supposed to be: there certainly is no direct evidence of such an application. This, however, is clear from the abovecited passages, that it does not necessarily convey that idea. We proceed, Secondly, to inquire what is intended by the body of Moses, the subject of the contention between Michael and the Devil. In the New Testament, Moses is frequently used to signify, not the person, but the law or dispensation of Moses. In John v. 45, our Lord says to the Jews, "Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth, even Moses," (i. e. the law of Moses, called the "ministration of condemnation,") in whom ye trust." Again, Acts xv. 21: "Moses of old time had in every city them that preach him, being read" (i. e. his writings being read) every Sabbath-day." In 2 Cor. iii. Paul, speaking of the blindness of the Jews, says, "For until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in reading the old covenant, or dispensation, which vail is done away in Christ; but even unto this day, when Moses," i. e. the old covenant, "is read, the vail is upon their heart." We are not, therefore, under the necessity of understanding the phrase, the body of Moses, literally; it may be used here figuratively to signify the Mosaic code, or the body of the laws and institutions of Moses, or of the church formed under that dispensation of which he was the mediator. Macknight, on this passage in the Epistle of Jude, says, He, the apostle, may refer to the angel of the Lord, before whom Joshua the high priest is said, Zech. iii. 1, to have stood, Satan being at his right hand to resist him, namely, in his design of restoring the Jewish Church and State, called by Jude the body of Moses, just as the Christian Church is called by Paul the body of Christ." We have before endeavoured to prove that Jude not only refers to this passage in Zechariah, but that he has in fact made a direct quotation from it; his making use of the word diabolos, which the Septuagint here makes use of, and from which Jude seems to have taken it, may be urged as an additional argument in proof of that point: especially as that version was in general use in the days of Jesus Christ and 66 his apostles, and from which they appear to have made their quotations. Let us then inquire into the meaning of this part of the prophecy of Zechariah referred to by Jude, and see whether it will not lead to some clear idea of the nature of the dispute between Michael and the Devil about the body of Moses, which he mentions. The prophets Haggai and Zechariah were raised up and sent at the time of the return of Israel from the Babylonish captivity, to encourage the hearts and to strengthen the hands of Zerubbabel and Joshua in the work of building Jerusalem and the Temple, and in re-establishing the church and worship of God. Zechariah is directed to cry, saying, "Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy; therefore saith the Lord, I will return to Jerusalem with mercies, my house shall be built in it, saith the Lord of hosts. Cry yet, saying, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, my cities through prosperity shall yet be spread abroad, and the Lord shall yet comfort Zion, and shall yet choose Jerusalem." Chap. i. 14, 16, 17. And again, "The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also finish it." Ch. iv. 9. In building the Temple and restoring the worship of God, they acted under the authority of the Kings of Persia. "In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, (that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled,) the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? His God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord God of Israel." Ezra i. 1-3. Notwithstanding this proclamation of Cyrus, the adversaries of Judah made great opposition to the building of the Temple, and endeavoured to frustrate the design. "They weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in building, and hired counsellers against them to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia,” Ezra iv. 1, 4, 5. "And they wrote letters of accusation to the kings of Persia against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem, both in the days of Ahasuerus and of Artaxerxes," vers. 6, 7. "So the work ceased until the second year of the reign of Darius," ver. 24. In that year, however, they resumed the work of building the house of the Lord under the encouragement of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah the son of Iddo, who helped them, v. 1. Their adversaries also renewed their opposition, and Tatnai, the governor of Samaria, and Shethar-boznai, and their companions, wrote another letter of accusation against them to Darius,-ger of the Lord, his servant, raised vers. 3, 6, and following. Upon this, Darius, having commanded search to be made in the house of the rolls, and finding the decree of Cyrus, confirmed it, and by a decree enforced the carrying of it into effect by the building of the house of the Lord in Jerusalem, and by which he compelled the adversaries of Judah, Tatnai and Shetharboznai, and their companions, not