath the mount, in the presence of the people; in token
that the covenant between God and them was now rescinded on his
part, in consequence of their transgression. He then took the golden
calf, and burned it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and mixed it
with water, and made the children of Israel drink of it. After thus
destroying their idol, he inflicted punishment on the idolaters
themselves; for he summoned all that were on the Lord’s side to
attend him; and all the Levites having obeyed the call, he sent them,
in the name of the Lord, to slay all the idolaters, from one end of the
camp to the other, without favour or affection either to their
neighbour or to their brother; and they slew about three thousand
men. The Lord also sent a grievous plague among them for their
idolatry, Exodus xxxii, 2–35, on which occasion Moses gave a signal
proof of his love for his people, by interceding for them with the
Lord; and of his own disinterestedness, in refusing the offer of the
Almighty to adopt his family in their room, and make of them a great
nation.” He prayed that God would blot him out of his book, that is,
take away his life, if he would not forgive the great sin of his
people;” and prevailed with God to alter his determination of
withdrawing his presence from them, and sending an inferior angel
to conduct them to the land of promise. So wonderful was the
condescension of God to the voice of a man, and so mighty the
power of prayer.
When the Lord had pardoned the people, and taken them again
into favour, he commanded Moses to hew two tablets of stone, like
the former which were broken, and to present them to him on the
top of the mount; and on these the Lord wrote again the ten
commandments, for a renewal of the covenant between him and his
people. To reward and strengthen the faith of Moses, God was
pleased, at his request, to grant him a fuller view of the divine glory,
or presence, than he had hitherto done. And, to confirm his
authority with the people on his return, after the second conference
of forty days, he imparted to him a portion of that glory or light by
which his immediate presence was manifested: for the face of Moses
shone so that Aaron and all the people were afraid to come nigh
him, until he had put a veil on his face, to hide its brightness. This
was an honour never vouchsafed to mortal before nor afterward till
Christ, the Prophet like Moses, in his transfiguration also, appeared
arrayed in a larger measure of the same lustre. Then Moses again
beheld the glory of the Word made flesh, and ministered thereto in a
glorified form himself, Exod. xxxiv, 1–35; Matt. xvii, 1–8.
At Kibroth Hataavah, when the people loathed the manna, and
longed for flesh, Moses betrayed great impatience, and wished for
death. He was also reproved for unbelief. At Kadesh-barnea, Moses
having encouraged the people to proceed, saying, Behold, the Lord
thy God hath set the land before thee, go up and possess it, as the
Lord God of thy fathers hath said unto you: fear not,” Deut. i, 19–21;
they betrayed great diffidence, and proposed to Moses to send spies
to search out the land, and point out to them the way they should
enter, and the course they should take. And the proposal pleased
him well,” and with the consent of the Lord he sent twelve men, one
out of each tribe, to spy out the land, Deut. i, 22, 23; Num. xiii, 1–
20. All these, except Caleb and Joshua, having brought an evil
report,” so discouraged the people, that they murmured against
Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Would God that we
had died in the land of Egypt; or would God that we had died in the
wilderness! And wherefore hath the Lord brought us unto this land
to fall by the sword, that our wives and our children shall be a prey?
Were it not better for us to return into Egypt? And they said one to
another, Let us make a captain, and return into Egypt.” They even
went so far as to propose to stone Joshua and Caleb, because they
exhorted the people not to rebel against the Lord, nor to fear the
people of the land, Num. xiv, 1–10; Deut. i, 26–28. Here again the
noble patriotism of Moses was signally displayed. He again refused
the divine offer to disinherit the Israelites, and make of him and his
family a greater and mightier nation than they.” He urged the most
persuasive motives with their offended God, not to destroy them
with the threatened pestilence, lest the Heathen might say, that the
Lord was not able to bring them into the land which he sware unto
them.” He powerfully appealed to the long-tried mercies and
forgivenesses they had experienced ever since their departure from
Egypt; and his energetic supplication prevailed; for the Lord
graciously said, I have pardoned, according to thy word: but verily,
as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord;” or
shall adore him for his righteous judgments; for all these men which
have seen my glory and my miracles which I did in Egypt, and in the
wilderness, and have tempted me these ten times, and have not
hearkened to my voice, surely shall not see the land which I sware
unto their fathers: neither shall any of them that provoked me see it.
