kings and princes, flatter the king's vanity, and encourage him to go to war! Jehoshaphat asks him, is there not a prophet of the Lord who might be consulted. (ver. 7.) Ahab admits there is one, but adds, “I HATE HIM: for he doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil." (ver. 8.) However, they do consult this true prophet: and he (Micaiah) very plainly told them what the mind of the Lord was; and what would be the result of this wicked undertaking. This he does in a kind of parable or representation, or vision, from verse 17 to 23, in which he first alludes to the death of the king of Israel, (17,) which actually occurred. (v. 34. 37.) Then he describes the willingness of the 400 false prophets to deceive Ahab (6) under the figure of spirits, and the Lord permitting them so to do. See Gave. Language. Deceived.

JEHOVAH. This is the only proper (in contradistinction to attributive) name given in the Sacred Scriptures to the Creator. It signifies the Eternal, or Everlasting One; the original word being composed of the past, present, and future tenses. The term God, as before shown, signifies the all powerful, or omnipotent; hence the Creator is sometimes designated "THE ETERNAL OMNIPOTENT.”

ЈЕРНТНАН. Had this man executed his rash vow, in taking away the life of his daughter, which is, to say the least of it, very doubtful, it would in no way prove, that God ever authorized, or even sanctioned, the offering of human sacrifices. Nor would the actions of Samuel, nor of David, at all prove, that their conduct was sanctioned by divine authority. Human sacrifices were expressly prohibited in Deut. xii, 30, 31; Psal. cvi. 37,

38; Jer. vii. 31; and Ezek. xvi. 20, 21. In these passages it is written, "Thou shalt not do so," (that is as the Heathen nations,) "unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord WHICH HE HATETH, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods." &c. See David.

JEREMIAH has been accused by the enemies of God, of having acted with duplicity in the communication he had with Zedekiah and the princes, as related in the thirty-eighth chapter of that book. Had he so acted, it would be no argument at all against the divine authenticity of the Sacred Scriptures, unless we affirm that the servants of God were infallible, and never acted improperly: but so far from our maintaining any such position, we freely admit (and why should we not, for they themselves freely and candidly admitted it!) that they often acted most inconsistently with their profession! (See Character.) But Jeremiah in no wise acted in this instance, improperly. He had been thrown into a miry dungeon by the princes of Judah, who sought his life in consequence of his having fearlessly foretold the destruction of Jerusalem. Out of this dungeon, Jeremiah was delivered, in consequence of the king having been petitioned, to release him on the ground "that these princes have done evil in all that they have done to Jeremiah the prophet, whom they have cast into the dungeon, and he is like to die for food." The king then sent privately for Jeremiah, and desired him to conceal nothing from him, binding himself by an oath, that whatever might be the nature of the prophecy, he would not put him to death, nor deliver him into the hands of the princes, who sought his life. Jeremiah then candidly tells the king

、

every thing respecting the fate of Jerusalem. The king then, anxious to save the life of the prophet, dismisses him, saying, "let no man know of these words, and thou shalt not die. But if the princes hear that I have talked with thee, and they come unto thee and say to thee, declare unto us now what thou hast said unto the king, hide it not from us, and we will not put thee to death; also, what the king said unto thee: then thou shalt say unto them, I presented my supplication before the king that he would not cause me to return to Jonathan's house to die there. Then came all the princes unto Jeremiah, to ask him, and he told them according to all these words that the king had commanded." Now, if we look to the preceding chapter, we will find Jeremiah had actually made that application, and therefore in his telling the princes this fact, and this only, he told the truth: and in his not telling all that took place in the conference he had with the king, is no proof whatsoever of duplicity. For he was under no obligation whatever, to communicate any thing to the princes, and they had no authority to require him to divulge the king's counsel, nor to disobey the king's commands.

But this only affords another instance how the enemies of God use their utmost exertions to slander his servants to misrepresent facts, and misconstrue motives!

It may safely be asked, who has escaped the foul tongues of infidels? Has JEHOVAH himself? Has his beloved son, Jesus, the friend of sinners? Have his apostles? No, verily! "If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, much more will they call those of his household," said HE, who came to distribute the bounty of heaven among the indigent-HE, who came to save that which was lost-HE, who spake as never yet man spoke-even JESUS the Christ of God.

JEREMIAH.

In Matthew xxvi. 9, 10, it is written, "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, &c." This does not refer to any prophecy of Jeremiah individually; for the prophecy respecting the thirty pieces of silver, and of the Potter's field, occurs in Zechariah xi. 12, 13. But to the prediction, as written in "Jeremiah" or "the prophets," which terms were, by the Jews, used synonymously; the Old Testament was spoken of in three parts, viz. "the Law," "the Psalms" and "Jeremiah or the prophets." This is proved by Lightfoot, Baba Bathra, and Rabbi David Kinchi. See Deceived.

JERUSALEM.

Its destruction was foretold by the Lord Jesus Christ at a time when there was not the most remote prospect of any such event, (see Prophecy). In Matt. xxiv. 3, it is written, "As He sat upon the Mount of Olives, the disciples came unto Him privately, saying, 'tell us when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" " Here, then, are two distinct questions asked. The first, in reference to what the Lord had said, as related in the first and second verses of this chapter relative to the destruction of the temple, that "there should not be left one stone upon another that should not be thrown down." (v. 3.) The second question referred entirely to "the coming of the Lord, even of the end of the world." (v. 3.) The Lord then delivers his predictions respecting these two great events: the one to be fulfilled before that generation would be extinct, that is, within forty years from that time; the other at a more remote period. But as certainly as the one should come to pass, so certainly should the other. And the predictions of the two are interwoven with each other, as divine wisdom has deemed

proper always so to do, for reasons mentioned under the article Isaiah. Cavillers and would-be wise men are unable to separate the two; thus God catches men in their own craftiness, making manifest that their wisdom is indeed folly! See Parable.

In examining the Lord's prediction respecting the destruction of Jerusalem, the first point to be settled is, was it delivered before that event took place? And the second point is, did that event and its concomitant circumstances correspond with the prediction? If these two questions be answered in the affirmative, then, as fore-knowledge, strictly so called, appertaineth not to man, but to God, there cannot be entertained the shadow of a doubt by any man in his senses, that as the first prediction respecting the destruction of Jerusalem was fulfilled, so shall be, to a certainty, the second, respecting "the coming of the Lord, even of the end of the world.” (v. 3.)

As to the first question, we maintain that the peculiar circumstances connected with Judea and Jerusalem, immediately preceding, concomitant with, and subsequent to, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the final overthrow and banishment of the Jews, rendered it almost an impossibility for any man, living after these events, to write, or rather to invent, a history of imaginary transactions, as having occurred thirty or forty years before that event, without affording abundant evidence, in the work itself, of its forgery and imposition; particularly if he attempted to be at all particular as to dates, names, places, offices, or officers, &c.; and for this obvious reason, viz., that the whole nature and appearance of things, of men, of circumstances, of situations, became thoroughly altered and metamorphosed immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem, and have continued so ever since. If this reasoning be correct respecting one writer, that is, if it