only to desist from their opposition, but also to render the people of the Jews every possible assistance in carrying on the work,—ch. vi, throughout. Thus was this dispute terminated, and thus, by the means of Cyrus and of Darius, who were his agents, instruments and ministers, did the Lord effectually rebuke Satan, the adversary, and carry into effect his own designs respecting Judah and Jerusalem. This interposition of the Lord in favour of the people of Judah and Jerusalem, is the subject of the vision in the third chapter of Zechariah; the scenery of the vision is taken from a Court of Judicature and its proceedings. "The vision in this chapter," says Matt. Henry, "concerns their church state, and their ecclesiastical interests, and assures them that they should be put into a good posture again." That Jerusalem should rise up out of its ruins, like a brand plucked out of the fire; that the temple should be built, and that the Jewish Church, with the priesthood and the worship of God, should be restored: signified by taking away the filthy garments of Joshua, and clothing him with change of raiment, and putting a fair mitre on his head. In this vision, Zechariah is shewn "Joshua, the high-priest," the representative of the Jewish people (for such the high-priests always were); he was standing before the angel of the Lord," as their advocate to plead their cause before the angel, ì. e., before the prince of Persia, for before him, as we learn from the history, were the accusations preferred, and "counsellers hired" to plead against the people of Judah, in order to frustrate their design of restoring the Jewish church and worship. By him the cause was heard and by him jndgment upon it was given. He was properly, therefore, the angel, or messen up, anointed and sent to perform his purpose of delivering his people from their captivity, and restoring them to their own land. Rulers and magistrates are in the Scriptures denominated Gods, (Ps. lxxxii. 1-6, compared with John x. 35,) and also, angels of God (comp. Ps. xcvii. with Heb. i. 6); and Paul says, that “they are the ministers of God for good," Rom. xiii. 4. "And Satan," an adversary, the representative of the adversaries of Judah, "standing at his right hand;" the situation in which accusers and witnesses were generally placed in law courts, at the right hand of the accused. Satan is here, therefore, to be considered as a legal adversary; hence the LXX. have here, not Satan, but diabolos, devil, i. e. calumniator, false accuser. Le Clerc, as quoted by Macknight, "by Satan, in Zechariah's vision, and diabolos in Jude, understands Tatnai and Shethar-boznai, the King of Persia's lieutenants, who opposed the restoration of Jerusalem, and who on that account might be called Satan, or the adversary of the Jews, in the same manner that Peter was called Satan by his Master for opposing his suffering at Jerusalem." 'According to this interpretation," says Macknight, "Jude's meaning is, that the angel of Zechariah's vision brought no railing accusation against the adversaries of the Jews; but reproved them with modesty, on account of their being magistrates." Satan stood at his right hand to resist him, i. e. to prevent his prosecuting the work in which he was engaged. "And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan; even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem, rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?" Jude ascribes this saying to Michael the archangel: both are right, both mean the same thing; because God never spake to men immediately, but always through some medium or instrument, for no one ever "heard his voice at any time, or saw his shape," and that instrument by which he speaks, be it what it may, is his angel or messenger. It was "the Lord that stirred up the heart of Cyrus, and charged him to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah;" that he made proclamation for the return of the Jews to build the House of the Lord, and by that proclamation he spake and effectually rebuked and restrained the opposition of their adversaries. From the preceding investigation we learn, that the Michael of Jude is the angel of Zechariah; and that this Michael was the prince of Daniel, who was then in Babylon, and who stood up for, and was the deliverer of his people. Now no other prince but Cyrus could be Daniel's prince at that time, nor can the restoration of the Jews from their captivity in Babylon be ascribed to any other. It may be proper to observe here, that Cyrus is the first instance which we have on record of God's raising up, anointing and sending a Heathen prince to be the deliverer of his people. See Isa. xlv. 1-4, 13. He was, therefore, in the most strict and proper sense of the term, the angel or messenger of Jehovah ; and being the first or chief of the Pagan princes, the Divine Being was pleased so to employ; and being styled by Daniel, Michael, one of the chief princes," or as it is in the margin, the first of the princes, Jude, writing in Greek, naturally denominates him Michael the archangel, i. e. the first or chief messenger