As ye have spoken in my ears, so will I do unto you,” by a righteous
retaliation: your carcasses shall fall in this wilderness. But your little
ones, which ye said should be a prey, them will I bring in; and they
shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your
whoredoms, after the number of the days in which ye searched the
land, each day for a year, until your carcasses be wasted in the
wilderness.” And immediately after this sentence, as the earnest of
its full accomplishment, all the spies, except Caleb and Joshua, were
cut off, and died by the plague before the Lord, Num. xiv, 11–37;
Deut. i, 34–39.
The people now, to repair their fault, contrary to the advice of
Moses, presumptuously went to invade the Amalekites and
Canaanites of Mount Seir, or Hor; who defeated them, and chased
them as bees to Hormah, Num. xiv, 39–45; Deut. i, 41–44. On the
morrow they were ordered to turn away from the promised land,
and to take their journey south-westward, toward the way of the
Red Sea: and they abode in the wilderness of Kadesh many days, or
years, Num. xiv, 25; Deut. i, 40–46. The ill success of the expedition
against the Amalekites, according to Josephus, occasioned the
rebellion of Korah, which broke out shortly after, against Moses and
Aaron, with greater violence than any of the foregoing, under Korah,
the ringleader, who drew into it Dathan and Abiram, the heads of the
senior tribe of Reuben, and two hundred and fifty princes of the
assembly, among whom were even several of the Levites. (See
Korah.) But although all Israel round about had fled at the cry of the
devoted families of Dathan and Abiram, for fear that the earth
should swallow them up also;” yet, on the morrow, they returned to
their rebellious spirit, and murmured against Moses and Aaron,
saying, Ye have killed the people of the Lord.” On this occasion also,
the Lord threatened to consume them as in a moment; but, on the
intercession of Moses, only smote them with a plague, which was
stayed by an atonement made by Aaron, after the destruction of
fourteen thousand seven hundred souls, Num. xvi, 41–50.
On the return of the Israelites, after many years’ wandering, to
the same disastrous station of Kadesh-barnea, even Moses himself
was guilty of an offence, in which his brother Aaron was involved,
and for which both were excluded, as a punishment, from entering
the promised land. At Meribah Kadesh the congregation murmured
against Moses, for bringing them into a barren wilderness without
water; when the Lord commanded Moses to take his rod, which had
been laid up before the Lord, and with Aaron to assemble the
congregation together, and to speak to the rock before their eyes;
which should supply water for the congregation and their cattle. But
Moses said unto the congregation, when they were assembled, Hear
now, ye rebels, must we fetch you water out of this rock? And he
smote the rock twice with his rod, and the water came out
abundantly; and the congregation drank, and their cattle also. And
the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not,
to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel; therefore ye shall
not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them,”
Num. xx, 1–13; and afterward in stronger terms: Because ye
rebelled against my commandment,” &c, Numbers xxvii, 14.