of God. We learn further, that the Devil of Jude is the Satan or adversary of Zechariah. Jude refers to a contention between Michael and the Devil. "Michael the archangel," he says, disputed with the Devil." In the vision of Zechariah, he is shewn Joshua, the high-priest, the representative of the Jewish people, standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan, (in the Septuagint version, the Devil,) the representative of their adversaries, standing at his right hand to resist him. Jude informs us that this dispute was about the body of Moses; the history, of which the vision in Zechariah is a prediction, informs us that the dispute was about the building of the temple and the restoration of the church and worship of God, according to the institutions of Moses, which Jude calls the body of Moses. Joshua and Satan are both said to stand before the angel: Satan, by letters of false accusation, and hired counsellers, to oppose and resist the carrying on of that work, and Joshua as the advocate and representative of the Jews and their rulers, to plead their cause, and to protect them in the zealous prosecution of the work. Michael in Jude refers the matter to God, imploring his interposition in favour of the Jews, and his vengeance against their adversaries, saying," The Lord rebuke thee." The angel (in Zechariah's vision), or the Lord, by his angel, is represented as pronouncing the same sentence against the adversary, saying, "The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan, even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem, rebuke thee:" and we learn from the history that they were effectually rebuked and restrained from further opposition by the confirmation of the decree of Cyrus, and by a decree of Darius to carry it into effect, by which the Jews obtained a complete victory over their adversaries, and were enabled to finish the work of building the temple and of establishing the worship of God in Jerusalem. It only remains now to point out the analogy there is between the contention of Michael and the Devil, mentioned by Jude, and Michael's war with the dragon, mentioned ch. xii. of the Revelation. In both cases the combatants were the same, for the dragon is expressly called, "The old Serpent, the Devil and Satan." In the former, the contention was, whether Judaism should be re-established in Judah and Jerusalem, or whether they should remain under the power of the idolatry and superstition of the nations by which they had been conquered and enslaved. Michael in this contest, who espoused the cause of Judaism and fought in the defence of the Jews and of Judaism, was Cyrus, a Pagan prince, raised up of God for that very purpose. The combatants on the other side, called the Devil, were the powers who were engaged in supporting the reigning superstition and idolatry. In this contest Michael, i. e., Cyrus, obtains the victory, the adversaries of the Jews and of their religion are defeated, and Judaism is triumphant. The other instance to which we now refer, is that of the war between Michael and the dragon. This dragon having seven heads, and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads, and who is called "The old Serpent, the Devil and Satan," we are expressly told represents the old Roman Empire under its Pagan form, and so it is generally interpreted. The matter of dispute then in this war was, whether that empire should continue in its present ecclesiastical form, or whether it should cease to be Pagan and become Christian. The Roman Empire was founded in Paganism; and to destroy that, was to overturn the empire itself. The conversion of Constantine to the Christian faith, represented by the woman clothed with the sun, bringing forth a man child who was to rule all nations; that is, all the nations which composed the Roman empire; his profession and open avowal of Christianity, would naturally rouse the Pagan princes of the empire and the interested priests of the temples of idolatry to defend the reigning superstition, the religion of their forefathers and of the empire. This produced a "" war in heaven," as it is called, that is, among the higher powers of the state. In this war, Constantine, a Heathen prince, the Michael of the prophecy, the first, the chief, the head of the princes of the empire, erects the standard of the cross, to an appearance of which in the clouds he ascribed his conversion to Christianity, and under this standard he comes forward as its champion against all the Pagan powers of the empire. "There was war in heaven; Michael and his angels fought against the dragon: and the dragon fought and his angels." The result of this war, we are told, was, that “the dragon prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven,”—cast out of the heaven of power and dominion, and cast into the earth, among the common people, where the ancient idolatry continued to prevail, till by the successors of Constantine it was finally abolished, and Christianity became firmly established, and which has continued to be the professed religion of the ten kingdoms into which the Western