The offence of Moses, as far as may be collected from so concise
an account, seems to have been, 1. He distrusted or disbelieved that
water could be produced from the rock only by speaking to it; which
was a higher miracle than he had performed before at Rephidim,
Exod. xvii, 6. 2. He unnecessarily smote the rock twice; thereby
betraying an unwarrantable impatience. 3. He did not, at least in the
phrase he used, ascribe the glory of the miracle wholly to God, but
rather to himself and his brother: Must we fetch you water out of
this rock?” And he denominated them rebels” against his and his
brother’s authority, which, although an implied act of rebellion
against God, ought to have been stated, as on a former occasion, Ye
have been rebels against the Lord, from the day that I knew you,”
Deut. ix, 24, which he spake without blame. For want of more
caution on this occasion, he spake unadvisedly with his lips, because
they provoked his spirit,” Psalm cvi, 33. Thus was God sanctified at
the waters of Meribah,” by his impartial justice, in punishing his
greatest favourites when they did amiss, Num. xx, 13. How severely
Moses felt his deprivation, appears from his humble, and it should
seem repeated, supplications to the Lord to reverse the sentence: O
Lord of gods, thou hast begun to show thy servant thy greatness,
and thy mighty hand; for what god is there in heaven or in earth
that can do according to thy works, and according to thy might? I
pray thee let me go over and see the good land beyond Jordan,
even that goodly mountain Lebanon,” or the whole breadth of the
land. But the Lord was wroth with me for your sakes, and would not
hear me: and he said unto me, Let it suffice thee; speak no more
unto me of this matter. Get thee up unto the top of Pisgah, and lift
up thine eyes westward, and northward, and southward, and
eastward, and behold it with thine eyes: for thou shalt not go over
this Jordan,” Deut. iii, 23–27.
The faculties of this illustrious legislator, both of mind and body,
were not impaired at the age of a hundred and twenty years, when
he died. His eye was not dim, nor his natural strength abated,” Deut.
xxxiv, 7: and the noblest of all his compositions was his Song, or the
Divine Ode, which Bishop Lowth elegantly styles, Cycnea Oratio, “the
Dying Swan’s Oration.” His death took place after the Lord had
shown him, from the top of Pisgah, a distant view of the promised
land, throughout its whole extent. He then buried his body in a
valley opposite Beth-peor, in the land of Moab; but no man knoweth
his sepulchre unto this day,” observes the sacred historian, who
annexed the circumstances of his death to the book of Deuteronomy,
xxxiv, 6. From an obscure passage in the New Testament, in which
Michael the archangel is said to have contended with the devil about
the body of Moses, Jude 9, some have thought that he was buried
by the ministry of angels, near the scene of the idolatry of the
Israelites; but that the spot was purposely concealed, lest his tomb
might also be converted into an object of idolatrous worship among
the Israelites, like the brazen serpent. Beth-peor lay in the lot of the
Reubenites, Joshua xiii, 20. But on so obscure a passage nothing can
be built. The body of Moses,” may figuratively mean the Jewish
church; or the whole may be an allusion to a received tradition
which, without affirming or denying its truth, might be made the
basis of a moral lesson.
Josephus, who frequently attempts to embellish the simple
narrative of Holy Writ, represents Moses as attended to the top of
Pisgah by Joshua, his successor, Eleazar, the high priest, and the
whole senate; and that, after he had dismissed the senate, while he
was conversing with Joshua and Eleazar, and embracing them, a
cloud suddenly came over and enveloped him; and he vanished from
their sight, and he was taken away to a certain valley. In the sacred
books,” says he, it is written, that he died; fearing to say that on
account of his transcendent virtue, he had departed to the Deity.”
The Jewish historian has here, perhaps, imitated the account of our
Lord’s ascension, furnished by the evangelist, Luke xxiv, 50; Acts i,
9; wishing to raise Moses to a level with Christ. The preëminence of
Moses’s character is briefly described by the sacred historian, Samuel
or Ezra: And there arose not a prophet since, in Israel, like unto
Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face; in all the signs and the
wonders which the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt, to
Pharaoh, and all his servants, and all his land; and in all that mighty
hand, and in all the great terror which Moses showed in the sight of
all Israel,” Deut. xxxiv, 10–12.
So marked and hallowed is the character of this, the most eminent
of mere men, that it has often been successfully made the basis of
an irresistible argument for the truth of his divine mission. Thus
Cellérier observes, Every imposture has an object in view, and an
aim more or less selfish. Men practise deceit for money, for pleasure,
or for glory. If, by a strange combination, the love of mankind ever
entered into the mind of an impostor, doubtless, even then, he has
contrived to reconcile, at least, his own selfish interests with those of
the human race. If men deceive others, for the sake of causing their
own opinions or their own party to triumph, they may sometimes,
perhaps, forget their own interests during the struggle, but they
again remember them when the victory is achieved. It is a general
rule, that no impostor forgets himself long. But Moses forgot himself,
and forgot himself to the last. Yet there is no middle supposition. If
Moses was not a divinely inspired messenger, he was an impostor in
the strongest sense of the term. It is not, as in the case of Numa, a
slight and single fraud, designed to secure some good end, that we
have to charge him with, but a series of deceits, many of which were
gross; a profound, dishonest, perfidious, sanguinary dissimulation,
continued for the space of forty years. If Moses was not a divinely
commissioned prophet, he was not the saviour of the people, but
their tyrant and their murderer. Still, we repeat, this barbarous
impostor always forgot himself; and his disinterestedness, as
regarded himself personally, his family, and his tribe, is one of the
most extraordinary features in his administration. As to himself
personally: He is destined to die in the wilderness; he is never to
taste the tranquillity, the plenty, and the delight, the possession of
which he promises to his countrymen; he shares with them only
their fatigues and privations; he has more anxieties than they, on
their account, in their acts of disobedience, and in their perpetual
murmurings. As to his family: He does not nominate his sons as his
successors; he places them, without any privileges or distinctions,
among the obscure sons of Levi; they are not even admitted into the
sacerdotal authority. Unlike all other fathers, Moses withdraws them
from public view, and deprives them of the means of obtaining glory
and favour. Samuel and Eli assign a part of their paternal authority
to their sons, and permit them even to abuse it; but the sons of
Moses, in the wilderness, are only the simple servants of the
tabernacle; like all the other sons of Kohath, if they even dare to
raise the veil which covers the sacred furniture, the burden of which
they carry, death is denounced against them. Where can we find
more complete disinterestedness than in Moses? Is not his the
character of an upright man, who has the general good, not his own
interests, at heart; of a man who submissively acquiesces in the
commands of God, without resistance and without demur? When we
consider these several things; when we reflect on all the ministry of
Moses, on his life, on his death, on his character, on his abilities, and
his success; we are powerfully convinced that he was the messenger
of God. If we consider him only as an able legislator, as a Lycurgus,
as a Numa, his actions are inexplicable: we find not in him the
affections, the interests, the views which usually belong to the
human heart. The simplicity, the harmony, the verity of his natural
character are gone; they give place to an incoherent union of ardour
and imposture; of daring and of timidity, of incapacity and genius, of
cruelty and sensibility. No! Moses was inspired by God: he received
from God the law which he left his countrymen.
To Moses we owe that important portion of Holy Scripture, the
Pentateuch, which brings us acquainted with the creation of the
world, the entrance of sin and death, the first promises of
redemption, the flood, the peopling of the postdiluvian earth, and
the origin of nations, the call of Abraham, and the giving of the law.
We have, indeed, in it the early history of religion, and a key to all
the subsequent dispensations of God to man. The genuineness and
authenticity of these most venerable and important books have been
established by various writers; but the following remarks upon the
veracity of the writings of Moses have the merit of compressing
much argument into few words:--1. There is a minuteness in the
details of the Mosaic writings, which bespeaks their truth; for it often
bespeaks the eye-witness, as in the adventures of the wilderness;
and often seems intended to supply directions to the artificer, as in
the construction of the tabernacle. 2. There are touches of nature in
the narrative which bespeak its truth, for it is not easy to regard
them otherwise than as strokes from the life; as where the mixed
multitude,” whether half-castes or Egyptians, are the first to sigh for
the cucumbers and melons of Egypt, and to spread discontent
through the camp, Num. xi, 4; as the miserable exculpation of
himself, which Aaron attempts, with all the cowardice of conscious
guilt, I cast into the fire, and there came out this calf:” the fire, to be
sure, being in the fault, Exod. xxxii, 24. 3. There are certain little
inconveniences represented as turning up unexpectedly, that
bespeak truth in the story; for they are just such accidents as are
characteristic of the working of a new system and untried machinery.