Roman Empire was divided, unto this day. The casting out of the dragon removed the obstacle to the appearance of the man of sin, the son of perdition, of which Paul speaks, representing an enormous corrupting power in the Church of God. This appeared to John under the figure of a beast rising out of the sea, and to shew that it means the same empire prefigured by the dragon under another form; that of Christian, it is also "described, like the dragon, as having seven heads and ten horns," and as having crowns, not upon his heads like the dragon, but upon his horns, because under the beast the empire was divided into ten kingdoms. “ And upon his heads the name of blasphemy." The alliance between the Church and the State, formed by Constantine, led to the corruption, debasement and prostitution of Christianity to the vilest of purposes; so that her appear ance is described as that of a woman sitting upon a scarlet-coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abomination and filthiness of her fornication, and upon her forehead a name written, Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth: and drunken with the blood of the saints, und with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. * The war between Michael and the Devil, predicted by Zechariah, and that between Michael and the dragon * Rev. xvii, 3-6. in the Revelation of John, form two remarkable eras in the history of the world, in which the Divine Being was pleased to interpose by open war for the destruction of idolatry, and for the establishment of a religion emanating from himself, not by the instrumentality of Jewish or Christian, but of Heathen princes. And may we not expect, from the signs of the times and they distant period, God will raise up from among the princes of this world, a Michael, who shall effectually make war with, and utterly overthrow, the existing antichristian powers, and introduce and set up his own everlasting kingdom of righteousness and peace? SIR, JOHN MARSOM. Queen Street, Cheapside, Y desire of the Committee of B Deputies, I send you inclosed a copy of an apology which has been inserted in the public papers, made by Charles King, George Haddon, James Pitt, and Joseph Sherlock, four of the defendants to a prosecution which the Committee had taken up under their direction, for disturbing a congregation at Totton, near Southampton, and for which the defendants suffered a conviction by default; and I am also desired to request you will make such use thereof as you may think proper. JOHN WEBSTER, DISSENTERS. Secretary. Disturbance of a Place of Worship. We, the undersigned, having been indicted for disturbing the congregation of Protestant Dissenters at Totton, near Southampton, on the evening of Sunday the 1st of April, 1821, being aware that our conduct was indefensible, did suffer a conviction to go against us by default, thereby subjecting ourselves to the penalties of 40%. But the prosecutors having, on our application, consented to waive insisting on the judgment of the Court against us, on condition of our making a public apology; we, therefore, hereby desire to express our concern for having acted in a manner so im proper and illegal, and to return our thanks to the parties injured, for their lenity in refraining from further proceedings: Obituary and Biographical Notices of Individual Members of the Families of Howell and Rogers. I Dec. 4, 1822. T may gratify some of the best feelings, and tend to promote some highly valuable interests, if a few circumstances are recorded in the pages of the Monthly Repository, concerning the family from which the late Rev. William Howell * descended, and another to which, by affinity and worth, he was intimately allied. His father bore the same name, and filled the same office. This gentleman was more than twelve years co-pastor with the Rev. Samuel Clark, † in the congregation of the Old MeetingHouse at Birmingham; in which character he was called to the painful task of delivering the address at the funeral of his colleague; a composition that he afterwards published, and that reflects great credit on his sensibility and judgment. Of the elder Mr. Howell's hearers, few, if any, are now living. Some of his pupils, however, survive: and they recollect with esteem and gratitude his conscientious regard to the duties of a preceptor. It was at Winson Green, in the immediate neighbourhood of Birmingham, that he conducted his very large and well-governed school. Not long before his death he retired to the enjoyment of the competency which he had His last most honourably earned. days were passed at West Bromwich, in Staffordshire, where he expired Feb. 5, 1776, at the age of 62, and in the churchyard of which parish he was interred. Great justice has been rendered to his son's character, by an article alMr. ready inserted in this work. William Howell received his academical education, in part, at Warrington.‡ Mon. Repos. XVII. 510. + For a memoir of this most excellent person, see the Mon. Repos. I. 617, &c.; he is mentioned in Dr. Priestley's Memoirs, 8vo. I. pp. 18, 22. Mon. Repos. IX. 203, 323... |