What is to be done with the man who is found gathering sticks on
the Sabbath day? Num. xv, 32. (Could an impostor have devised
such a trifle?) How is the inheritance of the daughters of Zelophehad
to be disposed of, there being no heir male? Num. xxxvi, 2. Either of
them inconsiderable matters in themselves, but both giving occasion
to very important laws; the one touching life, and the other property.
4. There is a simplicity in the manner of Moses, when telling his tale,
which bespeaks its truth: no parade of language, no pomp of
circumstance even in his miracles, a modesty and dignity throughout
all. Let us but compare him in any trying scene with Josephus; his
description, for instance, of the passage through the Red Sea, Exod.
xiv, of the murmuring of the Israelites and the supply of quails and
manna, with the same as given by the Jewish historian, or
rhetorician we might rather say, and the force of the observation will
be felt. 5. There is a candour in the treatment of his subject by
Moses, which bespeaks his truth; as when he tells of his own want
of eloquence, which unfitted him for a leader, Exod. iv, 10; his own
want of faith, which prevented him from entering the promised land,
Num. xx, 12; the idolatry of Aaron his brother, Exod. xxxii, 21; the
profaneness of Nadab and Abihu, his nephews, Lev. x; the
disaffection and punishment of Miriam, his sister, Num. xii, 1. 6.
There is a disinterestedness in his conduct, which bespeaks him to
be a man of truth; for though he had sons, he apparently takes no
measures during his life to give them offices of trust or profit; and at
his death he appoints as his successor one who had no claims upon
him, either of alliance, of clanship, or of blood. 7. There are certain
prophetical passages in the writings of Moses, which bespeak their
truth; as, several respecting the future Messiah, and the very
sublime and literal one respecting the final fall of Jerusalem, Deut.
xxviii. 8. There is a simple key supplied by these writings, to the
meaning of many ancient traditions current among the Heathens,
though greatly disguised, which is another circumstance that
bespeaks their truth: as, the golden age; the garden of the
Hesperides; the fruit tree in the midst, of the garden which the
dragon guarded; the destruction of mankind by a flood, all except
two persons, and those righteous persons,
 Innocuos ambos, cultores numinis ambos;
[Both innocent, both worshippers of Deity;]

the rainbow, which Jupiter set in the cloud, a sign to men;” the
seventh day a sacred day; with many others, all conspiring to
establish the reality of the facts which Moses relates, because
tending to show that vestiges of the like present themselves in the
traditional history of the world at large. 9. The concurrence which is
found between the writings of Moses and those of the New
Testament bespeaks their truth: the latter constantly appealing to
them, being indeed but the completion of the system which the
others are the first to put forth. Nor is this an illogical argument; for,
though the credibility of the New Testament itself may certainly be
reasoned out from the truth of the Pentateuch once established, it is
still very far from depending on that circumstance exclusively, or
even principally. The New Testament demands acceptance on its
own merits, on merits distinct from those on which the books of
Moses rest, therefore (so far as it does so) it may fairly give its
suffrage for their veracity, valeat quantum valet: [it may avail as far
as it goes;] and surely it is a very improbable thing, that two
dispensations, separated by an interval of some fifteen hundred
years, each exhibiting prophecies of its own, since fulfilled; each
asserting miracles of its own, on strong evidence of its own; that
two dispensations, with such individual claims to be believed, should
also be found to stand in the closest relation to one another, and yet
both turn out impostures after all. 10. Above all, there is a
comparative purity in the theology and morality of the Pentateuch,
which argues not only its truth, but its high original; for how else are
we to account for a system like that of Moses, in such an age and
among such a people; that the doctrine of the unity, the self-
existence, the providence, the perfections of the great God of
heaven and earth, should thus have blazed forth (how far more
brightly than even in the vaunted schools of Athens at its most
refined era!) from the midst of a nation, of themselves ever plunging